The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice


Edited by: James Price Dillard & Michael Pfau

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part I: Basic Issues

    Part II: Theories of Persuasion

    Part III: Affect and Persuasion

    Part IV: Message Features

    Part V: Contexts

    Part VI: Persuasion Campaigns

    Part VII: Media

  • Copyright Page

    View Copyright Page


    The study of Persuasion has engaged scholars for many generations we believe that it will for many more. To honor that tradition, we dedicate this book to our academic family— those who came before us and those who came after, people with whom we have worked closely and who share our passion for the field of Persuasion:

    To our mentor, Michael Burgoon, University of Arizona and Michigan State University To his mentor, Gerald R. Miller (deceased)

    To the following students who we have mentored during their doctoral studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison:

    James Brentar, Cleveland, Ohio

    Janie Harden Fritz, Duquesne University

    John Gastil, University of Washington

    Linda Godbold, East Carolina University

    R. Lance Holbert, University of Missouri

    Terry Kinney, University of Minnesota

    Wei-Peng Lee, Nanyang Technological University

    Wei-Kuo Lin, Chinese Culture University

    Linda Penaloza, Real World Research

    Chris Segrin, University of Arizona

    Pradeep Sopory, University of Memphis

    Erin Allison Szabo, St. John's University

    Kyle Tusing, University of Arizona

    Hua-Hsin Wan, State University of New York at Oswego


    How individuals exercise influence via communication is a question so basic and so important that it has challenged scholars for centuries. The first Period of sustained attention to it began in Greece during the 5th century B.C. (but see McCroskey, 1997, pp. 4–5). During this Period, Corax and Tisias “composed some of the first known scholarly essays on rhetorical communication” (Perloff, 1993, p. 37). A Sophist named Gorgias devised a Perspective on public speaking based principally on style and emotional appeals. His approach was scathingly rejected by Plato, who held that the only moral means of Persuasion was grounded in logic (Katula & Murphy, 1995). It was Plato's student, Aristotle, who provided the first comprehensive theory of rhetorical discourse. He defined rhetoric in terms of “observing in a given case the available means of Persuasion” (Solmsen, 1954, pp. 24–25), instructing that the “available means” encompassed a range of appeals, some grounded in logic (logos), others in emotion (pathos), and still others in the communicator (ethos). In what can be described as a receiver-oriented view of Persuasion, Aristotle urged communicators to base judgments about the most appropriate means of Persuasion on the nature of the audience. His views had long-lasting impact: “Aristotle's theory of rhetorical discourse has withstood the test of time, furnishing axioms that guide today's practitioners of Persuasion and campaigns” (Pfau & Parrott, 1993, p. 25).

    Of course, the study of rhetoric continued after the Greeks. Other waves of interest occurred in Rome during the 1st century B.C. and throughout Europe during both the Renaissance and the Colonial Period (McCroskey, 1997). However, by the middle of the 20th century, social scientific methods, employing a blend of logically grounded theory plus systematic observation, had grown increasingly prevalent. This development prompted the late Gerald R. Miller to declare that, despite its origins in ancient Greece, the “systematic empirical study of Persuasion is … relatively recent …, its roots extending less than 50 years deep” (Miller, 1987, p. 448).

    While acknowledging the enormous debt that contemporary Persuasion research owes to the 2,000-plus-year history of rhetoric,this handbook embraces the younger communication science Perspective to which Miller alluded (cf. Berger & Chaffee, 1987). The contributions contained herein share two noteworthy features that flow directly from that Perspective. For one, they are uniformly grounded in theories whose purpose is to organize and explain patterns of facts. Some chapters take, as their central thrust, the exposition and evaluation of particular theories (Section II: Theories of Persuasion). For other chapters, their relationship to theory is less explicitly developed, although it is present to no lesser degree (but see Zhao's chapter [Chapter 25]). Second, as dictated by the scientific model, explanations are pitted against the facts as we understand them. The chapter authors sift and winnow the shards of empirical findings in their efforts to advance broad and generalizable knowledge claims about fundamental Persuasive processes.

    There are also a number of themes, not a part of the scientific model, that deserve to be stated unambiguously. In large measure, these themes arise from editorial decisions that reflect our conception of Persuasion and how it might be studied most profitably at this moment in history. They include the appropriate boundaries for Persuasion research, the impact of Persuasive practices, and the dynamic nature of Persuasion inquiry. Each requires elaboration.

    1. The appropriate boundaries for Persuasion inquiry include and extend beyond the effects of message features. In our judgment, one of the most intellectually exciting areas of the Persuasion literature examines the impact of message style, structure, and content. Indeed, the chapters that appear in Section IV (Message Features) make a convincing case for the centrality of this area to the study of Persuasion. Focused as they are on language, outcome framing, metaphor, evidence, and nonverbal behavior, Chapters 19 through 21 show that research on message features is vibrant, active, and essential. Yet messages do not exist in a vacuum; meaning is always drawn from the interplay between message and context. Hence, it is incumbent on us to conceive of Persuasion broadly enough to include not only the elements of suasory discourse but also all of those social and institutional factors that contribute to the creation of Persuasive context.

    To render an accurate portrayal of the phenomenon, the scope of Persuasion research must be more expansive than a focus on message features alone. Accordingly, we have cast the net widely. In addition to sections on basic conceptual concerns (Section I: Basic Issues) and fundamental processes (Section II: Theories of Persuasion), we have included contributions on some of the contexts in which Persuasion occurs (Section V: Contexts); large-scale, highly planful Persuasive attempts (Section VI: Persuasion Campaigns); and the media (Section VII: Media). In our view, this approach is required for understanding the multifaceted phenomenon that is Persuasion.

    2. The practice of Persuasion is of immense social consequence. It has been said that communication is a practical discipline (Craig, 1999). There can be no question that Craig's assertion applies to Persuasion. Consideration of even a few of the venues in which Persuasive discourse occurs is sufficient to illustrate its enormous pragmatic impact. One such venue is, of course, politics. Mutz, Sniderman, and Brody (1996) maintained, “Persuasion is ubiquitous in the political process; it is also the central aim of political interaction. It is literally the stuff of politics” (p. 1). Here the stakes are high. Suasory discourse in the political realm is responsible for the outcome of campaigns at all levels of government, for the passage of legislation in the House and Senate, and for the formation of citizen opinion in churches, taverns, and other public meetingplaces. In fact, the concept of civic deliberation, thought by many to be a defining feature of effective democracy (Cohen, 1989; Fishkin, 1992), resides beneath the broad umbrella of Persuasion.

    The legal setting too is shot through with Persuasive interaction. In civil and criminal actions, judges and juries serving as processors of Persuasive appeals must weigh the evidence and render verdicts of consequence. It is no understatement to claim that Persuasion can be a matter of life and death. So long as the death penalty remains legal, the relative suasory skill of prosecuting and defense attorneys will play an important role in determining whether or not defendants in murder trials receive the ultimate sanction. Persuasion is also implicated in many more common matters such as child custody arrangements, the settlement of contracts, and the resolution of proPerty disputes.

    In addition, the engines that power economic expansion are fueled by consumer spending that is, in turn, at least partially a product of the advertising and marketing industries. Information regarding the price of goods and services is vital to market efficiency. But just as in the political and legal arenas, the role of Persuasion in commerce is not all to the good. Members of the Persuasion industries strive to sell particular products through mind-numbing, repetitive exhortation. At both a more subtle and a more powerful level, it has been argued that the Persuasion profession “serves not so much to advertise products as to promote consumption as a way of life” (Lasch, 1978, p. 72). But many of these same marketing techniques are also used to help solve pressing social problems such as improvement of the nation's health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).

    These examples illustrate, but hardly exhaust, the venues in which Persuasion has an impact on contemporary society. Individually, many of the chapters contained herein address themselves to Persuasion as it occurs in various content areas: politics, legal settings, the environment, advertising, and health. Collectively, these examples strike a broader theme that resonates throughout the book: Persuasive discourse matters.

    3. The practice and the study of Persuasion are dynamic endeavors. As noted earlier, interest in the study of rhetoric/Persuasion has waxed and waned several times over the past two millennia. Within each Period of heightened activity, the scholarly community's ideas of how rhetoric should be conceptualized and which aspects of it were worthy of study varied a great deal. In every instance, those ideas were molded by the events and problems of the day. Thus, Aristotle identified three sorts of public speaking—deliberative, forensic, and epideictic—because, given the culture of Greece at the time he penned the Rhetoric, only these forums were considered worthy of study. And during the Renaissance, rhetoric was viewed primarily as the study of style and delivery, a Perspective subsequently taken to excess by members of the elocutionary movement during the 1700s. The lesson here, of course, is that the current study of Persuasion is similarly constituted from the complex interactions among culture, history, and research findings. In structuring the handbook, we attempted to strike a balance between issues of enduring interest and those that are currently flourishing. Accordingly, the largest single segment of the book (Section II: Theories of Persuasion) is devoted to theory. Although none of the frameworks examined in that section has yet demonstrated the staying power of Aristotle's thinking, most are mature and durable theories when measured against the relatively brief history of Persuasion as a science.

    Our efforts to highlight contemporary issues also necessitated some difficult decisions regarding coverage. For example, we electedto include an entire section on pathos (Section III: Affect and Persuasion), largely at the expense of logos and ethos. The book contains only one contribution focused on logical reasoning (Reynolds and Reynolds' chapter [Chapter 22]) and not a single entry devoted entirely to source judgments. Where we must count the chapters on message features (Section IV) as grounded in issues that span the centuries, much of the material on proPerties of attitudes (Section I), campaigns (Section VI), and media (Section VII) could not have been considered 25 years ago. Suffice it to say that even in a volume of this size, coverage of a topic as large as Persuasion is still necessarily selective.

    Before turning to an examination of individual contributions, we wish to make one final point regarding the dynamics of Persuasion inquiry and the Janus-like quality of the contents of this volume. All of the chapters have a substantial backward-looking component. Authors were charged with the task of reviewing and synthesizing research in their respective areas. We also asked that the contributors cast their eyes roughly a decade into the future—not to predict what the field of Persuasion will look like but instead to set an agenda concerning the directions that research should take. Thus, to varying degrees, all of the chapters are a combination of prior research and future promise.

    Overview of the Chapters

    There are seven sections to the handbook, and they are ordered, roughly, on a micro-macro continuum. The earlier chapters emphasize issues that are at once more rapid and more individualistic. Although there are exceptions, later contributions show a greater appreciation for social factors and tend to highlight phenomena that are, relatively speaking, slower to unfold.

    Section I (Basic Issues) includes work on basic conceptual issues and cognitive processes that underlie Persuasion. Section II (Theories of Persuasion) consists of nine contributions that review and evaluate full-blown theoretical frameworks. Section III (Affect and Persuasion) focuses more narrowly on developments in understanding the impact of mood and emotion on Persuasion. Contributors to Section IV (Message Features) offer an array of work on aspects of Persuasive appeals themselves, whereas Section V (Contexts) moves to an examination of Persuasion as it occurs in four specific settings. Subsequently, developments in the study of large-scale, organized Persuasive efforts are addressed in Section VI (Persuasion Campaigns). Finally, Section VII (Media) is comprised of four chapters that jointly examine micro- and macro-processes by which media create and delimit the boundaries of Persuasion.

    Section I: Basic Issues

    We have taken the unusual step of opening this section with a previously published chapter. Miller's (Chapter 1) analysis of what it means to be Persuaded is as fresh, as insightful, and (most important) as useful as it was when it first appeared two decades ago in Roloff and Miller's (1980) edited volume. While the chapter was prescient in its emphasis on the conceptual difference between attitude extremity and attitude intensity, Perhaps its greater contribution derives from the distinctions Miller draws among three types of Persuasion. Response shaping is roughly the acquisition of an attitude, whereas response reinforcement can be equated with strengthening a preexisting attitude. By contrast, response changing references movement across the midpoint of an attitude scale. An appreciation of these three distinct forms of Persuasionprovides a foundation for the analysis of applied and theoretical problems.

    In contrast to much work on Persuasion, Fink, Kaplowitz, and Hubbard (Chapter 2) remind us that beliefs and attitudes are dynamic entities. Both during and after message exposure, these cognitive entities oscillate around the point at which they finally settle. The authors present a spatial spring model of beliefs that predicts variation in the frequency and amplitude of oscillation as a function of classic Persuasion variables: source credibility, argument strength, discrepancy from initial opinion, and type of decision (dichotomous vs. discrete). In addition to the exciting theoretical questions that the chapter raises, the authors note an important methodological implication: Research designs that measure attitude only once after message exposure may suffer from what appears to be unreliability because the attitudes and beliefs under study have not yet reached equilibrium.

    Attitude accessibility refers to the speed and ease with which an evaluation is retrieved from memory. As Roskos-Ewoldsen, Arpan-Ralstin, and St. Pierre (Chapter 3) make clear, accessibility is conceptually independent of evaluative extremity. The authors describe how accessibility shapes the Persuasion process in a variety of ways, including the attention granted to a message and the degree to which the message is elaborated. Accessibility can also bias processing and influence the attitude-behavior correlation. In light of such effects, it is important to understand what factors determine accessibility, and consequently, the authors take up exactly this issue. They consider the effects of expectations and cognitive elaboration in addition to recency and frequency of activation.

    Like Roskos-Ewoldsen and colleagues' contribution, Kosicki's (Chapter 4) contribution assumes that concepts in a cognitive system can be fruitfully modeled as an associative network. But whereas Chapter 3 unpacks this point with regard to attitudes, Chapter 4 endeavors to show how media act to prime various concepts that become the basis for attitude formation and change. Although this is not Persuasion in the usual sense of the word, priming processes are certainly responsive to the manner in which an issue is framed. Thus, Kosicki's work helps to explain how various characterizations of an event activate particular concepts that, in turn, shape Persuasive discourse on that topic.

    The tendency for negative information to be weighted more heavily than positive information in the formation of social judgments is known as the negativity effect. Allen and Burrell (Chapter 5) present a review and quantitative synthesis of research bearing on the negativity effect in political judgments. In brief, they find evidence of a negativity effect with regard to both issues and candidates. Importantly, their summary also reveals that the use of negative information in political campaigns erodes the desire to participate in the political process. Because most of these effects are rather small (r's = .05 to .08), we might be tempted to dismiss them as interesting but hardly powerful enough to matter in the rough-and-tumble of real-world politics. However, even a moment's reflection on the 2000 presidential election quickly brings one to the recognition that seemingly minute effects can produce dramatic differences, especially when decision outcomes are dichotomous.

    Section II: Theories of Persuasion

    Even a cursory survey of the history of Persuasion research would show that dissonance theory ranks as one of the most provocative Perspectives ever to emerge from social science. No doubt, its capacity to inspire controversy accounts, in part, for its longevity. For nearly half a decade, it has inspired criticism,extension, and reinterpretation. Harmon-Jones (Chapter 6) offers a review and critique of dissonance theory that includes a close look at the exPerimental paradigms used to test it as well as the numerous revisions and modifications of the theory itself. Then he presents his own rewriting of dissonance theory based on the premise that the motivation to reduce dissonance derives from the need for effective behavior. A series of empirical studies lend considerable support to his revision.

    Similar to dissonance theory, research on language expectancy theory has a lengthy history that shows no signs of abating. As Burgoon, Denning, and Roberts (Chapter 7) discuss, the theory itself is grounded in the assumption that individuals possess expectations about the communication behavior of others. When a speaker behaves in such a way as to exceed expectations positively, message recipients tend to overestimate the degree of positivity of those unanticipated actions. The inverse occurs in situations where the message source violates expectations negatively. This simple, but powerful, principle forms the bedrock of a theory that is formalized in a network of interrelated propositions and applied to an assortment of Persuasive contexts.

    The matching hypothesis, derived from functional theories of attitude, asserts that Persuasion will be maximized when message content is matched to the functional basis of the attitude. Shavitt and Nelson (Chapter 8) review the impressive empirical support for the matching hypothesis before they go on to detail important newfound qualifications to that simple formulation. Their chapter succinctly describes the implications of contemporary functional theory for Persuasive outcomes, message processing, and (most notably) Person Perception. This latter area moves functional theory into previously uncharted territory and demonstrates the continuing vitality of the Perspective.

    Since the early 1980s, the dual-process models of Persuasion have dominated the Persuasion landscape. Booth-Butterfield and Welbourne (Chapter 9) provide a review of one of those theories, specifically the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). After a detailed illustration of the workings of the ELM, the authors summarize the criticisms of the model that have accumulated over the years and present their own evaluation of the merits of those criticisms.

    Slater (Chapter 10) explicates a theoretical stance that he labels the Extended ELM. Although his points of extension are many, the most important departure from the existing ELM is with regard to the dimensionality of involvement. Whereas the progenitors of the model hew to a unified conception of involvement as Personal importance (Petty & Cacioppo, 1990), Slater contends that a more differentiated approach is required. He parses involvement according to six distinct message processing goals and reviews evidence that distinguishes among them.

    Todorov, Chaiken, and Henderson (Chapter 11) conclude the tour of dual-process models with their chapter on the Heuristic-Systematic Model (HSM). The authors provide a compact overview of wide-ranging research generated by the HSM while simultaneously showing us how the theory has evolved since its inception. As is typical of social scientific theories in the growth phase of their life cycle, the HSM has expanded from its original tight focus on Persuasion to a broader theory of social Perception (although still retaining important implications for the study of Persuasion).

    Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, and Voulodakis (Chapter 12) argue that much of value in Persuasion research has been forgotten. Specifically, they contend that Brehm's reactance theory deserves to be returned to a place of greater prominence in current theoretical and applied research. Such a thorough review ofthe reactance literature and the multitudinous applications of the theory leaves little doubt as to the veracity of their claims.

    Most Persuasion research focuses on how attitudes and beliefs are often changed by contrasting the effects of some message variable against a no-message control group. Research on inoculation turns this exPerimental approach on its head by taking as its focus the degree to which attitudes or beliefs remain unchanged in the face of Persuasive attack. Szabo and Pfau (Chapter 13) examine the principles that underlie inoculation before providing a thorough update on more nuanced aspects of that effect and the mechanisms that underlie it. And with an eye toward applied concerns, they also explore how inoculation functions in a variety of contexts ranging from politics to health.

    The section concludes with Hale, Greene, Householder, and Greene's (Chapter 14) comprehensive summary of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior. Because the theories have stimulated so much research, they have also been the focus of many reviews and several meta-analyses. The authors were in the enviable position of synthesizing this rich literature of prior work. They present a thorough evaluation and critique of the theories and their scope conditions.

    Section III: Affect and Persuasion

    Persuasion is sometimes characterized as opinion change that follows from consideration of reasoned discourse. Yet even in this highly cognitive view, affect is waiting in the wings. Often it is cast as an irrational force insofar as affect is expected to bias an otherwise evenhanded process of evaluating evidence (e.g., James, 1894). But writers such as Aristotle understand affect to be an essential element of life that is, in some cases, a necessary condition for creating suasory impact (Solmsen, 1954). Nabi (Chapter 15) leans rather more in the direction of Aristotle than of James. She adopts a functional Perspective on emotion, a position that assumes emotion's adaptive information processing programs resulting from lengthy evolutionary processes. Through the lens of that Perspective, she carefully surveys a series of discrete emotions (e.g., sadness, happiness, envy), analyzing in each case its role in Persuasion.

    Dillard and Meijnders (Chapter 16) begin their contribution by noting the existence of several apparently competing views of the structure of affect. These views range from the very simple positive versus negative model to the more elaborate discrete emotions position that is the mainstay of Chapter 15. Rather than attempt to resolve the rivalry in favor of one structure or another, the authors contend that all of the structures may have merit in circumscribed domains.

    O'Keefe's (Chapter 17) contribution is tightly focused on a single emotion: guilt. This focus is justified not only by the fairly sizable literature on the topic of guilt and Persuasion but also by the fact that “the reactions characteristically associated with guilt make it especially well-suited to exploitation for purposes of social influence.” In fact, as O'Keefe details, guilt does produce substantial Persuasive impact whether it arises from some transgression that occurs prior to the message, from the message itself, or in reaction to the belief that one may fail in the future to behave in accordance with some Personal or social standard.

    In a volume as large at this one, it would be reasonable to expect a chapter on fear appeals. Yet for several reasons, we elected not to include such a chapter. For one, Nabi's Chapter 15 provides a brief but accurate summary of what is known about fear appeals. Another reason is that several narrative (Dillard, 1994) and quantitative (Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, & Rogers, 2000; Mongeau, 2000; Witte & Allen, 2000) reviews have recently appearedin print. We wished to avoid redundancy with those pieces. Finally, we believed that much was to be gained from an analysis of that same problem (i.e., How can risks be conveyed?) from the Perspective of an often overlooked literature. Thus, deTurck (Chapter 18) offers a comprehensive synthesis of work on warning labels that includes an explicit comparison of that literature with research on fear appeals. He notes, for example, that warning labels possess four content components—signal word, hazard statement, hazard avoidance statement, and consequences statement— some of which have direct correlates with prescriptions for the structure of fear appeals.

    Section IV: Message Features

    Questions concerning how messages might be designed to produce the greatest suasory impact lie at the very center of Persuasion research. This section addresses an important subset of the huge range of possibilities. Hosman's (Chapter 19) contribution, which opens the section, provides a mountaintop view of research on language and Persuasion. Although an analysis of language could be undertaken from a virtually limitless number of Perspectives, Hosman neatly subdivides his review in terms of phonology, syntax, lexicon, and text/narrative before turning to an examination of the effects of each on judgments of the message source, recall, and attitude change.

    The three chapters that follow take up much more specific topics. Salovey, Schneider, and Apanovitch (Chapter 20) report on research in the message framing tradition. Persuasive appeals that use gain-framed language emphasize the benefits that result from compliance. By contrast, loss-framed messages highlight the disadvantages of failure to comply. Working in the context of health communication, the authors show that the question of which is the more powerful Persuasive tool is too simple a question. Rather, issues of effectiveness must be couched within a framework that addresses whether the sought-after behavior is designed to prevent or to detect a health problem. And in a nod to the centrality of affect in Persuasion, the authors speculate that anticipated affect mediates message framing effects.

    Scholarly thought regarding figurative language stretches back in time at least as far as Aristotle, who believed that the function of metaphor was primarily ornamental. He argued that one must be wary of the ambiguity and obscurity inherent in metaphor. By contrast, Sopory and Dillard (Chapter 21) contend that metaphoric language produces reasonably consistent suasory impact, which can be substantial if the proPer moderating conditions are present. They summarize the meta-analytic findings prior to reviewing a set of theories that predict and purport to explain the role of metaphor in Persuasion.

    Reynolds and Reynolds (Chapter 22) turn away from the use of language and toward message content, specifically the use of evidence. The short version of their story is that, relative to simple assertions or the absence of evidence, citing support for an argument enhances the Persuasive weight of the message. But this general proposition is qualified by several necessary side conditions. To wit: “Receivers must be aware that evidence is being presented, they must cognitively process the evidence, and they must evaluate the evidence as legitimate.” The side conditions themselves require additional specification, a task that the authors use as an opportunity to integrate a diverse set of research findings.

    In closing the section on message features, Burgoon, Dunbar, and Segrin (Chapter 23) return us to the mountaintop, in this case to survey the literature on nonverbal influence. Their chapter is structured around three classic topics: attraction/similarity, power/dominance displays, and the role of expectations. Each of these literatures is substantial in its own right. The authors compactly summarize existing research in all three areas and provide an overview of the competing theoretical views that currently are in play.

    Section V: Contexts

    The notion of context is as important as it is ubiquitous. The significance of this often nebulous concept arises from the fact that it is context that defines the opportunities and obstacles faced by anyone who seeks to influence another (Dillard & Solomon, 2000). In fact, it might by noted that context both enables and delimits “the available means of Persuasion” (cf. Solmsen, 1954). Hence, there is much to be gained from a consideration of the contexts in which Persuasion actually takes place. The chapters in this section examine four such contexts.

    The essential condition underlying the idea of a group is that some set of Persons comprise the group, while others must remain outside of those selective confines. It is precisely this observation that Boster and Cruz (Chapter 24) exploit to constitute their chapter on Persuasion in small groups. Hence, they ask the following questions. Do group members Persuade one another? Can out-group individuals Persuade in-group members? And do groups Persuade Persons who are not members of their group? As they studiously address each question, the authors demonstrate that much depends on the Perceived value of the utterances exchanged during discussion, the relative frequency of those utterances, and the degree to which individuals are viewed as individuals or as in-group/out-group social actors.

    Although it may be the case that all advertising is Persuasion, it is readily apparent that not all Persuasion is advertising. Zhao (Chapter 25) argues that the more narrow, necessarily prosaic concerns of advertising demand that we privilege variables and channels over theory. Accordingly, he organizes his review of current literature in terms of a two-dimensional matrix consisting of communication media on one axis and the manipulability of independent variables on the other. Within the various cells of the matrix, he summarizes advertising research with a particular emphasis on recognition, recall, and liking for the advertisement.

    Rhoads and Cialdini (Chapter 26) take up the topic of influence and Persuasion in business and commercial contexts. The approach they offer is unique in this volume in that they derive their material from an evolutionary analogy that is itself predicated on the notion that some members of society occupy the role of compliance professionals. Because their livelihoods depend on it, these generations of salespeople, advertisers, and lobbyists are quite attentive to the means by which they create behavioral change in others. Over time, successful techniques remain in the influence “gene pool,” while others that fail to replicate fade away. By this logic, the place to look for principles of influence is among the professionals practice influence, that is, those Persons who create the selection pressures that screen out weak members of the influence species and allow the strong to thrive and reproduce. Coupling this evolutionary logic with participant observation yields six principles of compliance that the authors argue are fundamental and transcontextual.

    By contrast, Reinard's (Chapter 27) contribution on Persuasion in the legal setting is baldly contextual. Reinard offers a detailed commentary on research conducted within the highly structured confines of the judicialprocess. Although classic communication concepts such as credibility, message-sidedness, and attitude have clear application, they assume narrower meaning in the legal arena. Credibility, for example, references juror Perceptions of particular players such as attorneys and witnesses. Message-sidedness becomes a proPerty not just of Persuasive messages generally but also of opening and closing arguments. And pre-message attitude is transformed into a highly specialized concept that asks whether or not a juror is “death qualified,” that is, willing to impose the death penalty in principle. But Perhaps what is most intriguing about Reinard's chapter is his consideration of issues of external validity. One provocative issue is the use of students versus nonstudents in mock juries. Although one might suspect that a broader nonstudent approach would be inherently suPerior, there appears to be little, if any, difference in the way in which students and nonstudents respond to message variations. They do differ, apparently, in their reaction to various Person variables such as sex and victim status.

    Section VI: Persuasion Campaigns

    In their frequently cited definition, Rogers and Storey (1987) asserted that Persuasion campaigns are intended to “generate specific outcomes or effects in relatively large numbers of individuals, usually within a specified Period of time and through an organized set of communication activities” (p. 821). Certainly, the trio of chapters in this section of the handbook highlight Persuasion's role in producing outcomes and effects of enormous social significance. Furthermore, as suggested by the Rogers and Storey quote, each of the chapters considers the organization of communication activities over time.

    Participants in the political process have an array of communicative options that include deceit, puffery, coercion, and espionage. Persuasion also must be included in that array, although it surely differs from the other methods in terms of both ethics and its capacity to create lasting change. Perloff (Chapter 28) examines the role of Persuasion in political campaigns, with a special emphasis on American presidential campaigns. After providing a solid historical grounding, he turns his attention to the elements of a political campaign: advertising, presidential debates, opinion leaders, talk radio, and news. For each of these elements, Perloff presents a cogent synthesis of the research findings as well as a critique of the literature as a whole.

    Parrott, Egbert, Anderton, and Sefcovic (Chapter 29) make the case for expanding attention to the environment as a means of producing more effective health campaigns. In particular, they suggest consideration of both the social and structural aspects of the environment. Of course, Persuasive campaigns are inherently social. Campaign designers create appeals in hopes that they will influence the target audience. Audience members receive and collectively digest those appeals. And the relative success of the suasory attempt depends largely on the interplay between the message and the socially constructed meaning of “health” in that target audience. OPerating in parallel with the social environment is that array of factors that comprise the structural environment. Attention to the structural environment means considering the physical resources (or lack thereof) that enable access to health practice information as well as consumption of tangible aspects of health care. Clearly, greater consideration of both aspects of the environment is needed.

    O'Keefe and Shepard (Chapter 30) also address the environment in the subsequent chapter, but these authors use the term in a “greener” sense. They take a look at Persuasive campaigns that focus on maintaining air and water quality, the use of pesticides, globalwarming, recycling, and so on. They maintain that environmental campaigns face several unique and difficult challenges. One of them is issue complexity. By definition, ecological systems are comprised of intricate reciprocal interactions among a variety of entities. Although many individuals may have exPertise in one aspect of a system, efforts to view it as a whole can be daunting. This problem is compounded by the presence of conflicting scientific evidence and the delay in visible consequences (assuming that a remedy has been put in place). And of course, the various social actors who are stakeholders in the problem are often at odds with one another. Given this set of challenges, it would be easy to view the likelihood of success as bordering on hopeless. But the authors provide a solid set of recommendations for overcoming the challenges to environmental campaigns before they go on to illustrate many of them using the topic of watershed conservation.

    Section VII: Media

    Individuals' attitudes and actions are often swayed by what they believe about their neighbors, members of their communities, and their countrymen. And as Eveland (Chapter 31) tells us, these Perceptions of social reality are influenced to no small degree by the consumption of news and entertainment media. Unfortunately for those who see inherent virtue in accuracy, “One common finding of the research on social reality Perceptions is simply put as follows: They are often wrong— very wrong.” The causes and effects of such discrepancies have occupied the attention of researchers in several distinct traditions that Eveland brings together in this wide-ranging synthesis.

    In a complementary vein, Newhagen (Chapter 32) examines how meaning is constructed from television images. Adopting an information processing Perspective, he concentrates initially on cognitive processes such as attention and memory before shifting to a focus on emotion-evoking stimuli and questioning the traditional conception of cognition and emotion as oppositional. Newhagen also implores us to attend to the Persuasive power of narrative, especially as it Pertains to the impending convergence between television and the Internet.

    Of course, there is more to Persuasion than the message itself. Holbert (Chapter 33) addresses “form effects,” that is, the notion that media have a pronounced impact on Persuasion that occurs apart from style, structure, or content. Grounding his exposition in the prior efforts of McLuhan, Glenberg, Piaget, and Salomon, Holbert examines the constraints and affordances that follow from the interaction between a medium and what a Person can do within the constraints afforded by that medium. In line with some of these earlier authors, he posits the existence of sensori-motor schemata that are medium specific. All of these ideas then play out in Holbert's reassessment of several traditional lines of Persuasion research.

    Fogg, Lee, and Marshall (Chapter 34) make it clear that interactive technology simultaneously Permits and prohibits the available means of Persuasion. Most intriguing, however, is the authors' contention that it does so in three distinctly different ways. Computers function as tools and, in so doing, may enhance self-efficacy and provide information tailored to the needs of the user. In addition, technology can oPerate as a Persuasive medium by simulating objects and environments as well as the causal relations among elements of the environment. Finally, computers Persuade as social actors when they adopt animate characteristics (e.g., voices) or roles (e.g., coach) or when they display knowledge of social rules (e.g., expressing greetings).

    James PriceDillardMichaelPfau
    Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. H. (Eds.). (1987).The handbook of communication science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Cohen, J.(1989).Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A.Hamlin & P.Pettit (Eds.), The good polity (pp. 17–34). New York: Basil Black-well.
    Craig, R. T.Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory9(1999). 119–161.
    Dillard, J. P.Rethinking the study of fear appeals: An emotional Perspective. Communication Theory4(1994). 295–323.
    Dillard, J. P.Solomon, D. H.Conceptualizing context in message-production research. Communication Theory10(2000). 167–175.
    Fishkin, J.(1992).Democracy and deliberation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    Floyd, D. L.Prentice-Dunn, S.Rogers, R. W.A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology30(2000). 408–429.
    James, W.The physical basis for emotion. Psychological Review1(1894). 516–529.
    Katula, R. A., & Murphy, J. J.(1995).The Sophists and rhetorical consciousness. In J. J.Murphy, R. A.Katula, F. I.Hill, D. C.Ochs, & P. A.Meador (Eds.), The synoptic history of classical rhetoric (2nd ed., pp. 17–50). Davis, CA: Hermagoras Press.
    Lasch, C.(1978).The culture of narcissism. New York: Norton.
    McCroskey, J. C.(1997).An introduction to rhetorical communication. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Miller, G. R.(1987).Persuasion. In C. R.Berger & C. H.Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 446–483). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Mongeau, P. A.(2000).Another look at fear-arousing Persuasive appeals. In M.Allen & R. W.Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 53–68). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
    Mutz, D. C., Sniderman, P. M., & Brody, R. A.(1996).Political Persuasion: The birth of a field of study. In D. C.Mutz, P. M.Sniderman, & R. A.Brody (Eds.), Political Persuasion and attitude change (pp. 1–14). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
    Perloff, R. M.(1993).The dynamics of Persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Petty, R.Cacioppo, J.Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition versus integration. Psychological Bulletin107(1990). 367–374.
    Pfau, M., & Parrott, R.(1993).Persuasive communication campaigns. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
    Rogers, E. M., & Storey, J. D.(1987).Communication campaigns. In C. R.Berger & S. H.Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 817–846). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Roloff, M., & Miller, G. R. (Eds.). (1980).Persuasion: New directions in theory and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
    Solmsen, F. (Ed.). (1954).The rhetoric and poetics of Aristotle. New York: Random House.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000).Healthy people. [Online]. Available:
    Witte, K.Allen, M.A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior27(2000). 591–615.
  • Author Index

    About the Editors

    James Price Dillard (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1983) is Professor of Communication Arts at the University of Wisconsin– Madison. His research interests revolve around interPersonal influence, emotion, and Persuasion, with an emphasis on the communication of risk. He has authored or co-authored more than 50 articles and chapters, primarily on Persuasion and interPersonal influence, that have appeared in books and leading journals. The majority of his published works appear in Human Communication Research, Communication Monographs, and Communication Research. He is the editor of the volume Seeking Compliance: The Production of InterPersonal Influence Messages and was the first recipient of the John E. Hunter Award for Meta-analysis. He currently sits on seven editorial boards and recently served as chair of the InterPersonal Division of the International Communication Association.

    Michael Pfau (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1987) is Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma. His research interests concern resistance to influence and mass media influence, particularly in a political context. His works on resistance have appeared in Communication Monographs, Human Communication Research, and other journals, and his research on mass media influence has appeared in Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, Journal of Communication, and other venues. He has co-authored six books, most recently With Malice Toward All? The Media and Public Confidence in Democratic Institutions (with Patricia Moy). His articles have won the National Communication Association's Golden Anniversary Monograph Award and the Southern Communication Association's Rose B. Johnson Award.

    About the Contributors

    Mike Allen (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1987) is Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Wisconsin– Milwaukee. His more than 100 published works deal with issues of social influence in public, social, and organizational settings. His works have appeared in journals such as Law and Human Behavior, Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, Human Communication Research, and Journal of Communication.

    Eusebio Alvaro (Ph.D., M.P.H.) is Director of the Health Communication Research Office in the Arizona Cancer Center at the University of Arizona. He is concerned with the testing and application of social science theory in the context of health promotion and disease prevention to further understanding of social influence processes and have a positive impact in an area of social import. His specific research efforts have addressed resistance to Persuasion and defensive processing of Persuasive messages in projects including the prevention of HIV/AIDS, the prevention of marijuana and inhalant use, workplace wellness, and the prevention and cessation of tobacco use.

    John Anderton (M.P.A., Georgia State University, 1992; A.B.D., University of Georgia [dissertation in progress], 2000) is Acting Associate Director for Communications of the National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    Anne Marie Apanovitch (Ph.D., Kent State University, 1996) completed her undergraduate education at Saint Olaf College in Minnesota and then her doctoral work in social psychology at Kent State University. At the time this chapter was written, she served as Associate Research Scientist in the Department of Psychology at Yale University, where she coordinated HIV/AIDS prevention research in the Health, Emotion, and Behavior Laboratory. She is now Senior Analyst at Bayer Corporation in Connecticut. She has conducted research on sexual violence toward women as well as Persuasion in the context of HIV/AIDS prevention and early detection.

    Laura Arpan-Ralstin (Ph.D., University of Alabama, 1999) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Florida State University. Her research interests include attitude formation and Persuasion, international communication, and crisis communication.

    Steve Booth-Butterfield (Ed.D., West Virginia University, 1988) is affiliated with the Health Communication Research Branch of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His research interests include Persuasion, mass media effects, and communication interventions for behavior change. His works have been published with or presented at meetings of a variety of communication, psychology, public health, and medical associations.

    Franklin J. Boster (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1978) is Professor in the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. His research interests are in the areas of social influence processes and group dynamics.

    Judee K. Burgoon is Professor of Communication, Professor of Family Studies and Human Development, and Director of Human Communication Research for the Center for the Management of Information at the University of Arizona. She has authored or co-authored seven books and monographs and nearly 200 articles, chapters, and reviews related to nonverbal and relational communication, interPersonal relationship management, dyadic interaction patterns, deception, computer-mediated communication, research methods, and public opinion toward the media. Among her research-related honors are the NCA's Golden Anniversary Monographs Award, the Charles H. Woolbert Research Award for Scholarship of Lasting Impact, election as a fellow of the International Communication Association, and election into the Society for ExPerimental Social Psychology. A recent published survey identified her as the most prolific female scholar in the field of communication in the 20th century. In 1999, she was awarded the NCA's Distinguished Scholar Award, its highest award for a lifetime of scholarly achievement.

    Michael Burgoon (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1970) is Professor of Medicine, Public Health, and Family and Community Medicine at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. He has done some work in the area of social influence.

    Nancy Burrell (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1987) is Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Her research centers on managing conflict in family, workplace, and educational contexts as well as on the use of language in a variety of settings. She has edited a book and has published in Management Communication Quarterly, Communication Monographs, and Argumentation and Advocacy.

    Shelly Chaiken (Ph.D., University of Massachusetts at Amherst) is Professor of Psychology at New York University. She co-authored The Psychology of Attitudes (with Alice H. Eagly) and is the author of numerous theoretical, review, and empirical articles on attitude structure, formation, and change. Her works have appeared in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. She co-edited Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (with Yaacov Trope).

    Robert B. Cialdini is Regents Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University, where he has also been named Distinguished Graduate Research Professor. He received undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate education in psychology at the University of Wisconsin, the University of North Carolina, and Columbia University, respectively. He has held visiting scholar appointments at Ohio State University; the University of California, San Diego; the University of California, Santa Cruz; the Annenberg School of Communications; and both the Department of Psychology and Graduate School of Business at Stanford University. His book Influence, which was the result of a 3-year program of study of the reasons why people comply with requests in everyday settings, has appeared in numerous editions and 10 languages.

    Michael G. Cruz (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1994) is Senior Analyst with Gartner G2, where he is responsible for forecasts of Internet and technology adoption.

    Vickie Pauls Denning (B.A., University of Arizona) was Project Coordinator in the Health Communication Research Office of the Arizona Cancer Center and a graduate student in the Department of Communication at the University of Arizona, Tucson, at the time of this research.

    Mark A. deTurck (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1984) is a Director with Decision Quest in Atlanta, Georgia. His applied and theoretical interests revolve around the study of risk communication, with an emphasis on warning labels.

    Norah E. Dunbar (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 2000) is Associate Professor of Communication Studies at California State University, Long Beach. Her main research interests are in interPersonal relationships, particularly issues of power and dominance, deception, and conflict management.

    Nichole Egbert (Ph.D., University of Georgia, 2000) is Assistant Professor in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. Her research interests focus predominantly on the effects of social support and social influence on health behavior. Her work has appeared in journals such as the Archives of Family Medicine and Journal of Health Communication. In 2001, she received the Outstanding Dissertation Award from the Health Communication divisions of the International Communication Association and the National Communication Association.

    William P. Eveland, Jr. (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1997) is Assistant Professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at Ohio State University. His research focuses on the roles of motivation and information processing in the influence of traditional media and the World Wide Web on users' knowledge, Perceptions, and opinions. His research has appeared in various outlets, including Communication Research, Journal of Communication, Political Communication, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, and Media Psychology.

    Edward L. Fink is Professor and Chair in the Department of Communication at the University of Maryland. His research involves creating and testing mathematical models of attitude and belief change. He has investigated the effects of message discrepancy and message disconfirmation on message effectiveness. He has examined how a message can induce several minutes of oscillation before it reaches a new attitude equilibrium. He currently is engaged in research on the effect of threats and Persuasive attempts on the Perception of both a message's sender and its target. In 1988, he was named a University Distinguished Scholar-Teacher. He co-authored The Measurement of Communication Processes (1980) and has published more than 40 articles and chapters in the communication, sociology, psychology, criminology, and health education literatures, and several of his articles have been awarded “top” paPer status. From 1991 to 1996, he served as Associate Editor of the Journal of Communication, and from 1998 to 2000, he was editor of Human Communication Research.

    B. J. Fogg (Ph.D., Stanford University, 1997) leads research and design at Stanford's Persuasive Technology Lab, a group that generates insight into computing products designed to change attitudes and behaviors. An exPerimental psychologist, he teaches courses in Persuasive technology for the Department of Computer Science. He is also on the consulting faculty for Stanford's School of Education, where he teaches in the Learning, Design, and Technology Program. In addition to his academic endeavors, he works in high-tech industry, most recently as the senior director of research and innovation at Casio U.S. Research and Development Center. In previous industry positions, he led innovation efforts at HP Labs, Interval Research, and Sun Microsystems. He holds several patents, mostly relating to user interface design.

    Joseph Grandpre (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1999) is Research Specialist, Principle, with the Arizona Cancer Center and Director of Field Research for the Health Communication Research Office in the Arizona Cancer Center at the University of Arizona. He received a master of public health degree in 1998 from the University of Arizona before receiving his Ph.D. in communication. He has worked for the Health Communication Research Office as project coordinator on one state grant concerning adolescent tobacco use and on one federally funded grant Pertaining to drug use among adolescents. His research interests include adolescent reactance, health campaigns, and genetic testing.

    Kathryn L. Greene (Ph.D., University of Georgia, 1992) is Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Rutgers University. She has written in the area of health communication, where her research foci explore the role of communication in health decision making. One series of studies examines the design of messages targeting adolescent risk decision making. Other studies examine decisions to disclose stigmatized health information (e.g., HIV) and the role of disclosure in relational development and maintenance.

    Jerold L. Hale (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1984) is Professor and Head of the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Georgia. His research interests include the study of relational messages and rule violations as well as the study of Persuasive message strategies such as fear-arousing Persuasive messages, two-sided messages, and sequential Persuasive requests.

    Eddie Harmon-Jones (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1995) is Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research interests are focused on motivation and emotion and on how these processes relate to attitude formation and change. Most of his publications have appeared in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. He recently edited Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology.

    Marlone D. Henderson is a doctoral student in the Department of Psychology at New York University. His research interests are in the areas of motivation and volition, specifically motivational influences on information processing.

    R. Lance Holbert (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2000) is Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Missouri–Columbia. His research interests include media form influence, Persuasion, and political communication. Some of his published works appear in Communication Monographs, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, and Communication Research.

    Lawrence A. Hosman (Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1978) is Professor of Speech Communication at the University of Southern Mississippi. His research interests focus on language and Persuasion, with particular interest in how power is communicated via messages. His research has been published in Communication Monographs, Human Communication Research, and Journal of Language and Social Psychology. He is a past president of the Southern States Communication Association and a recipient of the National Communication Association's Golden Anniversary Monograph Award.

    Brian J. Householder (M.A., Wake Forest University, 2000) is a doctoral student in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Georgia. His research interests focus on communication in Personal relationships and a broad interest in communication and social influence processes, including Persuasive message strategies, the impact of individual difference variables on Persuasive outcomes, and influence strategies in forensics.

    Susan McGreevy Hubbard (Ph.D., University of Maryland, 1996) is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Maryland. Her primary research interests are Persuasion and attitude change, health communication, and communication theory. She is currently working on a national evaluation project for the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, investigating the dissemination and adoption of “best practice” guidelines in substance abuse treatment.

    Stan A. Kaplowitz (Ph.D., University of Michigan, 1971) is Professor of Sociology at Michigan State University. Most of his research interests involve various aspects of attitudes, Persuasion, and communication, including Perception of power, doctor-patient communication, racial attitudes, and attitudes toward a student riot. Several of his articles have been awarded “top paPer” status. He is currently engaged in a study to determine which survey questions are useful predictors of lead poisoning. He has published many articles in communication journals as well as several in Social Psychology Quarterly, Public Opinion Quarterly, and various sociology research annuals.

    Gerald M. Kosicki (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1987) is Director of the Center for Survey Research, an interdisciplinary center housed in the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at Ohio State University. He is also Associate Professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at Ohio State. His works on framing, priming, and agenda setting have appeared in journals such as Communication Research, Journal of Communication, Political Communication, and Political Behavior.

    Elissa Lee (Ph.D., Stanford University, 2001) is Head of Human Research at Casio U.S. Research and Development Center. Her primary research area is narrative and Persuasion. Her most recent work focuses on the Persuasive effects of storytelling in online hate Web sites.

    Jonathan Marshall is a doctoral candidate in counseling psychology at Stanford University and a psychology intern in the Department of Psychiatry at Kaiser Permanente in Milpitas, California. He currently studies Persuasive techniques used in different technologies, the treatment of long-term depression using hypnosis and meditation, and the importance of spirituality as a moderator of outcome in treating mental illness. His recent work has been published in the Journal of Child Sexual Abuse and Journal of Psychology as well as in the proceedings of the Human-Computer Interaction conference for the Association of Computing Machinery.

    Anneloes L. Meijnders (Ph.D., Eindhoven University of Technology, 1998) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Human-Technology Interaction at Eindhoven University of Technology in The Netherlands. Her research interests are in the area of environmental attitudes and behavior, with an emphasis on the role of emotions in public acceptance of technology.

    Gerald R. Miller (Ph.D., University of Iowa, 1961) was University Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. He was the founding editor of Human Communication Research and an editor of Communication Monographs. He served as president of the International Communication Association. His books include Videotape on Trial (with Norm Fontes), which won the Golden Book Award; Handbook of InterPersonal Communication (co-edited with Mark Knapp); InterPersonal Processes: New Directions in Communication Research (co-edited with Michael Roloff); Persuasion: New Directions in Theory and Research (co-edited with Michael Roloff); and New Techniques of Persuasion (with Michael Burgoon). He was the recipient of the B. Aubrey Fisher Mentoring Award and a fellow of the American Psychological Association, the American Psychological Society, the International Communication Association, and the National Communication Association.

    Robin L. Nabi (Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, 1998) is Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Arizona. Her research interests include the role of emotion in social influence and mass media effects. Her works have appeared in Communication Theory, Communication Research, and Cognition & Emotion.

    Michelle R. Nelson (Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1997) is Assistant Professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Her research examines Persuasion processes in strategic communications and cross-cultural consumer behavior. She has published in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Journal of Advertising, Journal of Economic Psychology, and Advances in Consumer Research, and she has contributed other book chapters.

    John E. Newhagen (Ph.D., Stanford University, 1990) is Assistant Professor in the Philip Merrill College of Journalism, University of Maryland, College Park. His research has focused on the effects of emotion-laden television images on viewer emotion and memory. He has extended his research to include new technology such as the Internet. He is currently looking at the role of emotion in social desirability biasing on Web-based surveys and has recently written about the effects of new media on journalism. He worked as a journalist in Central America and the Caribbean during the 1970s and 1980s, covering civil strive and guerrilla insurrections in the area. He was bureau manager for United Press International in San Salvador, El Salvador (1981–1983); regional correspondent for Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean for United Press International, Mexico City (1983–1984); and international news editor for United Press International in Washington, D.C. (1984–1985).

    Daniel J. O'Keefe (Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1976) is Professor of Speech Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His work focuses on research synthesis in Persuasion. He has received the National Communication Association's Charles Woolbert Research Award and its Golden Anniversary Monograph Award, the International Communication Association's Division 1 John E. Hunter Meta-analysis Award, the American Forensic Association's Outstanding Monograph Award, and the International Society for the Study of Argumentation's Distinguished Scholar Award. He is the author of Persuasion: Theory and Research.

    Garrett J. O'Keefe (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1970) is Professor and Chair in the Department of Journalism and Technical Communication at Colorado State University. His main research interests focus on uses and influences of public information programs, most recently those dealing with environmental issues and public health and safety. He has published in journals such as Human Communication Research, Communication Research, Public Opinion Quarterly, Journal of Communication, and Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. He is the co-author of three books dealing with Persuasive campaigns and public opinion.

    Roxanne Parrott (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1990) is Professor of Communication at Pennsylvania State University. Her research interests emphasize social influence and message design in health contexts, including formal health care organizations and community-based and health policy settings. Results of her federally funded research have been published in outlets such as Human Communication Research, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Social Science and Medicine, Health Education and Behavior, and Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. She is the co-editor of Designing Health Messages: Approaches From Communication Theory and Public Health Practice (1995), Evaluating Women's Health Messages: A Resource Book (1996), and Health Communication Handbook (in press).

    Richard M. Perloff (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1978) is Professor of Communication at Cleveland State University. His research interests concern the psychology of Persuasive communication and political

    communication effects. He co-edited a book on political information-processing and has written three books on Persuasion topics, including Political Communication: Politics, Press, and Public in America, and The Dynamics of Persuasion. The latter was recognized as an Outstanding Book of 1993 by Choice. A leading scholar of the third-Person effect, he has published articles on this topic in Communication Research and International Journal of Public Opinion Research, as well as a book chapter in Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (2nd ed.). Perloff received a Distinguished Faculty Research Award at Cleveland State University and has served on the editorial board of the Journal of Communication.

    John C. Reinard (Ph.D., University of Southern California, 1975) is Professor of Speech Communication at California State University, Fullerton. His research has focused on Persuasion, communication and the law, and argumentation. He is the author of Introduction to Communication Research (now in its third edition) and Foundations of Argument: Effective Communication for Critical Thinking. In addition to other edited volumes including his work, his research on Persuasion and legal communication has appeared in Communication Monographs, Human Communication Research, and Argumentation and Advocacy.

    J. Lynn Reynolds (Ph.D., Regent University, 1998) is Assistant Professor of Communication at PepPerdine University. Her research interests include the influence of media on social and intercultural change. Her most recent work includes a chapter, “Ecumenical Promise KeePers: Oxymoron or Fidelity?,” in The Promise KeePers: Essays on Masculinity and Christianity. She was named Seaver Fellow of Communication by the PepPerdine University Board of Visitors for the 2000–2001 school year.

    Rodney A. Reynolds (Ph.D., Michigan State University, 1986) is Professor of Communication at PepPerdine University. The emphasis of his research is on the effects of message processing in social influence events. He has published in a number of academic outlets, including Human Communication Research, Communication Monographs, and Communication Yearbook.

    Kelton v. L. Rhoads (Ph.D., Arizona State University) is a Psychological Consultant specializing in influence and virtual teams. He has provided training and consulting for industry, governmental agencies, political candidates, credit and banking firms, nonprofit philanthropic organizations, educational agencies, public relations firms, and a number of medical and dental entities, helping them to apply psychological principles to real-world situations. He has published in a variety of scholarly journals, has given radio interviews, and has received print and television advertising awards. He has taught statistics, psychology, and English at the university level, and he currently serves as Adjunct Professor at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication.

    Laura Roberts was a student in the Department of Communication and a graduate research associate in the Health Communication Research Office of the Arizona Cancer Center at the University of Arizona, Tucson, at the time of this research.

    David R. Roskos-Ewoldsen (Ph.D., Indiana University) is Reese Phifer Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama. His research focuses on attitude change and Persuasion and mental models of the media. He has published in Human Communication Research, Communication Yearbook, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of ExPerimental Social Psychology, and Journal of ExPerimental Psychology: Applied. He is the founding co-editor of Media Psychology.

    Peter Salovey (Ph.D., Yale University, 1986) is Chris Argyris Professor of Psychology and Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health, and Chairman of the Department of Psychology, at Yale University. He is also Director of the Health, Emotion, and Behavior Laboratory and Deputy Director of the Yale Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS. He is the co-author (with V. J. D'Andrea) of Peer Counseling (1983) and Peer Counseling: Skills, Ethics, and Perspectives (1996), and he coedited Reasoning, Inference, and Judgment in Clinical Psychology (1988) (with Dennis C. Turk). Some of his more recent books include The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy (1991), The Remembered Self: Emotions and Memory in Personality (1993, with Jefferson A. Singer), Psychology (1993, with Zick Rubin and Letitia Anne Peplau), Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications (1997, with David Sluyter), and At Play in the Fields of Consciousness (1999, with Jefferson A. Singer). He edits the Guilford Press series on Emotions and Social Behavior. He completed a 6-year term as Associate Editor of Psychological Bulletin and was named the first Editor of the Review of General Psychology, and he serves as Associate Editor of Emotion.

    Tamera R. Schneider (Ph.D., State University of New York at Stony Brook, 1997) is Assistant Professor of Psychology at Wright State University. At the time this chapter was written, she served as Associate Research Scientist in the Department of Psychology at Yale University, where she coordinated cancer prevention research in the Health, Emotion, and Behavior Laboratory. She has conducted research on Persuasion and cancer early detection, especially screening mammography. She has also established a line of research in psychophysiology, especially focused on stress and cardiovascular reactivity.

    Enid Sefcovic is Assistant Professor of Journalism, Media Studies, and Rhetoric at Florida Atlantic University. Her contribution to the chapter (for which Roxanne Parrott is the lead researcher) in this volume is part of her ongoing research interest in the significations of rights/human rights as a social justice concept.

    Chris Segrin, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Arizona, where he also holds adjunct appointments in the Department of Psychology and in the Department of Family Studies. His research focuses on the role of interPersonal relationships and social skills in psychosocial problems such as depression, loneliness, and anxiety.

    Sharon Shavitt (Ph.D., Ohio State University, 1985) is Professor of Business Administration at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her interests focus on consumer attitudes and social cognition, cross-cultural consumer psychology, and survey methodology. She has published in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of ExPerimental Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Journal of Advertising, and other outlets. She is co-editor (with Timothy Brock) of Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives (1994).

    Robin L. Shepard (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1993) is Assistant Professor of Life Science Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His research focuses on the communication of new agricultural practices to farmers. He is the author of Wisconsin's Best Breweries and Brewpubs.

    Michael D. Slater (Ph.D., Stanford University, 1988) is Professor of Journalism and Technical Communication at Colorado State University, with a joint appointment in the Department of Psychology. Current and recent research includes serving as the primary investigator of National Institutes of Health-funded studies of media- and community-based substance abuse prevention efforts, alcohol-related risk Perceptions and media coverage, responses to alcohol advertisements, and effects of televised alcohol warnings. He has also conducted investigations of Persuasion processes (particularly as they apply to influencing health-related attitudes). He has published more than 50 articles, book chapters, and reports on these and related topics. He also serves as the chair of the Health Communication division of the International Communication Association.

    Pradeep Sopory (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1999) is Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Memphis. His research interests are Persuasion, communication campaigns, and media influence, with a focus on metaphor and figurative language. He is the co-author of a book on health campaigns and has published his research in Communication Research and Human Communication Research.

    James St. Pierre (Ph.D., University of Alabama, 2001) is Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Louisiana. His research interests include Persuasion and humor.

    Erin Alison Szabo (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 2000) is Assistant Professor of Communication at St. John's University/College of St. Benedict. Her research interests include resistance and reactance to influence and mass media influence, with a particular emphasis on adolescent risk behaviors.

    Alexander Todorov is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology of New York University. His research interests are in the areas of communication, social judgments, and decision making. He has published in Public Opinion Quarterly, American Journal of Public Health, Applied Cognitive Psychology, and European Journal of Social Psychology.

    Michael Voulodakis (M.A., M.P.H.) is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication and a senior research specialist in the Southwest Border Rural Health Research Center at the University of Arizona College of Public Health. He has worked as a research associate at the Arizona Cancer Center in the Behavioral Science and Epidemiological Units, the Department of Management Information Systems, and the Department of Communication. He has also taught undergraduates at the University of Arizona. His current research interests surround the methodological and design components of epidemiological studies, specifically participant recruitment and retention.

    Jennifer Welbourne (Ph.D., Ohio State University, 1999) is Social Psychologist in the Health Communication Research Branch of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Her research interests include Persuasion processes in health communication and Person Perception. Her work has been published in Social Cognition, Journal of ExPerimental Social Psychology, and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

    Xinshu Zhao (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin–Madison, 1989), one of the many students of Steven H. Chaffee, is Associate Director of the Center for Research in Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Research Fellow in the Center for Research in Information and Communication at Fudan University, Shanghai, China. His research has appeared in English-language journals such as American Behavioral Scientist, Communication Research, Comparative Education Review, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, Journal of Advertising Research, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, and Public Opinion Quarterly as well as Chinese journals such as Journalism and Communication, Journalism Practice, Journalistic University, and Twenty First Century.

    • Loading...
Back to Top