ADV 392: ADVANCED ADVERTISING THEORIES II

ADV 392: ADVANCED ADVERTISING THEORIES II 2013 Spring Semester M 11a-2p CMA 6.172 Professor: Anthony Dudo, Ph.D. Office: BMC 4.364 E-mail: dudo@utexas.edu Office hours: TH 2p-3:30p (or by appointment) COURSE DESCRIPTION Piggybacking off Theories I, this seminar is designed to provide exposure to some of the major theoretical perspectives informing communication science. I say communication science because many of the theoretical perspectives we will cover in this seminar have been or can be applied to different communication contexts. Part of your training as a scholar requires you to learn how to think about how theoretical frameworks can be extended / applied to new research contexts. Keep this in mind throughout the semester, even if at first a particular theory seems to fall outside the immediate scope of your research interests. When it comes to theories, the more time you spend with them, the more useful they become to you. In addition to our detailed discussions about communication theory, this seminar is also structured to help impart valuable experience thinking and operating like a communication scholar. We will spend time both in and outside of class working together to help you (1) increase your ability to navigate your doctoral studies successfully, and (2) acquire valuable skills that you will use in academia. COURSE OBJECTIVES Socialize you to academia and help you hone your research program within the field of communication. Gain experience comprehending, describing, and critically analyzing communication theory. Provide you with an opportunity to gain valuable experience presenting your own research and constructively evaluating the research of your peers. Help you produce a stand-alone, original research paper that is built on a solid theoretical foundation within the context of your particular research interests. REQUIRED COURSE MATERIALS Bryant, J., & Oliver, M. B. (2009). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3 rd ed.). New York: Taylor & Francis. McQuail, D. (2010). McQuail s Mass Communication Theory (6 th ed.). Sage. OPTIONAL COURSE MATERIALS Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Dillard, J. P., & Pfau, M. (2002) The Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2010). Theories of Human Communication (10 th ed.). Waveland Press, Inc. McQuail, D., & Windahl, S. (1995). Communication Models for the Study of Mass Communication (2 nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman Publishing.

2 METHOD OF EVALUATION Grades in the class will be based on the following: (1) final research paper (45%), (2) in-class presentation of penultimate final research paper (15%), (3) one student-led class discussion and accompanying research report (20%), and (4) participation and contributions to the seminar (20%). Final Research Paper All students will write and present an original research paper. The paper should be connected either directly or indirectly to one of the theoretical frameworks covered in class. It should make a contribution, however modest, to theory or research in the area of communication science. You should make your papers as empirical as possible. Some students may wish to use existing databases, such as PEW, GSS, Eurobarameter, or other publicly available secondary data sources. (We can talk more about these sources in class and seek the aid of a reference librarian, as well.) Other students may less formally examine advertising or media practices, communication content, or other theoretically informed ideas. At a minimum, you should indicate what evidence is relevant and how it might be gathered. Without trying to specify a formal research design, you should consider what your theory implies in terms of a program or agenda for research. Implications for improving existing theory and research should be included. Take inspiration from our course readings. At the very least your final paper should contain the following sections: (1) brief introduction, (2) literature review, (3) statement of hypotheses and /or research questions, (4) actual or proposed methodology, (5) results or proposed analytic strategy, (6) concluding discussion about what was or what will/should be learned. Do not exceed 25 pages without my permission. Have grand aspirations for your paper aim to submit it to a conference and, eventually, a journal. And keep in mind that this paper will require you to apply skills learned in your Research I and II seminars. A two-page prospectus for your final research paper is due on March 4, 2013 in class. A penultimate version of your final paper is due in class on April 1, 2013. The final paper is due on May 3, 2013; a hardcopy of the paper should be hand-delivered to my office no later than 5p. In-Class Presentation of Penultimate Research Paper This presentation will be an opportunity to explain your research interest to your classmates, discuss your extension of theory in that area, and make a case for its theoretical and practical impact. You will have 20 minutes to present, which will be followed by a 15 minute Q&A. Use this assignment to help accrue valuable presentation experience. Treat this exercise like a conference presentation. Seminar presentations will take place during the last 4 weeks of class. I will distribute a sign-up sheet within the first few weeks of class. Each penultimate research paper will also be discussed by two of your classmates. For the presenters, this means that they should share their penultimate research paper with their two discussants at least 72 hours before their presentation. The discussants, in turn, are expected to provide informed and critical feedback to the presenter. This feedback, which should be provided to the presenter in writing and shared verbally during the Q&A, should be based on evidence and information rather than opinions. Student Led Class Discussion & Accompanying Research Report Working in pairs, every student will be required to lead one day of discussion in the class. Discussants will each write a 6 to 8 page response to the readings. This should include a summary and critique of the week s readings and provide a brief list of questions to facilitate discussion. As a discussant, you will be responsible for leading student discussion of the readings by (1) providing an effective synthesis of the reading materials, and (2) pointing out what you believe are the strengths and weaknesses of the readings and encouraging debate about your reflections. Think of yourself as a teacher with a responsibility to make sure that your audience (in this case, your doctoral student colleagues and me) leaves the class fully understanding the week s readings and theories. Ideally, you should choose a week that coincides with your broader interests so that your review of the material will be useful when preparing your final paper.

Additionally, as part of leading the discussion, you will select several potential additional articles that you feel are related to the pre-assigned readings for the day. Working with me, we will decide on one reading that best complements the pre-assigned readings, and it will be distributed to the rest of the class to read at least one week prior to the class discussion you will be leading. This paper should then be included in your class discussion and written research report. Discussants should work together to figure out how to structure the class, but will be graded separately for their facilitating of class discussion and their research report. You may use PowerPoint to help lead the discussion, but remember that the class should be a discussion and not a presentation. Seminar Participation One hundred percent attendance is assumed, but showing up to class is not enough. This class is student-driven. You are expected to arrive in class having completed the readings assigned for that day. Active participation from all members of the class is crucial to the success of any doctoral seminar. Although your personal experiences may be relevant, the most valuable contributions will be your scholarly rather than personal opinions and will reflect your efforts to synthesize and apply course readings. I also encourage you to continue our in-class discussions outside of our classroom via our Lore.com website. As I ll demonstrate in class, this website will be an online hub for us to share information relevant to class content and assignments. (Note: I loathe Blackboard.) 3 POLICY ON SCHOLASTIC DISHONESTY The University defines academic dishonesty as cheating, plagiarism, unauthorized collaboration, falsifying academic records, and any act designed to avoid participating honestly in the learning process. Scholastic dishonesty also includes, but is not limited to, providing false or misleading information to receive a postponement or an extension on a test, quiz, or other assignment, and submission of essentially the same written assignment for two courses without the prior permission of the instructor. By accepting this syllabus, you have agreed to these guidelines and must adhere to them. Scholastic dishonesty damages both the student's learning experience and readiness for the future demands of a work-career. Students who violate University rules on scholastic dishonesty are subject to disciplinary penalties, including the possibility of failure in the course and/or dismissal from the University. Visit http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/sjs/acint_student.php for more. STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES Please notify your instructor of any modification/adaptation you may require to accommodate a disability-related need. You will be requested to provide documentation to the Dean of Student's Office in order that the most appropriate accommodations can be determined. Specialized services are available on campus through Services for Students with Disabilities. Visit http://www.utexas.edu/diversity/ddce/ssd/ for more. RELIGIOUS HOLY DAYS OBSERVANCE POLICY The Texas Education Code specifies that an institution of higher education shall excuse a student from attending classes or other required activities, including examinations, for the observance of a religious holy day, including travel for that purpose. A student whose absence is excused under this subsection may not be penalized for that absence and shall be allowed to take an examination or complete an assignment from which the student is excused within a reasonable time after the absence. A student who misses classes or other required activities, including examinations, for the observance of a religious holy day should inform the instructor as far in advance of the absence as possible, so that arrangements can be made to complete an assignment within a reasonable time after the absence. Visit http://www.utexas.edu/student/registrar/catalogs/gi03-04/ch4/ch4g.html#attendance for more information.

4 COURSE SCHEDULE For organizational purposes, I have combined the theories we will cover into four broad thematic groups: (1) classic persuasion theories, (2) classic mass communication theories, (3) social cognition and perception, and (4) information processing. Week 1, 01/14: Week 2, 1/21: Week 3, 1/28: Course Introduction, syllabus review, brainstorming session No Class, MLK Holiday Classic Persuasion Theories (1) Being Persuaded & the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) Miller, G. A. (2002). On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 3-16). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in experimental social psychology, 19(1), 123-205. Booth-Butterfield, S., & Welbourne, J. (2002). The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Its Impact on Persuasion Theory and Research. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook: Developlments in Theory and Practice (pp. 155-174). Petty, R. A., Briñol, P., & Priester, J. A. (2009). Mass Media Attitude Change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects, Advances in Theory and Research (3 ed., pp. 125-164). New York: Taylor & Francis. Week 4, 2/4: Classic Persuasion Theories (2) Theory of Reasoned Action & Theory of Planned Behavior Hale, J. L., Householder, B. J., & Greene, K. L. (2002). The Theory of Reasoned Action. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 259-288). Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471-499. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to action: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior. Berlin, Heidelber, New York: Springer-Verlag. Dudo, A. (2012). Toward a Model of Scientists' Public Communication Activity: The Case of Biomedical Researchers. Science Communication.

5 Week 5, 2/11: Classic Mass Communication Theories (1) Agenda Setting, Priming & Framing McQuail Ch. TBA Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9-20. McCombs, M. E., & Reynolds, A. (2009). How the news shapes our civic agenda. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (Vol. 3, pp. 1-16). New York: Routledge. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Carpentier, F. D. (2009). Media Priming: An Updated Synthesis. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 74-93). New York: Routledge Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122. Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). News frames theory and research. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17-33). New York: Routledge, Inc. Kosicki, G. M. (2002). The Media Priming Effect: News Media and Considerations Affecting Political Judgments. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice (pp. 63-82). Week 6, 2/18: Classic Mass Communication Theories (2) Cultivation & Uses and Gratifications McQuail Ch. TBA Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2009). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theories and Research (3 ed., pp. 34-49). New York: Routledge. Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses-and-Gratifications Perspective on Media Effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 165-184). New York: Routledge. Eveland, W. P. (2002). The Impact of News and Entertainment Media on Perceptions of Social Reality. Dudo, A., Brossard, D., Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D. A., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2011). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 48(6), 754-777.

6 Week 7, 2/25: Social Cognition & Perception (1) Attribution Theory Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ch 2. Attribution Theory, pp. 21-56 Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ch 3. Attribution Theory: Theoretical Refinements and Empirical Observations, pp. 57-95 Week 8, 3/4: Being an Academic Reviewing manuscripts, handling R&Rs, publishing strategies & developing a clear research program Required Readings TBA Week 9, 3/11: No Class, Spring Break Week 10, 3/18: Social Cognition & Perception (2) 3 rd Person Effect, Hostile Media Phenomenon Perloff, R. M. (2009). Mass Media, Social Perception, and the Third-Person Effect. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 252-268). New York: Routledge. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1-15. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: biased perception and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of personality and social psychology, 49(3), 577. Gunther, A. C., & Schmitt, K.(2004) Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication 54(1): 55-70. Eveland, W. P. (2002). The Impact of News and Entertainment Media on Perceptions of Social Reality. Choi, J., Yang, M., & Chang, J. J. (2009). Elaboration of the Hostile Media Phenomenon The Roles of Involvement, Media Skepticism, Congruency of Perceived Media Influence, and Perceived Opinion Climate. Communication Research, 36(1), 54-75.

7 Week 11, 3/25: Information Processing (1) Heuristic / Systematic Model, Extended Parallel Processing Model (EPPM), Risk Information Seeking and Processing Model (RISP) Guest Speaker: Dr. LeeAnn Kahlor Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of personality and social psychology, 39(5), 752. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59(4), 329-349. Griffin, R. J., Dunwoody, S., & Neuwirth, K. (1999). Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental research, 80(2), S230-S245. Kahlor, L., Dunwoody, S., Griffin, R. J., & Neuwirth, K. (2006). Seeking and processing information about impersonal risk. Science Communication, 28(2), 163-194. Kahlor, L. A. (2007). An augmented risk information seeking model: The case of global warming. Media Psychology, 10(3), 414-435. Kahlor, L., & Rosenthal, S. (2009). If We Seek, Do We Learn?: Predicting Knowledge of Global Warming. Science Communication, 30(3), 380-414. Week 12, 4/1: Information Processing (2) The Role of Affect in Processing / Attitude Formation Required Readings TBA Week 13, 4/8: Week 14, 4/15: Week 15, 4/22: Week 16, 4/29: ***Final Paper is due May 3, by 5p***