Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper presents an experimental test of the assumptions of the author’s proposed psychological model of political humor effects. The model, referred to as the Counterargument Disruption Model of Political Humor (CADIMO), is a theoretical framework in which to examine the effects of political humor which integrates assumptions of humor’s incongruity mechanism (Suls, 1972), the Elaboration Likelihood Model ( Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), and argument-disruption theory (Festinger and Maccoby, 1964). The primary aspect of the CADIMO addressed in this paper concerns the counterargument disruption mechanism posited to occur in the context of humor, specifically in late-night political humor. The experiment uses a 2 condition within-subjects design on a sample of 59 college undergraduates to test the hypothesis that humorous constructs inhibit cognitive elaboration on message arguments.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The paper reports the results of a study of how voters search for, process, and counterargue against (some) political campaign information. This computer-based experiment first replicates the findings of a previous study that voters with an initial candidate preference expose themselves primarily to negative information about the preferred candidate but develop more positive evaluations of their candidate. We then tested the hypothesis that recipients counterargue against negative information about the preferred candidate and thus use these messages to reinforce their pre-existing preferences. The paper discusses the implication of these results for research on the effects of negativity in political campaigns.

[Note: The paper reports a partial analysis of our data. After completing an analysis of additional thought-listing responses, the final version of the paper will report these additional results as well.]

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The widespread recognition about the importance of behavior change in stemming the tide of HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths in Sub-Saharan Africa has only recently been translated into theoretically informed campaigns. Across a variety of health domains, self-efficacy has been found to be one of the most consistent predictors of behavior change, but only a few HIV prevention interventions are focused explicitly on improving people’s efficacy beliefs. This paper is based on a formative evaluation conducted in Malawi to understand people’s barriers to enact HIV prevention behaviors. It is based on the assumption that barriers restrict people’s efficacy perceptions and that, in the absence of barriers, everyone would be perfectly efficacious. We have little theoretical guidance, however, on how to study barriers and how they can be meaningfully extracted from people. In this paper, through focus group discussions, we demonstrated the utility of a novel technique – called the Prompts for Eliciting Counterarguments (PEC) – to elicit relevant barriers to action. Barriers that emerged through the use of this technique were classified into three categories: sex as a desire and source of pleasure (at the individual level), difficulties in communicating about sex (at the interpersonal level), and larger societal issues around poverty in Malawi (at the societal level). Implications of this finding for HIV prevention efforts are also discussed in the context of a functional approach.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Abstract

Based on a mental models approach to narrative processing and persuasion this study explores the influence of focusing viewers’ attention on either factors central to processing narratives – time, location, and characters – or on flaws and inconsistencies in the narrative.
Participants watched one of two crime-drama programs under one of two experimental conditions intended decrease or increase viewer engagement. In one condition viewers searched for flaws while viewing. In another condition they monitored scene changes and characters.
Results indicate that relative to each other monitoring scenes increases engagement while searching for flaws decreases engagement. However this effect was observed only with emotional engagement and narrative understanding dimensions of overall engagement, and only with a program that lacked a sympathetic protagonist. These results were not found when the program featured a well-developed victim as a main character. When the program did feature a well-developed sympathetic victim, audience members’ sympathy for victims of violence increased from pre- to post-viewing measures and was positively related to engagement during the viewing experience. Also, viewers watching a program in which they could identify fewer flaws found the program more engaging.