Study notes containing all the material from the literature needed for Communication Consultancy, including theory models. This overview includes introduction, method, theories, results and conclusions per study.
Course taken during the 2nd/3rd year of Communication Science (Bachelor).
Course...
Readings:
1. Agenda setting + framing = Fernando et al. (2014)!"!#$%%&'(!)($'*)!+!,-',$.'#!-'!
(.$$'/)#0&'(!
2. Inoculation = Niederdeppe et al. (2015)!"!&'-,12)%&-'!+!')..)%&3$!#%.)%$(&$#!&'!0$)2%0!4-2&,&$#
3. Storytelling = Denning (2006) "!#%-.5%$22&'(!')..)%&3$#!6-.!#%.)%$(&,!71#&'$##
4. Identity = Hogan & Coote (2014)!"!-.(8!,12%1.$!+!&''-3)%&-'!+!4$.6-.9)',$
5. Identity = Schneider et al. (2013)!"!-.(8!,2&9)%$!+!,12%1.$
6. Uncertainty reduction = Flanagin (2007) "!&'6-!$:,0)'($!&'!-'2&'$!)1,%&-'#!;$<)5=
7. ELM = Bögel (2015) "!>?@!,-991'&,)%&-'!4.-,$##&'(
8. ELM = Hung (2014) "!A1)2!$'%$.%)&'9$'%!4)%0!9-*$2!+!,$2$7.&%5!$'*-.#$9$'%
9. ELM = Bleakley et al. (2015) "!B9-%&-')2!)44$)2#!6-.!#1().!7$3$.)($#!.$*1,%&-'
10. ELM = Jordan et al. (2012) "!C$*&)!&'%$.3$'%&-'!6-.!#1().!7$3$.)($#
Agenda Setting
Agenda setting for concerns of greenwashing Fernando et al. (2014)
D8!E$.')'*-!$%!)28!;FGDH=!"!I($'*)!?$%%&'(!&'621$',&'(!(.$$'/)#0&'(!,-',$.'#!
● Aim: see whether consumer opinions online on ‘greenwashed’ ads (public agenda) are
in uenced by agenda set by online media (blogs + newspapers).
● Introduction:
○ >-'#19$.#!).$!'-!2-'($.!4)##&3$!.$,$&3$.#!-6!9$##)($#!"!%0$5!,-J,.$)%$!)*3$.%&#&'(!
9$##)($#!+!9-.$!&'3-23$*8!
■ Agenda-setting is then now appropriate for listening to consumers online.
○ Greenwashing = vague + unsubstantiated + misleading environmental claims about
the credentials of a person, product or company.
■ Usually seen w/ skepticism by consumers.
■ >)'!0)3$!7),K2)#0!-'!*&66$.$'%!#%)K$0-2*$.#!"!&%!'$()%&3$25!)66$,%#!%0$!
.$41%)%&-'!-6!)'!-.()'&L)%&-'!;)942&6&$*!75!#-,&)2!9$*&)=8!
○ Environmental issues are unobtrusive issues (only visible when highlighted by media,
not on a daily basis).
■ Mass media can set agenda at sub-issue level = highlight the
subcomponents of an issue that are selected (second-level agenda setting (i.e.
framing)).
● M0$-.&$#!"!I($'*)!?$%%&'(
○ Agenda setting = mass media tells the public what + who to think about.
■ 2 levels:
1
, ■ 1. First-level: transferring salience of objects from one agenda into the other
(i.e. issues + people + companies, etc.)
■ 2. Second-level (i.e. framing): transferring salience of attributes of objects
from one agenda into the other.
● Increases the salience of selective aspects of an issue in the public’s
mind.
● Attributes can be substantive or a ective.
○ Substantive = cognitive characteristics
○ A ective = positive, negative, neutral
○ Agenda setting relationship can be reciprocal = media in uences public agenda +
public agenda in uences media.
■ Inter-media agenda-setting e ects: online & traditional mass media can set
each other’s agenda.
● Hypotheses:
○ D8!NOP!72-(#!"!>-'#19$.!72-(#!;-'$J/)5=Q Greenwashing attributes salient in NGO
blogs will in uence substantive greenwashing attributes salient in online consumer
discussions.
○ 2. Online newspaper blogs!R!>-'#19$.!72-(#!;%/-J/)5=: Bidirectional agenda-
setting relationship exists between online newspaper blogs & online consumer
discussions (+ they mutually in uence each other’s discussions).
○ 3. Online newspaper articles!R!>-'#19$.!72-(#!;%/-J/)5=: Bidirectional agenda-
setting relationship exists between online newspaper articles & online consumer
discussions (+ mutually in uence each other’s discussions).
● Method:
○ Leximancer (text analysis tool that discovers keywords + associated concepts).
○ Data gathered was publicly available.
○ Content analysis on themes + attributes of environmental issues (trained 2 coders)
○ Studied for year 2009 + divided in 4 quarters (periods of 3 months).
○ 4 sources:
■ Greenpeace (activist organization)
2
, ■ The Guardian (UK newspaper w/ editorial articles)
■ EnviroMedia (promoted by University of Oregon + users can upload ads +
discuss claims)
■ NYT (US newspaper)
● Results:
○ 2 themes:
■ 1. Marketing communication credibility =
● Questioned veracity of claims + considered unauthentic.
● Subthemes = energy, campaign, product content, investment, waste
management.
■ 2. Impact on natural environment =
● In relation to climate change + associated impacts.
● Sub-themes = CO2 emissions, global warming, vehicle emissions,
deforestation.
○ H1 = Partial support: Not one-way BUT two-way relationship = NGO blogs R
Consumer blogs (unlike predicted).
■ NGO issue salience was transferred to the public agenda in 1 time period only.
○ H2 = Support: Online newspaper blogs!R!>-'#19$.!72-(#!
○ H3 = Support: Online newspaper articles!R!>-'#19$.!72-(#
● Conclusion:
○ Agenda setting helps companies to avoid being labeled as ‘greenwashing’ by
consumers.
■ It can help to build brand salience w/ green advertising + market
communication tools.
○ Stakeholders’ skepticism increases unless companies ful ll their green marketing
claims.
■ Lack of commitment toward the implementation of credible green policies is
also seen as greenwashing.
■ E-.!%0&#!"!O.$$'!)*#!91#%!,2$).25!,-991'&,)%$!%0$!$'3&.-'9$'%)2!4$.6-.9)',$!
-6!)!6&.98
● Why? To avoid consumer confusion on green issues + create
awareness.
○ Strong agenda-setting in uence when media R consumers are from the same
geography.
■ Newspapers (i.e., NYT) from the same country as consumers in uence
consumer agenda.
■ Consumer discussions in uenced stakeholders from same country only (e.g.
Greenpeace, NYT)
■ Importance of local online media "!S%!,-12*!9)K$!#$2$,%&3$!)#4$,%#!-6!)'!
&##1$!9-.$!-.!2$##!#)2&$'%!;$8(8!)!,-94)'5T#!4-#&%&3$!,.$*$'%&)2#=8
○ Advertisers must develop tailored messages based on each stakeholder’s concern.
3
, ■ It needs to account for perceptions + concerns of the various stakeholders
(e.g. consumers + NGOs + media).
■ For increasing trust, it needs to increase both source + environmental
message credibility.
Inoculation
Inoculation & Narrative Strategies Niederdeppe et al. (2015)
F8!N&$*$.*$44$!$%!)28!;FGDU=!"!S'-,12)%&-'!1#&'(!')..)%&3$!#%.)%$(&$#!
● Aim: to assess whether inoculation and/or narrative messages counter the impact of
industry anti-policy messages delivered both (1) at same time + (2) w/ delay (1 week).
● Theories:
○ Framing = attributes are made salient when giving info about an issue or event (e.g.
words, images, phrases, and presentation styles).
■ Emphasis framing = making salient a speci c problem de nition / causal
interpretation / moral evaluation / treatment recommendation.
● This framing is:
○ (1) Dynamic = monitors + counters frames promoted by the
opposition (counterframing).
○ (2) Asymmetrical!V!.$#-1.,$#!).$!&97)2)',$*!7$%/$$'!(.-14#!
4.-9-%&'(!*&66$.$'%!6.)9$#!"!W#1)225!4-/$.612!(.-14#!,)'!
#4.$)*!0&(0$.!6.)9$!$:4-#1.$!%0)'!2$##!4-/$.612!-'$#8!!
● People evaluate a frame’s applicability to their preference in policy.
○ E.)9$#!&',21*$!"!).(19$'%#!+!$3&*$',$!V!%0$#$!)##-,&)%$!
4$-42$T#!7$2&$6#!%-!4-2&,5!-4&'&-'#8!
● E ects:
○ 1. Create new connections between belief + policy support
○ 2. Change beliefs that in uence one’s policy support
(persuasion e ect)
○ 3. Change weight of beliefs in predicting support (applicability
e ect)
■ How = Strengthens link between a belief + policy
support.
■ This means that frames change the level of agreement
one has w/ a message (i.e. perceived strength of
message).
○ Note: Frame e ects are stronger in:
■ People w/ less knowledge on a topic (as evidence
suggests).
■ Their exposure to the frame is more frequent + recent.
4
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller AndreaValdivia. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
