COMM REVIEW Final - COMM REVIEW: Smith and Wilson 2002:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
COMM REVIEW: Smith and Wilson 2002: Data supported hyp 4 and 5 Older kids reported more self reports of fear Older kids showed more fear in nonverbal observation Why were they scared? More likely to personalize to santa Barbara story than younger kids who saw the LA story Discussion: Why we didn’t find effect for graphic visuals? Know theory and explanation for each hyp. Video: use of humor and use of jingles will not be used for video. --Political ads: know fear appeals (nuclear war), mudslinging (1 st by Eisenhower), repetition, jingles, testimonials. Who was brought in to help with early ad campaigns (cultural architect)?: Ross Reeves… --Use of icons: identification, creating personalities so people can relate to them --unique selling proposition: very similar to reason why advertising, attempt to take a machine made object and make it different to a similar machine made object; through repetition --Soap operas: having shows be linked to particular products to draw in female audience --Road signs: Depends on era: Hollywood land originally designed as real-estate, but left up Early 20’s-50’s: effective way to advertise products - burma shaving cream campaign all over states - aerial signs, neon signs --outdoor ads: PT Barnum, overlaps Road signs Research doesn’t always work: McDonalds: listed ingredients even though research suggested against doing this. Dittmar Study: Purpose: Barbie Study -How does Barbie effect the body images of young girls? Why: Is Barbie going have an immediate negative effect on young girls? 99% of 3-10 yr old girls own a Barbie. Predictions: How are girls going to react? - girls under 7 would have lower self esteem (286) and greater body shape dissatisfaction after viewing Barbie compared to M doll or neutral images. - Moderator: developmental change shown with girls older than 7 wont have same effect as younger girls because Barbie is not role model anymore Study: 5-8 year old girls, study in England - kids exposed to book they created that included different images to neutral (no image of characters) condition, Barbie condition, and M doll condition.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Characters were shopping and “girly” things, no audio visual, and not exposed to doll Findings: (288/9) -are results consistent with hypothesis? - for the kids in younger age group and not older age groups, after exposure to story about Barbie the girls had lower body self esteem and image - as predicted: body dissatisfaction was significantly high… - What theoretical perspective? Priming is operating here Becker et al: -Fiji! -Purpose: Very significant naturalistic study, no tv in fiji, and wanted to see the effect it would have -Participants: adolescent native females -Study: 1995= first wave conducted, tv only introduced for a month - Re-collected data 3 years after introduction of TV -Measures: used standardized scale called EAT26 scale (eating attitudes test) -greater than 20 was high score=problematic Not going to ask about qualitative data -Findings:
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 8

COMM REVIEW Final - COMM REVIEW: Smith and Wilson 2002:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online