This paper is a consideration of what the authors believe to be the most important question associated with the Jacoby/Hoyer miscomprehension study: Is the approximately 30% miscomprehension rate found likely to be a normative indicator one can expect for televised communication, or is it a biased estimate?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CalderBobby J., PhillipsLynn W., and TyboutAlice M. (1981), “Designing Research for Applications,”Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 197–207.
2.
CookThomas D., and CampbellDonald T. (1976), “The Design and Conduct of Quasi-Experiments and True Experiments in Field Settings,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, MarvinD. Dunnette, ed., Chicago: Rand McNally, 223–326.
3.
GardnerDavid M. (1975), “Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach,”Journal of Marketing, 39 (January), 40–46.
4.
GardnerDavid M., and RossIvan (1973), “Potential Contributions of Consumer Psychology to Deceptive Advertising Determinations and Corrective Measures,” paper presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Washington, D.C.
5.
JacobyJacob, HoyerWayne D., and ShelugaDavid A. (1980), Miscomprehension of Televised Communications., New York: American Association of Advertising Agencies.
6.
NewmanJohn, and HorowitzM. W. (1964), “Organizational Processes Underlying Differences between Listening and Reading as a Function of Complexity of Material,” paper read at the annual convention of the Speech Association of the Eastern States; cited in Carl H. Weaver, Human Listening Processes and Behavior, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1980.
