The preceding commentaries offer interesting perspectives. As might be expected, we agree with some of the points raised but disagree with many others. Given the editor's request for a short and tight rejoinder, we only address points of disagreement. Our comments generally follow the order in which these points were raised.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllisonN. K., and MizerskiR. W. (1981), “The Effects of Recall on Belief Change: The Corrective Advertising Case,” in Advances in Consumer Research, 8, KentB. Monroe, ed., 419–422.
2.
BartosR. (1980), “Foreword,” in The Miscomprehension of Televised Communication, JacobyJ., HoyerW. D., and ShelugaD. A.New York: American Association of Advertising Agencies, 13–16.
3.
BelsonW. A., and DuncanJ. A. (1962), “A Comparison of the Checklist and the Open Response Questioning Systems,”Applied Statistics, 2 (no. 2), 120–132.
4.
CampbellD. T., and FiskeD. W. (1959), “Convergent and Discriminant Validation by the Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix,”Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
5.
ChaikenS., and EaglyA. H. (1976), “Communication Modality as a Determinant of Message Persuasiveness and Message Comprehensibility,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 (no. 4), 605–614.
6.
CookT. D., and CampbellD. T. (1976), “The Design and Conduct of Quasi-Experiments and True Experiments in Field Settings,” in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, DunnettM. D., ed., Chicago: Rand McNally, 223–326.
7.
CoreyS. M. (1934), “Learning from Lectures and Learning from Readings,”Journal of Educational Psychology, 25, 459–470.
8.
DohrenwendB. S. (1965), “Some Effects of Open and Closed Questions on Respondents' Answers,”Human Organization, 24 (no. 2), 175–184.
9.
FisherL. A., JohnsonT. S., and PorterD. (1955), “Collection of a Clean Voided Urine Specimen: A Comparison Among Spoken, Written and Computer Based Instruction,”American Journal of Public Health, 65 (no. 7), 640–644.
10.
ForstonR. F. (1975), “Sense and Non-Sense: Jury Trial Communication,”Brigham Young Law Review, 1 (no. 3), 610–611.
11.
GardnerD. M. (1975), “Deception in Advertising: A Conceptual Approach,”Journal of Marketing, 39 (January), 40–46.
12.
JacobyJ., and HoyerW. D. (1981), “Reply to Mizerski's Criticisms: Some Mislead, Others Misrepresent Facts,”Marketing News, 15 (July 24), 35–36.
13.
JacobyJ., HoyerW. D., and ShelugaD. A. (1980), The Miscomprehension of Televised Communication, New York: American Association of Advertising Agencies.
14.
JacobyJ., HoyerW. D., and ZimmerM. (1981), “To Read, View or Listen? A Cross-Media Comparison of Comprehension,” working paper no. 81-72, Graduate School of Business, New York University
15.
JacobyJ., NelsonM. C., and HoyerW. D. (1982), “Corrective Advertising and Affirmative Disclosure Statements: Their Potential for Confusing and Misleading the Consumer,”Journal of Marketing, 46 (Winter), 61–72.
16.
JacobyJ., TroutmanT. R., and WhittlerT. E. (1982), “Viewer Miscomprehension of the 1980 Presidential Debates,” working paper no. 82-31, Graduate School of Business, New York University.
17.
LeavittC. (1976), “Public Beliefs about Selected Analgesic Products,” report commissioned by the FTC, introduced as exhibit CX-457, FTC hearings on American Home Products Corporation advertising for its brand Anacin.
18.
LipsteinB. (1980), “Theories of Advertising and Measurement Systems,” in Attitude Research Enters the 80s, OlshavskyR. W., ed., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 87–97.
19.
MaccobyE. E., and MaccobyN. (1954), “The Interview: A Tool of Social Science,” in The Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 1, LindzeyG., ed., Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 449–487.
20.
MarquisK. H., MarshallJ., and OskampS. (1972), “Testimony Validity as a Function of Question Form, Atmosphere and Item Difficulty,”Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2 (no. 2), 167–186.
21.
MitchellA. A., and OlsonJ. C. (1981), “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude?,”Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (August), 318–332.
22.
MizerskiR. W. (1981), “Major Problems in 4As Pioneering Study of TV Miscomprehension,”Marketing News, 14 (June 12), 7–8.
23.
NewmanJ., and HorowitzM. W. (1964), “Organizational Processes Underlying Differences Between Reading as a Function of Complexity of Material.” Paper read at the annual convention of the Speech Association of the Eastern States.
24.
NielandR. G. (1979), Pattern Jury Instructions, Chicago: American Judicature Society.
25.
NorthcuttN. (1975), “Adult Functional Competency Study: A Four-Year National Investigation,” summary report presented to the U.S. Office of Education, Department of HEW. Austin, TX: University of Texas, Division of Extension.
26.
RobinsonJ. P., and SahinH. (forthcoming), Audience Comprehension of Television News, London: British Broadcasting Corporation.
27.
SahinH., DavisD. K., and RobinsonJ. P. (1981), “Improving the TV News,”Irish Broadcasting Review, 11 (Spring), 50–55.
28.
SalesB. D., ElworkA., and AlfiniJ. J. (1977), “Improving Comprehension for Jury Instructions,” in Perspectives in Law and Psychology, SalesB., ed., New York: Plenum.
29.
SchrammW. (1973), “Channels and Audiences,” in The Handbook of Communication, PoolI. de Sola, eds., Chicago: Rand McNally, 116–140.
30.
SchumanH., and PresserS. (1981), Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording and Content, New York: Academic Press.
