SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • Asch, S. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 170.
  • Bostrom, R. N., Baseheart, J. R., & Rossiter, C. M., Jr. (1973). The effects of three types of profane language in persuasive messages. Journal of Communication, 23(4), 461475.
  • Biener, L., & Abrams, D. B. (1991). The contemplation ladder: Validation of a measure of readiness to consider smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 10, 360–365.
  • Cialdini, R. & Golstein, N. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591621.
  • Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015.
  • Cohen, J. & Golden, E. (1972). Informational social influence and product evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(1), 5459.
  • Durkin, S., & Wakefield, M. (2006). Maximizing the impact of emotive antitobacco advertising: Effects of interpersonal discussion and program placement. Social Marketing Quarterly, 12, 314.
  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1975). An attribution analysis of the effect of communicator characteristics on opinion change: The case of communicator attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 136144.
  • Finn, J., & Banach, M. (2000). Victimization online: The downside of seeking human services for women on the internet. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3(5), 785796.
  • Fishbein, M. (2008). A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Medical Decision Making, 28, 834844.
  • Giner-Sorolila, R., & Chaiken, S. (1997). Selective use of heunrstic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(1), 8497.
  • Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701721.
  • Heatherton, T. F., Kozlowski, L. T., Frecker, R. C., & Fagerstrom, K. O. (1991). The Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence: A revision of the Fagerstrom tolerance questionnaire. British Journal of Addiction, 86, 11191127.
  • Jackson, S. (1992). Message effects research. New York: Guilford.
  • Kang, Y., Cappella, J. N., Strasser, A. A., & Lerman, C. (2009). The effect of smoking cues in antismoking advertisements on smoking urge and psychophysiological reactions. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11(3), 254261.
  • Kang, M. (1998). The influence of public opinion polls on public opinion: The role of motivation and ability in the elaboration likelihood model. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (2A), 359. (UMI No. 9825262)
  • Kushin, M. J., & Kitchener, K. (2009). Getting political on social network sites: Exploring online political discourse on Facebook. First Monday, 14(11).
  • Moor, P. J., Heuvelman, A., & Verleur, R. (2010). Flaming on YouTube. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 15361546.
  • Mulac, A. (1976). Effects of obscene language upon three dimensions of listener attitude. Communication Monographs, 43(4), 300307.
  • Mutz, D. C. (2007). Effects of ‘in-your-face’ television discourse on perceptions of a legitimate opposition. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 621635.
  • Mutz, D. C., & Byron, R. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 116.
  • Ng, E. W. J., & Detenber, B. H. (2005). The impact of synchronicity and civility in online political discussions on perceptions and intentions to participate. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3).
  • Orenga, V., Zornoza, A. M., Prieto, F., & Peiró, J. M. (2000). The influence of familiarity among group members, group atmosphere and assertiveness on uninhibited behavior through three different communication media. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 141159.
  • Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: A test of the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32(3), 389414.
  • Salganik, M. J., Dodds, P. S., & Watts, D. J. (2006). Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in an artificial cultural market. Science, 311(5762), 854856.
  • Samu, S., & Bhatnagar, N. (2008). The efficacy of anti-smoking advertisements: The role of source, message, and individual characteristics. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. Special Issue: Social Marketing, 13(3), 237250.
  • Scherer, C. R. (2007). Indecent influence: What mediates the relationship between swearing and persuasion. Dissertation Abstracts International, 67 (9B), 5471. (UMI No. 3235678)
  • Scherer, C. R., & Sagarin, B. J. (2006). Indecent influence: The positive effects of obscenity on persuasion. Social Influence, 1(2), 138146.
  • Sherif, M. (1935). A study of some social factors in perception. Archives of Psychology, 27(187).
  • Sherif, M. (1936). The psychology of social norms. Harper & Brothers.
  • Sonck, N. & Loosveld, G. (2010) Impact of poll results on personal opinions and perceptions of collective opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22, 230255
  • Strasser, A. A., Cappella, J. N., Jepson, C., Fishbein, M., Tang, K. Z., Han, E., et al. (2009). Experimental evaluation of antitobacco PSAs: Effects of message content and format on physiological and behavioral outcomes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 11(3), 293302.
  • Sutfin, E. L., Szykman, L. R., & Moore, M. C. (2008). Adolescents' responses to anti-tobacco advertising: Exploring the role of adolescent smoking status and advertisement theme. Journal of Health Communication, 13(5), 480500.
  • Walther, J. B., DeAndrea, D., Kim, J., & Anthony, J. C. (2010). The influence of online comments on perceptions of anti-marijuana public service announcements on YouTube. Human Communication Research, 36(4), 469492.
  • Zhao X., Strasser, A., Cappella, J. N., Lerman, C., & Fishbein, M. (2011). A measure of perceived argument strength: Reliability and validity. Communication Methods & Measures, 5, 4875.