Message pretesting using assessments of expected or perceived persuasiveness

Evidence about diagnosticity of relative actual persuasiveness

Daniel James O'Keefe*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Do formative assessments of the expected or perceived effectiveness of persuasive messages provide a good guide to the relative actual effectiveness of those messages? The correlational evidence usually invoked on this question is less than ideal. The most relevant evidence compares two messages’ relative standing on perceived message effectiveness (PME) and actual message effectiveness (AME) as assessed in separate samples. Across 151 such comparisons, the direction of difference in PME matched that of AME in 58% of cases (ns). Diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly depending on the size or significance of the PME difference, the size of the PME sample, whether PME assessments came from experts or target-audience representatives, the referent of the PME assessment, or whether the PME assessment involved comparing messages.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)120-142
Number of pages23
JournalJournal of Communication
Volume68
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

evidence
Message Effectiveness
diagnostic
expert

Keywords

  • Formative Research
  • Message Pretesting.
  • Perceived Effectiveness (PE)
  • Perceived Message Effectiveness (PME)
  • Persuasion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

@article{7a1fad35a6974f51ada4f06f62aa41a6,
title = "Message pretesting using assessments of expected or perceived persuasiveness: Evidence about diagnosticity of relative actual persuasiveness",
abstract = "Do formative assessments of the expected or perceived effectiveness of persuasive messages provide a good guide to the relative actual effectiveness of those messages? The correlational evidence usually invoked on this question is less than ideal. The most relevant evidence compares two messages’ relative standing on perceived message effectiveness (PME) and actual message effectiveness (AME) as assessed in separate samples. Across 151 such comparisons, the direction of difference in PME matched that of AME in 58{\%} of cases (ns). Diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly depending on the size or significance of the PME difference, the size of the PME sample, whether PME assessments came from experts or target-audience representatives, the referent of the PME assessment, or whether the PME assessment involved comparing messages.",
keywords = "Formative Research, Message Pretesting., Perceived Effectiveness (PE), Perceived Message Effectiveness (PME), Persuasion",
author = "O'Keefe, {Daniel James}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/joc/jqx009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "68",
pages = "120--142",
journal = "Journal of Communication",
issn = "0021-9916",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Message pretesting using assessments of expected or perceived persuasiveness

T2 - Evidence about diagnosticity of relative actual persuasiveness

AU - O'Keefe, Daniel James

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - Do formative assessments of the expected or perceived effectiveness of persuasive messages provide a good guide to the relative actual effectiveness of those messages? The correlational evidence usually invoked on this question is less than ideal. The most relevant evidence compares two messages’ relative standing on perceived message effectiveness (PME) and actual message effectiveness (AME) as assessed in separate samples. Across 151 such comparisons, the direction of difference in PME matched that of AME in 58% of cases (ns). Diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly depending on the size or significance of the PME difference, the size of the PME sample, whether PME assessments came from experts or target-audience representatives, the referent of the PME assessment, or whether the PME assessment involved comparing messages.

AB - Do formative assessments of the expected or perceived effectiveness of persuasive messages provide a good guide to the relative actual effectiveness of those messages? The correlational evidence usually invoked on this question is less than ideal. The most relevant evidence compares two messages’ relative standing on perceived message effectiveness (PME) and actual message effectiveness (AME) as assessed in separate samples. Across 151 such comparisons, the direction of difference in PME matched that of AME in 58% of cases (ns). Diagnostic accuracy did not differ significantly depending on the size or significance of the PME difference, the size of the PME sample, whether PME assessments came from experts or target-audience representatives, the referent of the PME assessment, or whether the PME assessment involved comparing messages.

KW - Formative Research

KW - Message Pretesting.

KW - Perceived Effectiveness (PE)

KW - Perceived Message Effectiveness (PME)

KW - Persuasion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85046083383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85046083383&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/joc/jqx009

DO - 10.1093/joc/jqx009

M3 - Article

VL - 68

SP - 120

EP - 142

JO - Journal of Communication

JF - Journal of Communication

SN - 0021-9916

IS - 1

ER -