Whistling past the graveyard

Response to commentaries

Daniel James O'Keefe*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

I continue to believe that the general use of perceived-persuasiveness assessments in message pretesting is not justified by the evidence in hand. But one might reasonably hope to see specific applications in which such assessments are demonstrably diagnostic.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1001-1005
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Communication
Volume68
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

diagnostic
evidence
Graveyard
Diagnostics

Keywords

  • Formative research
  • Message pretesting
  • Perceived message effectiveness
  • Persuasion

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Communication
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

@article{3e795f7a354e4b3b8e735778a051b4e1,
title = "Whistling past the graveyard: Response to commentaries",
abstract = "I continue to believe that the general use of perceived-persuasiveness assessments in message pretesting is not justified by the evidence in hand. But one might reasonably hope to see specific applications in which such assessments are demonstrably diagnostic.",
keywords = "Formative research, Message pretesting, Perceived message effectiveness, Persuasion",
author = "O'Keefe, {Daniel James}",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/joc/jqy046",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "68",
pages = "1001--1005",
journal = "Journal of Communication",
issn = "0021-9916",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

Whistling past the graveyard : Response to commentaries. / O'Keefe, Daniel James.

In: Journal of Communication, Vol. 68, No. 5, 01.01.2018, p. 1001-1005.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Whistling past the graveyard

T2 - Response to commentaries

AU - O'Keefe, Daniel James

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - I continue to believe that the general use of perceived-persuasiveness assessments in message pretesting is not justified by the evidence in hand. But one might reasonably hope to see specific applications in which such assessments are demonstrably diagnostic.

AB - I continue to believe that the general use of perceived-persuasiveness assessments in message pretesting is not justified by the evidence in hand. But one might reasonably hope to see specific applications in which such assessments are demonstrably diagnostic.

KW - Formative research

KW - Message pretesting

KW - Perceived message effectiveness

KW - Persuasion

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061986174&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061986174&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/joc/jqy046

DO - 10.1093/joc/jqy046

M3 - Review article

VL - 68

SP - 1001

EP - 1005

JO - Journal of Communication

JF - Journal of Communication

SN - 0021-9916

IS - 5

ER -