COM 213 Public Communication Final Exam Review Fall 2024 PDF

**COM 213 Public Communication** **Review Sheet for Final Exam** After polling the class, an overwhelming majority of students indicated they prefer that the Final Exam only cover new material we learned *after* the Midterm Exam, and I will honor that preference this semester. The Final Exam will...

**COM 213 Public Communication** **Review Sheet for Final Exam** After polling the class, an overwhelming majority of students indicated they prefer that the Final Exam only cover new material we learned *after* the Midterm Exam, and I will honor that preference this semester. The Final Exam will consist of approximately 50 multiple-choice and true/false questions, and it will be administered during the official Final Exam timeslot assigned by the University: **Wednesday, December 11, at 10:30 a.m.** **Please make plans to take the exam on this day and** **at this time. There are no alternate dates.** The following items *may* appear on the exam and are representative of all the material potentially covered on it (in other words, if it's not on this review sheet, you won't find questions about it on the exam). The more familiar you are with the theories and concepts on this review sheet, the better your chances of performing well on this exam. You are welcome to visit with me during consultation hours if you have questions about any of this material. Because we do not have time to cover every aspect of a every communication theory in class, I recommend you use assigned course readings in conjunction with lecture and PowerPoint notes, as well as review questions posted to D2L and material from [www.afirstlook.com](http://www.afirstlook.com), to help you prepare. I can say from experience that students who do not complete course readings regularly tend to perform poorly on exams. - You should understand the primary focus and general subject of each theory on this review sheet, even if that isn't necessarily listed in one of the bullet points below. - **Chapter 18: Dramatism** - rhetorical critic - identification, consubstantiality - terministic screens (reflection, selection, and deflection of reality) - **Chapter 34: Cultural Studies** - ideology, hegemony (understand the definitions presented in this chapter, but your primary goal should be to understand the definitions presented in the Ideology/Hegemony class sessions, which are slightly different from the ones in the textbook) - **Chapter 19: Narrative Paradigm** - narrative/narration - paradigm, narrative paradigm - narrative rationality: coherence, fidelity - content, form (these terms were covered in class; they are not in the textbook) - **Chapter 33: Semiotics** - signifier, signified - denotation (first order signification), connotation (second order signification) - myth (understand the definition presented in this chapter as well as the definition presented in the Myth class sessions)   - **Chapter 14: Social Judgment Theory** - hostile audience, neutral audience, sympathetic audience (discussed in class, not in the textbook) - ego-involvement, including its effect on the relative width of each of the three latitudes - latitude of acceptance, latitude of rejection, latitude of noncommitment - anchor point - boomerang effect - **Theory of Reasoned Action (Gass & Seiter, "Attitudes and Consistency, pp. 50-52; on D2L Course Reserves)**  - focus of theory is on behavior that is voluntary, rational, and controllable  - know each component of the model:  - Attitude toward behavior (belief about the outcome, evaluation of the outcome)  - Subjective norm component (normative beliefs, motivation to comply)  - Behavioral intention that leads to actual behavior    - **Theory of Planned Behavior (Gass & Seiter, "Attitudes and Consistency, pp. 52-53; on D2L Course Reserves)**  - focus of theory is on behavior that is voluntary, rational, and controllable  - know each component of the model:  - Attitude toward behavior (belief about the outcome, evaluation of the outcome)  - Subjective norm component (normative beliefs, motivation to comply)  - Perceived behavioral control  - Behavioral intention that leads to actual behavior  - **Chapter 15: Elaboration Likelihood Model**  - message elaboration - central route, peripheral route  - know the six common peripheral cues discussed in this chapter  - know and understand the various parts of the theory model in Figure 15-1  - **Chapter 16: Cognitive Dissonance Theory** - cognitive dissonance - selective exposure - postdecision dissonance - self-affirmation - minimal justification hypothesis and the \$1/\$20 experiment **Supplemental Review Questions** The following scenarios and questions are intended to help you further prepare for this exam, particularly for questions that require you to apply theories/concepts to real or hypothetical examples of communication and persuasion. You do not have to memorize the details of these scenarios or questions for the exam and I do not expect you to submit your answers, but understanding them will help you assess your understanding of each theory. If you're unsure how to answer any of these questions, review your notes, consult with a classmate, or drop by office hours to discuss them with your professor. **Chapter 18: Kenneth Burke's Dramatism** Burke's theory is challenging for many because it encompasses so many concepts. One strategy for studying the theory is to consider it holistically. In other words, try to understand how multiple concepts work together, rather than simply memorizing the definitions of key terms. Let's start with *critic*. Unlike Aristotle, Burke was not as concerned with invention as he was criticism. His theory is one that offers rhetorical critics a set of tools for understanding the rhetoric of others---politicians, writers, and so forth. Think of a persuasive message you've heard recently (perhaps a political ad, a commercial, or something you heard from a friend or family member). How might Burke encourage you to critique the message and the motives behind it? Next, consider *identification* and *consubstantiality*. Burke's theory argues that most rhetoric is driven by the desire to purge guilt and create consubstantiality (his term for identification). If it\'s not too soon for you, consider the 2024 presidential campaigns of Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Consider the different ways that Trump and Harris attempted to achieve consubstantiality with voters. Who (or what) was the basis for that identification? What are the consequences of their rhetoric? Finally, consider *terministic screens*. One way to review this is to think of a time when you tried to persuade someone to do something but were unsuccessful. What terministic screen filtered your choice of words and led your message to be ineffective? How did your terministic screen reflect, select, and deflect reality? How might you reframe that message to better achieve identification with your audience? **Chapter 34: Cultural Studies** This is another challenging chapter, but the two key concepts to know are *ideology* and *hegemony* (both tie into our study of Semiotics and the Narrative Paradigm). If you're still struggling to grasp both concepts after reading the chapter and reviewing your class notes, check out [this short video](https://youtu.be/js8E6C3ZnJ0) that covers both (and especially hegemony) using straight-forward language and several popular culture examples. For further review, consider an ideology that defines you, that you find persuasive or are invested in. What is that ideology? What network of beliefs, values, and assumptions makes up this ideology? Who does this ideology empower, and who does it disempower? How has this ideology become hegemonic, and how does it impact your beliefs and actions in ways that fall outside of your conscious awareness? **Chapter 19: Walter Fisher's Narrative Paradigm** This theory is all about the rhetorical power of storytelling. Consider a story that you've heard recently. You can choose a fictional story from a film, television show, or song, but first try to think of a real persuasive message that incorporated a narrative of some sort (perhaps a speech, or a message shared by a friend). Then, list the story's features that make it a narrative. Be sure to differentiate between the narrative's content (its unique defining features) and form (its recurring patterns or genre). Next, analyze the story's narrative rationality. Is it coherent? Does it have fidelity? Why or why not? How does its coherence and fidelity impact the narrative's rhetorical power? If you're struggling to distinguish between narrative coherence and fidelity, review Chapter 19 and your class notes. **Chapter 33: Semiotics** For this one, let's consider a cultural symbol that carries a lot of rhetorical power: a diamond. Using *diamond* as an example, what is the signifier and signified? What does "diamond" mean at the first order of signification? What deeper, cultural meanings does it evoke at the second order of signification? Finally, what cultural myths involve diamonds (e.g., think of marriage proposals or declarations of love in the U.S.). For additional review, try to think of an ideology (a network of values or assumptions about how the world works) that is embedded in this myth, and describe how the symbol of the diamond contributes to the ideology's power. **Chapter 14: Social Judgment Theory** For this theory, let's consider an issue that has generated a great deal of debate and discussion in the U.S.: universal healthcare. Think of family members you know who would support the creation of a Medicare-for-all style, universal healthcare plan that offers free medical insurance to everyone in the country; we'll call them Group A. Now, think of folks in your family who are adamantly opposed to the idea of nationalized healthcare; we'll call them Group B. Finally, consider those in your family who have no firm opinion on the issue (e.g., a younger sibling or cousin who is more interested in playing video games than thinking about healthcare right now). We'll call them Group C. The Proposal: The U.S. Congress should pass a law to offer free medical insurance to everyone in the country. The plan will be paid for by an increase in taxes for those earning \$400,000 or more annually. 1. What is the level of ego-involvement for Groups A, B, and C? 2. How does the level of ego-involvement impact the relative width of each group's latitude of acceptance, noncommitment, and rejection? Draw a picture of the latitude for each group. 3. Does this proposal fall within the latitude of commitment, latitude of noncommitment, or latitude of rejection for Group A? How about Groups B and C? 4. What is a possible anchor point for each group on this particular issue? 5. Imagine that you are in favor of the proposal. Do you need to persuade Group A? What different challenges will you face trying to convince Groups B and C to support this proposal? 6. If you really try to convince Group B to support it, how likely are you to be successful? How might the Boomerang Effect impact your approach to persuading Group B? 7. Generally speaking, what is the best strategy to avoid experiencing the Boomerang Effect when you are attempting to persuade a hostile audience? **Theory of Reasoned Action and Theory of Planned Behavior** For these two theories, it's really important that you thoroughly understand the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA). Why? Because the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) expands on the TRA by adding an additional component: Perceived Behavioral Control. You'll never understand the TPB unless you first comprehend all parts of the TRA. Keeping that in mind, consider this: When the COVID-19 pandemic forced West Chester University to announce that all class instruction would be remote (fully online) back in Spring 2021, students had to make a decision to either continue taking classes at WCU in the Spring or to go in a different direction (e.g., take a semester off, take classes at another institution, etc.). Using the Theory of Planned Behavior to analyze your decision (if you were at WCU then) or to imagine what you would have done, consider the following questions: 1. Is the TPB an appropriate theory to analyze your behavior in this scenario? Why or why not? (Hint: consider the types of behaviors that the TPB is designed to analyze.) 2. Draw two columns (similar to the diagram Dr. Gatchet used in class to analyze his decision to become a beekeeper) and analyze your *attitude* toward taking a full schedule of remote/online classes in Spring 2021. One column should list several beliefs about the outcome of this behavior, and the second column should list your evaluation of each outcome. Make a final calculation: Is your overall attitude positive or negative, and why? 3. Consider your *subjective norm component*. What *normative beliefs* did your parents have regarding your decision to take a full schedule of remote/online classes at WCU in Spring 2021? How about siblings? Professors? What about your academic advisor? What were the normative beliefs of your friends or romantic partner? Rate your *motivation to comply* (or not) with each of these normative beliefs. What impact did they have on your decision? 4. Next, think about your *perceived behavioral control*. How was this impacted by your experience taking online courses in the past? 5. Consider how your attitude towards taking online courses in Spring 2021, the subjective norm component, and your perceived behavioral control all combine to influence your behavioral intention and your ultimate decision to return to WCU in Spring 2021 or go in another direction. **Chapter 15: Elaboration Likelihood Model** The Elaboration Likelihood Model posits two distinct routes to attitude change: the central route and the peripheral route. For this theory, first head over to YouTube and watch a political campaign ad from a candidate you identify with or support, then answer these questions: 1. Which route do we use most often when faced with a persuasive message, the peripheral or central route? Why? 2. Which route did you use to process the campaign ad? Why did you use that route and not the other? 3. If you used the peripheral route, which peripheral cues had the greatest impact on how you processed the message? 4. If you think you used the central route, work through the ELM diagram in this chapter to analyze the necessary preconditions to process a campaign ad along the central route. 5. If you did not use the central route (and I expect most of you did not), use the ELM model to explore why. What kinds of political campaign messages (e.g., speeches, policy statements, etc.) are more likely to be processed along the central route? Why? **Chapter 16: Cognitive Dissonance** One common form of cognitive dissonance occurs when someone votes for a political candidate for office (president, senator, congressional representative, etc.) who later fails to live up to the promises they made during their campaign, does something distasteful or scandalous, or acts in ways that conflict with what the voter believes to be true, right, or ethical. In many of these cases, the voter nonetheless continues to support that candidate by reducing their dissonance. Think of an example of this, either with someone you know or that you have experienced personally. If politics isn't your thing, then think of a recent time where you experienced cognitive dissonance for some other reason but were able to reduce it to manageable levels. 1. What are four common strategies for reducing cognitive dissonance? 2. Using these strategies, explore how you or the person you're thinking of reduced the dissonance. Next, let's try to apply the principles behind Leon Festinger's \$1/\$20 experiment (described in the textbook chapter) to a similar, but this time totally hypothetical, scenario. First, [watch this short video](https://youtu.be/korGK0yGIDo) for a refresher on what this experiment is all about. Imagine someone offered to pay you \$10 to convince a family member to watch a video supporting a candidate in a presidential election that you really despise. Now, imagine someone offered you \$500 to do the exact same thing. 1. If you accept the \$10 and successfully convince your family member to watch the video for the candidate you despise, what would happen to your attitude towards this behavior (assuming Festinger's predictions are true)? What would happen to your levels of cognitive dissonance? 2. If you accept the \$500 and successfully convince your family member to watch the video for the candidate you despise, now what would happen to your attitude towards this behavior (assuming Festinger's predictions are true)? How would this affect your levels of cognitive dissonance?