CMM323G

Communication Audiences and Effects

Number of ECTS credits: 6

CONTENT OVERVIEW

Syllabus Section Course Prerequisites and Course Description Course Learning Objectives Link between PLO & CLO Main Course Material

Workload Calculation for this Course

Course Assessment Description of Assignments & Exams Rubrics Course Policies Course Schedule

Course Prerequisites (if any)

HUM101G, CMM101G. . Course Description

CMM323G introduces students to the main media effects theories. Media are becoming ever more important in our lives, yet many people do not fully grasp how their use of media comes to affect their perceptions, attitudes and sometimes even their behavior. In this course, we cover the major theories used to understand how communication affects us. At the end of the course, you will have a basic understanding of each of these theories and will be able to apply the theory to specific case studies. In addition to a discussion of the basic theory, this course also covers recent empirical work that tests these theories: these examples come from various subfields of communication sciences, including political communication, health communication and corporate communication. The following theories are covered: cultivation theory, exemplification theory, uses and gratification, elaboration likelihood, spiral of silence, knowledge gap, agenda setting, priming and framing. The classes will be spent discussing these theories,

after which we then apply these theories using in-class exercises. Though the majority of topics is fixed, I leave room for wildcard topics: if one of the theories strikes you as particularly interesting, or if you feel that you want to know more about a specific type of media (effect), the last two weeks can be used for this. Course Learning Objectives

The course aims to achieve the following objectives. In terms of knowledge, students should be able to…

1. … know and understand contemporary media effects theories; 2. … know and understand the main evolutions of media effects theories;

In terms of skills, students should be able to…

3. … understand and make sense of meta analyses of research findings as they relate to media effects theories;

4. … apply media effects theories to real world examples and case studies, and explain how they are in line with, or contradict, the theoretical expectations;

5. … take a position in normative debates concerning media effects, and argue this position using academic literature;

In terms of attitudes, students should…

6. … have a critical attitude towards media coverage of media influence, against the background of their knowledge of media effects theories.

Link between Major Objectives, Course Objectives, Teaching methods and assignments

Number of assignments used in this course: 3

Programme Learning Objective

Course Learning Objectives

Methods used to Teach Course Objectives

Methods (and numbers/types of assignments) used to test these learning objectives

Type, Timing and Instances of Feedback given to Student

Describing and comparing theories, concepts, authors and paradigms of the domains within the communication science.

1,2 Lectures, student work on extended thesis proposal

Draft BA Thesis BA Thesis

Feedback on Extended Thesis Proposal Feedback on BA Thesis

Knowing and applying the most common qualitative and quantitative methods research in communication science.

3,4,5 Lectures, student work on extended thesis proposal

Extended Thesis Proposal BA Thesis

Feedback on Extended Thesis Proposal Feedback on BA Thesis

Main Course Materials:

The course material consists of powerpoint presentations, lecture notes, and the required readings. The readings comprise both textbook chapters and published academic articles, which can be found through the VUB’s Web of Science. Powerpoint presentations will be made available after the respective classes have taken place. A week-by-week overview of the course readings can be found in the section below.

The syllabus, powerpoint presentations and important messages will be uploaded to the Vesalius portal ‘Pointcarre’. Students are expected to visit this site regularly to keep abreast of course evolutions.

Course material marked as ‘suggested readings’ and ‘additional sources’ is helpful for research and to gain an increased understanding, but is not mandatory. This material can be found online or will be made available upon individual request.

Course textbook:

Bryant, J., & Oliver, M. B. (Red.). (2008). Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd edition.). New York: Routledge.

Recommended academic journals:

- Journal of Communication - Communication Research - International Journal of Public Opinion Research - Public Opinion Quarterly - Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly - European Journal of Communication - International Journal of Press / Politics

For a complete list of top-ranked communication journals: http://science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi

High-ranking journal publications tend to have greater impact, but not always. The amount of WoS citations is usually a better indicator of impact, if only because these studies have been influential in the field.

Work Load Calculation for this Course:

This course counts for 6 ECTS, which translates into 150 – 180 hours for the entire semester for this course. This means that you are expected to spend roughly 10 hours per week on this course. This includes 3 hours of lectures or seminars per week and 7 hours ‘out of class’ time spent on preparatory readings, studying time for exams as well as time spent on preparing your assignments. Please see below the estimated breakdown of your work-load for this course.

Activity Hours

Class & meetings (3 hours per week for 13 weeks) 39

Course readings (350 pages, 10 pages / hr) 35 Seeking and reading additional literature (min. 5 studies ~ 180 pages, 10 pages / hr + time spent searching)

28

Opinionated Academic Essay (3000 words, 100 words/hour) 30 Preparing / Studying for Exams 20 Midterm / Final Exam 3

Total 155

Course Assessment: Assignments Overview

Students’ overall course grade is calculated as follows:

• Midterm Exam (30%)

• Opinionated Academic Essay (30%)

• Final Exam (40%)

Grading Scale of Vesalius College

Vesalius College grading policy follows the American system of letter grades, which correspond to a point scale from 0 – 100. All assignments (including exams) must be graded on the scale of 0-100. To comply with the Flemish Educational norms, professors should on request also provide the conversion of the grade on the Flemish scale of 0-20. The conversion table below outlines the grade equivalents.

Letter grade Scale of 100

(VeCo Grading Scale)

Scale of 20

(Flemish System)

A 85-100 17.0-20.0

A- 81-84 16.1-16.9

B+ 77-80 15.3-16.0

B 73-76 14.5-15.2

B- 69-72 13.7-14.4

C+ 66-68 13.1-13.6

C 62-65 12.3-13.0

C- 58-61 11.5-12.2

D+ 54-57 10.7-11.4

D 50-53 10.0-10.6

F 0-49 0-9.9

Description of Activities, Grading Criteria and Deadlines:

Midterm and Final Exam (30% and 40%, respectively)

The midterm and final exams test whether students know and understand the key theories discussed in class, whether students are able to apply theories to real world cases, and whether students are able to take a position on a normative statement related to media effects theories (final exam only).

Typically, the exams contain the following types of questions:

- Two short open-ended answers assessing knowledge of theories;

- Two long open-ended questions assessing theory comparison and application;

- One long essay question (final exam only).

The rubrics below outline the criteria that will be used to grade answers.

Opinionated Essay (30%)

The opinionated essay is where you show that you are able to leverage the findings of the literature to substantiate a position on an evaluative or normative statement related to media effects theories. The opinionated essay consists of three parts:

• Introduction: outlines the statement, your position, and the relevance of the statement. The relevance is illustrated by means of a specific example. Concepts used should be briefly explained.

• Argumentation: the set of arguments substantiating your position. These arguments need to be backed up with academic literature: this includes course literature, as well as additional literature that you must find yourself. A good argumentation section includes multiple arguments, and at least one counter argument that is refuted.

• Conclusion: the conclusion again contains the statement and your position, provides a short recap of the key arguments, and demonstrates the relevance of the statement.

The full essay should be between 2500 and 3000 words long (not including references), and is due in Week 12. The grading rubrics outline the criteria that will determine your grade. These will be discussed in class as well. It is highly recommended that students submit an ‘introduction to the essay’ assignment in week 5. Although optional, it allows you to get feedback on the introduction, which contains the statement you will be debating. To be most effective, the introduction to the essay assignment should contain the following elements:

• Statement

• Position

• Specific real-world example linked to the statement

• Draft of two arguments

The key objective of this assignment is to allow you to receive feedback on the first part of your essay, the introduction, and on the draft arguments: oftentimes students are not used to this writing style, so it is important to know whether or not your arguments fit the purpose of the assignment. Students that submit the introduction will receive your feedback in the week of the midterm exam (Week 7).

Rubrics: Transparent Grading Criteria For Each Assignment

Grading Rubric Opinionated Essay (30%)

Criterion Insufficient

(0.0-9.9) Adequate (10.0-14.9)

Good (15.0-17.5)

Excellent (17.6-20.0)

Introduction (15%)

No clear / relevant / evaluative statement. No clear position. No specific example. No discussion of relevance.

Introduction mentions - Statement; - Position of author; - Specific example

related to statement;

- Relevance

Requirement for adequate, but either relevance or example are compelling & creative.

Requirement for adequate, but both relevance and example are compelling and creative.

Argumentation (50%)

Fewer than two well-argued arguments. Connections to literature are unclear, or misrepresent the literature. Clear logical gaps are present.

At least 3 well-argued arguments are present. Connections to literature are present but not always convincing. No clear logical gaps or misrepresentations present.

Requirement for adequate + - At least one

convincing counter argument (that is refuted).

- Almost all arguments are convincingly backed up by literature.

Requirement for good + - More than

three arguments + multiple counter arguments (that are refuted);

- All arguments are convincingly backed up by literature.

Conclusion (15%)

Conclusion does not mention statement, position or a short recap of the key arguments.

Conclusion mentions statement, position and briefly describes the key arguments.

Requirement for adequate + Conclusion addresses broader relevance of statement.

Requirement for adequate, but relevance and recap of arguments are compelling.

References (10%)

Several references have formatting errors. No references beyond course material included.

No more than one reference has a formatting error. Non-course references are used, and almost all relevant course material is used.

Same as adequate + uses at least four non-course references, and uses all relevant course material.

Same as good, but uses more than six non-course references.

Writing (10%)

More than one spelling mistake

that could be avoided using spell

checker. More than one half finished sentence.

Spelling mistakes almost absent.

Requirement for Adequate + max of two sentences that are unclear or difficult to understand.

Requirement for Good + No typos, grammar errors, and clear writing throughout.

Grading Rubric Exam Question – Type 1 (short open-ended question)

Criterion Insufficient

(0.0-9.9) Adequate (10.0-14.9)

Good (15.0-17.5)

Excellent (17.6-20.0)

Accuracy (80%)

The answer incorrectly reflects the concept or theory as

discussed in class or

readings.

The answer correctly

reflects the basic tenets of the concept or

theory as discussed in

class or readings.

Requirement for Adequate + The

answer completely covers the concept or theory, and contains no

major errors.

Requirement for Good, but the

answer contains no errors whatsoever.

Comparisons of multiple sources,

conceptualizations and interpretations of theories result in

a higher grade.

Structure / Language (20%)

The structure is confusing and

makes it hard to make out the

key points made.

Use of

language is poor, and

contains several errors.

Overall structure is clear, with

maximum two unclear

sentences.

Use of language is ok, with maximum

two errors.

Structure is clear throughout, with

no unclear sentences.

Good use of

language, with no errors.

Requirement for Good, plus the

structure and use of language are

exceptionally clear.

Grading Rubric Exam Question – Type 2 (long open-ended question)

Criterion Insufficient

(0.0-9.9) Adequate (10.0-14.9)

Good (15.0-17.5)

Excellent (17.6-20.0)

Accuracy (30%)

The answer incorrectly reflects the concepts or theories as

discussed in class or

readings.

The answer correctly reflects the basic tenets of the concepts or theories as discussed in

class or readings.

Requirement for Adequate + The

answer completely covers the concepts or

theories, and contains no

major errors.

Requirement for Good, but the

answer contains no errors

whatsoever.

Comparison & Application (50%)

Real world example

question: The answer does not

contain a specific

example, or the example is not linked to the

concept / theory.

Theory comparison

question: The answer does not

explicitly compare the two theories.

Real world example

question: The answer contains

a specific example, that is weakly linked to

theory.

Theory comparison

question: The answer contains

a basic comparison of

the two theories.

Requirement for Adequate +

Real world example question:

example is clearly linked to

theory.

Theory comparison

question: The answer’s

comparison tackles the major aspects of both

theories.

Requirement for Good +

Real world example question: answer contains clear links to theory, and either example or links are exceptionally creative. Theory comparison question: The answer’s comparison is exhaustive and contains original comparisons between the theories.

Structure / Language (20%)

The structure is confusing and

makes it hard to make out the

key points made.

Use of language

is poor, and contains several

errors.

Overall structure is clear, with

maximum two unclear

sentences.

Use of language is ok, with maximum

two errors.

Structure is clear throughout, with

no unclear sentences.

Good use of

language, with no errors.

Requirement for Good, plus the structure and

use of language are exceptionally

clear.

Grading Rubric Exam Question – Type 3 (mini essay)

Criterion Insufficient

(0.0-9.9) Adequate (10.0-14.9)

Good (15.0-17.5)

Excellent (17.6-20.0)

Introduction (15%)

No clear / relevant / evaluative statement. No clear position. No specific example. No discussion of relevance.

Introduction mentions - Statement; - Position of

author; - Specific example

related to statement;

- Relevance.

Requirement for adequate, but either relevance or example are compelling & creative.

Requirement for adequate, but both relevance and example are compelling and creative.

Argumentation (50%)

Fewer than two well-argued arguments. Clear logical gaps are present.

At least 2 well-argued arguments are present. No clear logical gaps or misrepresentations present.

Requirement for adequate + At least one convincing counter argument (that is refuted).

Requirement for good + More than three copnvincing arguments + multiple counter arguments (that are refuted);

Conclusion (15%)

Conclusion does not mention statement, position or a short recap of the key arguments.

Conclusion mentions statement, position and briefly describes the key arguments.

Requirement for adequate + Conclusion briefly addresses relevance of statement.

Requirement for adequate, but relevance and recap of arguments are compelling.

References (10%)

Answer does not refer to any explicit sources.

Answer mentions sources (author names) to back up some of the key claims made.

Answer mentions sources (author names) to back up most of the key claims made

Answer mentions sources (author names) to back up all key claims made.

Structure / Writing (10%)

More than three spelling

mistakes / More than one

half finished sentence / Structure is

unclear.

Structure is clear (intro / arguments / conclusion). Less than three spelling mistakes. No half-finished sentences.

Requirement for Adequate + Maximum one spelling mistake or exceptionally clear structure.

Requirement for Good + Maximum one spelling mistake and exceptionally clear structure.

Vesalius College Attendance Policy As the College is committed to providing students with high-quality classes and ample opportunity for teacher-student interaction, it is imperative that students regularly attend class. As such, Vesalius College has a strict attendance policy. Participation in class meetings is mandatory, except in case of a medical emergency (e.g. sickness). Students will need to provide evidence for missing class (doctor’s note). If evidence is provided, the missed class is considered as an excused class. If no evidence is provided immediately before or after the class, the missed class is counted as an absence. For students that are absent for 2 sessions, the advisor of the student will be alerted. Participation implies that students are on time: as a general rule, the College advises that students should be punctual in this regard, but it is up to the professor to decide whether to count late arrivals as absences, or not. Additional Course Policies

Because all deadlines are communicated to students beforehand, and because this is a 300 level course, it is students’ responsibility to make sure they are able to finish the assignments on time. Therefore, assignments that are not handed in on time are subject to the following penalties. These penalties are deducted after calculating the overall grade of the assignment.

- 1 day late (0-24 hours): 10% reduction of original grade;

- 2 days late (24-48 hours): 20% reduction of original grade;

- 3 days late (48-72 hours): 30% reduction of original grade;

- 4 days late (72-96 hours): 40% reduction of original grade;

- 5 days late (96-120 hours): 50% reduction of original grade.

- After five days, the assignment is no longer accepted, resulting in an automatic grade of F.

Academic Honesty Statement

Academic dishonesty is NOT tolerated in this course.

Academic honesty is not only an ethical issue but also the foundation of scholarship. Cheating and plagiarism are therefore serious breaches of academic integrity.

Following the College policy, cheating and plagiarism cases will be communicated in writing to the Associate Dean and submitted to the Student Conduct Committee for disciplinary action.

If you refer to someone else’s work, appropriate references and citations must be provided. Grammar, spelling and punctuation count, so use the tools necessary to correct before handing in assignments.

Please consult the Section “Avoiding Plagiarism” in the College Catalogue for further guidance.

Turnitin All written assignments that graded and count for more than 10% towards the final course grade need to be submitted via the anti-plagiarism software Turnitin. You will receive a unique password and access code from your professor.

Course Schedule (Overview)

Week 1 Introduction to Communication Effects In the first week, we discuss the course syllabus, and discuss the importance of communication effects. Moreover, we tackle the various assignments and exam questions students may expect. Required readings & assignments

- Course Syllabus Revision questions:

- What are the characteristics of a good research question? - What is the idea behind the ‘hourglass figure’ as it relates to an

empirical article – and your thesis by extension?

Week 2 Agenda Setting. This week, students proceed finetuning their research questions based on the initial draft of week 1. To achieve this, they read, and report texts related to the topic they seek to study. In class, we discuss what good introductions look like, and cover conceptual models. Required readings & assignments:

- McCombs, M. E., & Reynolds, A. (2008). How the News Shapes Our Civic Agenda. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd Edition)., pp. 1–16. New York: Routledge.

- Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: the evolution of three media effect models. Journal of Communication, 57, 2007.

- Djerf‐Pierre, M., & Shehata, A. (2017). Still an Agenda Setter: Traditional News Media and Public Opinion During the Transition From Low to High Choice Media Environments. Journal of Communication, 67(5), 733–757. doi:10.1111/jcom.12327

Revision Questions: - Explain what we mean with agenda setting and agenda building.

How are they related? - Compare the initial findings of McCombs & Shaw (1972) with the

discussion in McCombs & Reynolds (2008). How has our theoretical understanding of agenda setting evolved over three decades?

- What is the causal mechanism underlying agenda setting effects?

Week 3 Priming Priming extends agenda setting, and links shifts in salience of issues (but also other constructs) to shifts in behavior, decisions and judgments.

Required readings & assignments: - Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Carpentier, F. R. D.

(2008). Media Priming: an Updated Synthesis. In J. Bryant, D. Zillmann, & M. B. Oliver (Red.), Media Effects: Advances in theory and research (Third Edition) (pp. 74–93). Routledge.

- Van Der Brug, W., Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2006). Media Priming in a Multi-Party Context: A Controlled Naturalistic Study in Political Communication. Political Behavior, 29(1), 115–141. doi:10.1007/s11109-006-9020-7

- Higgins, E. T., & Brendl, C. M. (1995). Accessibility and Applicability: Some “Activation Rules” Influencing Judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 218–243. doi:doi: DOI: 10.1006/jesp.1995.1011

Revision questions:

- Explain what we mean with priming, and provide a hypothetical example to demonstrate that you understand how the effect works.

- How do accessibility and applicability explain priming effects? Which mechanism(s) do priming and agenda setting share?

Week 4 Framing This week, you need to read three texts on framing, which is one of the most-studied media effects in recent decades. Required readings & assignments:

- Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). News Framing Theory and Research. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Red.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd edition), pp. 17–34. New York: Routledge.

- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

- Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The End of Framing as we Know it … and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7–23. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811

Revision questions:

- Define framing, frame building, and frame setting. - Do you distinguish differences in how scholars have defined and

conceptualized framing effects? Do you agree with Cacciatore et al.? Why (not)?

- Explain how applicability drives framing effects.

Week 5 Cultivation theory Cultivation theory is one of the most long-standing theories of how communication affects us. Required readings & assignments:

- Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2008). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J.

Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 43–68). Mahwah N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

- Shrum, L. J. (2017). Cultivation Theory: Effects and Underlying Processes. In P. Rössler, C. A. Hoffner, & L. van Zoonen (Red.), The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects (pp. 1–12). Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. doi:10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0040

Week 6 Uses and Gratifications Work on Uses and Gratifications theory emphasizes, contrary to many other effects theories, the ways in which users of media actively use and consume media – and how this affects our understanding of what constitutes a media effect. Required readings & assignments:

- Rubin, A.M. (2008). Uses-and-gratifications Perspective on Media Effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Red.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd edition), pp. 165–185. New York: Routledge.

- Cooper, R., & Tang, T. (2009). Predicting Audience Exposure to Television in Today’s Media Environment: An Empirical Integration of Active-Audience and Structural Theories. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(3), 400–418. doi:10.1080/08838150903102204

Week 7 Mid-term Week

Mid-Term Exam – No Class

Week 8 The Elaboration Likelihood Model The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is one of the dominant models of understanding media effects, as it outlines a basic distinction in how audiences process messages – and are likely to be affected by them in turn. Required readings and assignments:

- Petty, R.E., Brinol, P. & Priester, J.R. (2008). Mass Media Attitude Change: Implications of the Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Red.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd edition), pp. 125–165. New York: Routledge.

- Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Cryderman, J. (2013). Communication, Persuasion, and the Conditioning Value of Selective Exposure: Like Minds May Unite and Divide but They Mostly Tune Out. Political Communication, 30(2), 213–231. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737424.

-

Week 9 Exemplification Theory Exemplars, which are regular people that appear in communication, often have profound effects on people’s perception of public opinion, and even people’s own opinions on policy. Required readings and assignments:

- Lefevere, J., Swert, K. D., & Walgrave, S. (2012). Effects of Popular Exemplars in Television News. Communication Research, 39(1), 103–119. doi:10.1177/0093650210387124

- Zillmann, D. (1999). Exemplification Theory: Judging the Whole by Some of Its Parts. Media Psychology, 1(1), 69–94.

Week 10

Third Person Effect “Media have an effect on others, but not me”. This quote pretty much sums up the third person effect, or the notion that people tend to believe that while communication affects others, they remain unaffected. Required readings and assignments:

- Davison, W. P. (1983). The Third-Person Effect in Communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47(1), 1.

- Diefenbach, D. L., & West, M. D. (2007). Television and attitudes toward mental health issues: Cultivation analysis and the third-person effect. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(2), 181–195. doi:10.1002/jcop.20142

Week 11 Communication Effects in Neighboring Fields This week, we examine the role of communication effects in two neighboring fields: marketing communications, and health communications. Required Readings and Assignments

- Rice. R.E. and Atkin, Charles K. (2008). Public Communication Campaigns: Theoretical Principles and Practical Applications. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Red.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd edition), pp. 436-469. New York: Routledge.

- Walsh-Childers, K.M. and Brown, J.D. (2008). Effects of Media on Personal and Public Health. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Red.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (3rd edition), pp. 469-490. New York: Routledge.

Week 12 Contingencies: Mediation and Moderation (1) Many media effects research has moved to expand on the original theories in two ways. First, researchers have looked to decompose the process through which communications affect audiences. Second, researchers have examined whether effects are contingent upon properties of the source, message and receiver. In weeks 12 and 13 we examine several examples of these refinements.

- Lecheler, S., & Vreese, C. H. de. (2012). News Framing and Public Opinion A Mediation Analysis of Framing Effects on Political Attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(2), 185–

204. doi:10.1177/1077699011430064. - Chapter 1 (Explanation & Mechanism) from VanderWeele, T. (2015).

Explanation in Causal Inference: Methods for Mediation and Interaction (1 edition.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Week 13 Contingencies: Mediation and Moderation (2) Many media effects research has moved to expand on the original theories in two ways. First, researchers have looked to decompose the process through which communications affect audiences. Second, researchers have examined whether effects are contingent upon properties of the source, message and receiver. In weeks 12 and 13 we examine several examples of these refinements.

- Walgrave, S., Lefevere, J., & Tresch, A. (2014). The limits of issue ownership dynamics: The constraining effect of party preference. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 24(1), 1–19. doi:10.1080/17457289.2013.811245

Week 14 Course Recap In the final week, we recap the course, reflect on the difficulties involved with establishing causality, and discuss what to expect on the final exam. In the second class of week 14, there is time for questions and clarifications on the course material from week 8 to week 13. Required readings and assignments:

- Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4), 821–837.

Week 15 Final Exam