Daniel J. O’Keefe
Owen L. Coon Professor Emeritus
Department of Communication Studies
Northwestern University
STATEMENT OF RESEARCH INTERESTS
One of the defining problems
in communication research is understanding the role of persuasive messages in
human decision-making. It was one of the first major foci for social-scientific
research on human communication and for over sixty years has been a significant
and central area of inquiry. Given the large number of persuasion studies
generated, it is striking that so little attention has been devoted to research
synthesis in this area. My work has taken up the project of organizing and
synthesizing this substantial body of work on the effects of messages on
persuasion and hence addresses the distinctive problems associated with the
development of dependable generalizations about persuasive message effects.
This involves both methodological and substantive work, the latter especially,
though not exclusively, in the form of meta-analytic research.
In general my work on
persuasion research synthesis might be seen as representing a “bottom-up”
approach, in the sense that it seeks to derive and integrate findings from the
large number of extant persuasion effects studies, in contrast to an approach
that seeks synthesis through the application of a single general theoretical
framework to various diverse research phenomena. These two enterprises, of
course, are naturally interdependent; the identification of dependable
generalizations both feeds and is fed by general theorizing. But (to invoke
Isaiah Berlin’s distinction) I am by inclination a fox rather than a hedgehog.
One requirement for sound
generalizations about persuasive message effects is evidence derived from
multiple messages (message replications). In primary research on persuasion,
the widespread use of single-message research designs—perhaps encouraged by an underelaborated conception of message structure and
features—has created barriers to generalization (e.g., because such designs are
insensitive to the possibility of between-message variation in effect). Given
commonly observed message-to-message variability in effects, only replications
(whether between or within studies) provide evidentiary security for
generalizations about messages.
Against this backdrop it may
be easy to appreciate the special attractiveness that meta-analytic methods
have for research synthesis in persuasion effects, as these methods offer not
only systematic means of providing quantitative summaries of a body of research
but also specifically a means of addressing weaknesses attendant to
single-message designs. Thus although I have pursued the substantive task of
persuasion-effects research synthesis through several avenues, including a book
that provides a general review of the persuasion literature (O’Keefe, 2016, Persuasion) and various general summary
pieces (O’Keefe, 2008, International
encyclopedia of communication; O’Keefe, 2013, Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 36;
O’Keefe, 2015, Concise encyclopedia of
communication; O’Keefe, 2016, International encyclopedia of communication
and philosophy; O’Keefe, 2018, Oxford
Bibliographies in Communication; O’Keefe, 2019, Handbook of communication skills), one important focus of my work
has been the application of meta-analytic methods to the persuasion effects
literature. To date this meta-analytic work has addressed a variety of specific
phenomena, including the effects of variations in gain-loss message framing
(O’Keefe & Jensen, 2006, Annals of
the International Communication Association; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2007, Journal of Health Communication; O’Keefe
& Jensen, 2008, Communication Studies;
O’Keefe & Jensen, 2009, Journal of
Communication, O’Keefe & Nan, 2012, Health
Communication; O’Keefe & Wu, 2012, International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; O’Keefe, 2017, Oxford research encyclopedia of
communication), message sidedness (O’Keefe, 1999, Annals of the International Communication Association), conclusion
omission and conclusion specificity (O’Keefe, 1997, Argumentation and Advocacy; O’Keefe, 2002, Advances in pragma-dialectics), justification explicitness
(O’Keefe, 1998, Argumentation and Advocacy),
guilt appeals (O’Keefe, 2000, Annals of
the International Communication Association; O’Keefe, 2002, The persuasion handbook), cultural
adaptation of advertising appeals (Hornikx & O’Keefe, 2009, Annals of the International Communication
Association; Hornikx et al., in
press, International Journal of
Business Communication), and the door-in-the-face strategy (O’Keefe &
Hale, 1998, Annals of the International
Communication Association; O’Keefe &Hale, 2001, Communication Research Reports). O’Keefe and Hoeken (2021, Frontiers in Psychology) provides an
overview of this and other meta-analytic work in persuasion.
The long-term objective of
this research is a deeper understanding of persuasion processes and effects.
Meta-analytic research is of course synthetic work, aiming at integrating
primary research findings in a given line of inquiry. But my synthetic interest
also reflects a broader motivation not only to summarize this or that
individual body of studies but also to connect otherwise-separated lines of
work. For example, I have sought links between research on the door-in-the-face
influence strategy and research on guilt arousal as an influence mechanism
(e.g., O’Keefe & Figgé, 1997, Human Communication Research; O’Keefe
& Figgé, 1999, Communication Monographs; O’Keefe, 2000, Annals of the International Communication Association; O’Keefe,
2002, The persuasion handbook; see
also O’Keefe, 1999, Communication Studies).
As another example, I have tried to show the close relationships among such
diverse research subjects as threat appeal variations, promotion-oriented vs.
prevention-oriented appeals, strong vs. weak arguments, and gain-framed vs.
loss-framed appeals (O’Keefe, 2013, Annals
of the International Communication Association, vol. 36). The more general
hope is that stitching together the fabric of research findings across diverse
phenomena will help unravel the puzzles of persuasion.
This focal interest in the
synthesis of persuasion effects research is naturally aligned with several
other related lines of work. One explores the implications of persuasion
research for other domains (e.g., O’Keefe & Medway, 1997, Journal of School Psychology; Kreuter et
al., 2007, Annals of Behavioral Medicine).
Of special interest here is the relationship of persuasion research to
argumentation studies, in which I have long-standing interests (e.g., O’Keefe,
1977, Journal of the American Forensic Association; O’Keefe, 1982, Advances
in argumentation theory and research). My work in this area has especially
emphasized the interplay of descriptive and normative considerations in
persuasion and argumentation (e.g., O’Keefe, 2003, Proceedings of the fifth conference of the International Society for
the Study of Argumentation; O’Keefe, 2006, Considering pragma-dialectics; O’Keefe, 2007, Argumentation; O’Keefe, 2012, Argumentation).
A second area of related
research is conceptual work focused on problems of data analysis and research
design, especially as these arise in the study of persuasion. This work
addresses issues such as message pretesting procedures (O’Keefe, 2018, Journal of Communication; O’Keefe, 2020,
Communication Methods and Measures;
O’Keefe, 2021, Journal of Communication),
the assessment of persuasive effects (O’Keefe, 1993, Communication Studies; O’Keefe, 2013, Annals of the International Communication Association, vol. 37;
O’Keefe, 2021, Journal of Communication),
the identification of design features that permit dependable generalization
(Jackson et al., 1994, Journalism
Quarterly; O’Keefe, 1999, Document
Design), the appropriate analysis of data in common persuasion-effects
research designs (O’Keefe, 2003, Communication
Theory; O’Keefe, 2003, Human
Communication Research; O’Keefe, 2007, Communication
Methods and Measures; O’Keefe,
2023, Communication Methods and
Measures; O’Keefe, 2024, Communication Methods and Measures), the
appropriate understanding of effect sizes in message effects research (O’Keefe,
2017, Communication Methods and Measures),
and the conduct of meta-analyses in this domain (O’Keefe, 1991, Communication Monographs; O’Keefe, 2015,
Health Communication). Broadly
speaking, this works aims to encourage better alignment of claims and evidence
in message effects research.
Two threads run through much
of this conceptual work. One is the importance of the close analysis of message
properties (e.g., O’Keefe, 1994, Communication
Theory; O’Keefe & Jackson, 1995, Argumentation
and values; O’Keefe, 2003, Communication
Theory; O’Keefe, 2013, Annals of the
International Communication Association, vol. 36; Hoeken & O’Keefe,
2022, Human Communication Research).
The other is the questioning of some familiar and long-standing—but, upon
inspection, dubious—research practices. It’s common to think that one should
always have message manipulation checks—but arguably one shouldn’t (O’Keefe,
2003, Communication Theory). It’s
common to think that one should use Bonferroni-like alpha-adjustment procedures
when multiple significance tests are conducted—but arguably one shouldn’t
(O’Keefe, 2003, Human Communication
Research). It’s common to think that when one’s research question concerns
the relative persuasiveness of two messages, one should be careful to
distinguish attitudinal, intention, and behavioral assessments—but arguably one
shouldn’t (O’Keefe, 2013, Annals of the
International Communication Association, vol. 37; O’Keefe, 2021, Journal of Communication). It’s common
to think that in message effects research, effect sizes describe the size of
the effect of a message on an outcome—but they don’t (O’Keefe, 2017, Communication Methods and Measures).
It’s common to think that assessments of perceived persuasiveness generally
provide good indicators of relative actual persuasiveness—but arguably they
don’t (O’Keefe, 2018, Journal of
Communication; O’Keefe, 2020, Communication
Methods and Measures). The larger aim of all this conceptual work is to
encourage more careful and reflective thinking about message effects research,
to the end of better understanding of message effects themselves.
Daniel J. O’Keefe home page
Department
of Communication Studies
School of Communication
Northwestern University