USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
More information will be attached in the attachment.Length: 8-10pages
Research Proposals
The final paper for this class should propose a fusion, recasting, or innovative test of a persuasion theory that has been examined in this class. The goal of this assignment is to write a paper that is as close to a research study as possible. When reading through your articles for this essay, you probably encountered either theoretical reformulations (extending or fusing theories of persuasion), empirical tests (testing the theory on a sample of subjects using some experimental method), or measurement articles (creating a scale by which to measure a persuasive phenomenon). For your paper, you should use one of these three types of articles as a model:
1) you can take existing theories and fuse them together in a new and exciting way, 2) you can take an existing theory and test it in a new context, or
3) you can incorporate new factors regarding persuasion into a scale that helps us measure the construct.
The annotated bibliography should serve as a guide for the literature review section of your paper—where you lay the foundations for your fusion/study. In addition to the literature review, you should compose a methods section which lays out the steps by which you want to test your theory in an innovative context. Ideally, a perfect paper for this class involves an introduction, literature review, methods section, anticipated results/data analysis, and finally a discussion section—an outline follows:
I. Introduction
A. Hook or Attention Grabber.
B. Significance, Purpose, & Scope of your investigation (why it is important and how it relates to persuasion).
C. Thesis Statement that Previews your analysis.
II. Body
A. The primary theory that you are investigating.
1. A summary of the theory and its major premises.
2. Your research that demonstrates a depth further than the textbook.
3. The current state of the theory including its future directions.
B. A new context or another theory that can be conjoined to your primary theory.
1. A summary of research about the other theory or studies conducted in the specific context.
2. Why the new context illuminates uncharted areas of the theory—what the context brings to the table OR how a different theory’s focus can illuminate an undiscovered aspect of your original theory.
3. Identifying what persuasive aspects or tactics would change in the new context or with the new theory.
C. Fusion of context/theory.
1. Identify what would be foregrounded in a theoretical fusion or what new aspect of persuasion would be investigated with a multi-theoretical approach.
2. How you would conduct a study to test your idea: the design, the participants, the procedure, the materials, what types of data collection you would use, and how you would measure the primary variables in your study.
3. What results you would anticipate if you had all of the available resources to conduct your study—bring it to its finale.
4. Discuss what limitations you may face and what future directions other communication researchers may take to further extend your analysis.
III. Conclusion
A. Restate your major points and summarize the central argument of your theoretical fusion or context.
B. End with a final note that ties your essay back to your significance—how does your investigation answer some of the major questions/problems you originally introduced.
***Remember to add in your own experiences, actually u can make it up**
but be aware that I am an international student from Hong Kong. Therefore, becareful when giving out examples. Thank you.
And u can use my other document as the article if it’s application to what u wanna write. I am using “Cognitive Dissonance” as my main theory, but u can feel free to add another concept and fuse them together to make a new concept. Or just use the “Cognitive Dissonance” to test in new context. Thank you.
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY 3
Adams, J. S., Berkowitz, L. & Hatfield, E. (1976). Equity theory: Towards the general
theory of social interaction. New York: Academic Press.
The three authors of this book consider the theory of cognitive dissonance as, one that proposes that individuals should have motivational drive that reduces dissonance by way of altering the existing forms of cognitions. They also propose that the drive should also form new consistent belief systems, or even reduce the significance of any single element of dissonance. They consider the theory as one based on the proposition that if a person has two forms of cognitions which may be inconsistent with one another, he or she will experience some pressure of a motivational state referred to as cognitive dissonance. They argue that if a person has two forms of cognitions which may be inconsistent with one another, he or she will experience some pressure of a motivational state referred to as cognitive dissonance. This pressure seeks to alter either of the dissonant cognition. This book acts a source that identifies the major propositions within which the theory lies.
Akerlof, G. A., & Dickens, W. T. (1982). Economic consequences of cognitive
Dissonance. American economic review, 72(3): 307–319.
In this book, Akerlof and Dickens came up with an economic model of the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. The two explain the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance using three simplified propositions. The first one they consider is the development of preferences of the actual state in addition to the traditional assumption over the actual state of the world; they also tend to have preferences over their own beliefs of the actual state of the world. They give an example of people believing that they are smart and compassionate. The other proposition is that people can only control their beliefs partially. They tend to belief what they choose to, if given some information. They also always chose the information to listen to. According to the authors, people prefer to think themselves as smarter, and they always tend to ignore any information that may suggest they made a wrong decision. The last proposition is that, once a particular person tends to choose his beliefs, they always persist over time.
Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: Fifty years of a classic theory. Los Angeles:
SAGE Publ.
In his book, Cooper identifies cognitive dissonance as one of the most influential form of theories in the field of social psychology. He considers its oldest realization as the choice induced sort of dissonance. He claims that people always tend to rationalize past choices by way of devaluing the rejected alternatives and instead upgrading the embraced ones. He refers to this process as preference spreading. He demonstrates that every study he tested suffered from a fundamental form of methodological flaw. His analysis assumes that before any choices are made, the preferences of a subject can perfectly be measured with accurate precision, and under appreciate the fact that the choice of a subject reflects on their preferences.
Festinger, L. (1957). Theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University
Press.
This is a book that focuses on Festinger’s research that was conducted in the mid-twentieth century. He focused on the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance where he considered an individual’s behavior as being congruent with his or her own perception, belief structures, knowledge structures, feelings, beliefs And central values. Beliefs, behavior, attitudes or the central core values are considered being subject to change in a situation where a person opts to acquire an inner form of equilibrium, known as cognitive consonance back into balance. At such a stage, the individual starts psychological processes that bring the inner self’s current experiences into harmony.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory
in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Harmon-Jones and Mills evaluate the choices that can induce rationalization. They reason that mere choice as a form of rationalization may not be adequate. They recommend for a reversal that may significantly alter the normal way of thinking on the whole issue of cognitive dissonance.
Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1983). Towards cognitive science of language, inference and
consciousness. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press.
Johnson is a significant cognitive psychologist from Britain whose whole insight lies on the works of cognitive science of logic and the way individuals learn to deal with propositional inferences. His works in this book outline a number of experiments he and his fellow colleagues performed. He argues against the view of the minds that reduce all the mental operations to a particular propositional form of logic. He also argues against accountings that are image based for arguments about the real formation of a propositional logic. This includes works that have been done in analysing whether propositions actually come from analogies of the Venn diagrams and the Euler circles. He claims that reasoning based on propositions purely rests on the knowledge presentations called mental models. These models are considered as spatial tableaus.
Jordan, N., & Institute for Defense Analyses. (1964). Theory of a cognitive
dissonance. Washington: Institute for Defense Analyses. Economic and Political,
Studies Div.
Jordan with the support of the Institute for Defense Analyses published a book that examines the idea behind cognitive dissonance. He also examines the psychological literature for evidence of cognitive dissonance. The institution has conducted several psychological experiments that have found evidence on the existence of cognitive dissonance. In an example, race tracking bettors put much higher odds on the horse only after they have made a bet and not before hand. In another survey, he considers subjects asked to treat other forms of subjects cruelly reduce their opinions of the individual they are treating cruelly. This makes them feel that the treatment is justified even though it is cruel. The book assists in identifying the actual sources of dissonance.
Reizenstein, R. C. (1970). An application of the theory of cognitive dissonance to
determination of the effectiveness of two principle personal selling techniques.
New York, NY: Ithaca.
The handbook by Reizenstein tries to carry out the tentative assessment of the dissonant cognitive theory. He also in turn proposes a set of criteria that assess the objective theories. They propose the criterion of assessment that involves data explanation, relative simplicity, future events prediction, testability, as well as practical utility. He considers the theory as significantly effective in predicting and explaining the human behavior, even though its real expectations have faced a challenge of receiving weak confirmations and the emergence of unanticipated findings. This source is a handbook that assists in evaluating the significance of dissonance.
