Daniel J. O’Keefe
Professor
Department of Communication Studies
Northwestern University
STATEMENT OF RESEARCH INTERESTS
My research record includes
work on such subjects as argumentation (e.g., O’Keefe, 1977, in Journal
of the American Forensic Association; O’Keefe, 1982, in Advances
in argumentation theory and research), rhetorical and communication theory
(e.g., Grossberg and O’Keefe, 1975, in Quarterly Journal of Speech;
O’Keefe, 1978, in Rhetoric Society Quarterly; O’Keefe, 1979,
in Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior; O’Keefe, 1989, in Rethinking
communication), and interpersonal communication theory and methods (e.g.,
O’Keefe and Sypher, 1981, in Human Communication Research; Delia,
O’Keefe, and O’Keefe, 1982, in Human communication theory;
O’Keefe, Shepherd, and Streeter, 1982, in Central States Speech
Journal), but my primary research focus has been persuasion.
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 fifty 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,
2002, Persuasion) and broad summary
pieces (O’Keefe, 2001, in Encyclopedia
of rhetoric; O’Keefe, 2004, in Perspectives
on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining; O’Keefe,
2006, in Handbook of communication skills;
O’Keefe, 2008, in International
encyclopedia of communication), 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, in Communication
Yearbook; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2007, in Journal of Health Communication; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2008,
in Communication Studies), message
sidedness (O’Keefe, 1999, in Communication
Yearbook), conclusion omission and conclusion specificity (O’Keefe,
1997, in Argumentation and Advocacy;
O’Keefe, 2002, in Advances in
pragma-dialectics), justification explicitness (O’Keefe, 1998, in Argumentation and Advocacy), guilt
appeals (O’Keefe, 2000, in Communication
Yearbook; O’Keefe, 2002, in The
persuasion handbook), and the door-in-the-face strategy (O’Keefe and
Hale, 1998, in Communication Yearbook;
O’Keefe and Hale, 2001, in Communication
Research Reports). A number of additional meta-analytic reviews of
persuasion phenomena are underway.
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 and Figge, 1997, in Human
Communication Research; O’Keefe and Figge, 1999, in Communication Monographs; O’Keefe,
2000, in Communication Yearbook;
O’Keefe, 2002, in The persuasion
handbook; see also O’Keefe, 1999, in Communication Studies). 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 and Medway, 1997, in Journal of School Psychology; Kreuter et
al., 2007, in Annals of Behavioral
Medicine). Of special interest here is the relationship of persuasion research
to argumentation studies—and particularly the interplay of descriptive
and normative considerations in persuasion and argumentation (e.g., O’Keefe,
2003, in Proceedings of the fifth
conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation;
O’Keefe, 2006, in Considering pragma-dialectics; O’Keefe, 2007, in Argumentation).
A second area of related work
addresses various methodological aspects of persuasion effects research,
including issues such as the assessment of persuasive effects (O’Keefe,
1993, in Communication Studies), the
identification of design features that permit dependable generalization (e.g.,
Jackson, O’Keefe, and Brashers, 1994, in Journalism Quarterly; O’Keefe, 1999, in Document Design), the appropriate analysis of data in common
persuasion-effects research designs (O’Keefe, 2003, in Communication Theory; see also
O’Keefe, 2003, in Human
Communication Research, and O’Keefe, 2007, in Communication Methods and Measures), and the conduct of
meta-analyses in this domain (O’Keefe, 1991, in Communication Monographs). An underlying theme in much of this work
is the importance of close analysis of message properties (e.g., O’Keefe,
1994, in Communication Theory;
O’Keefe and Jackson, 1995, in Argumentation
and values; O’Keefe, 2003, in Communication
Theory).
A third, more recent, line of
work applies meta-analytic procedures to another domain of message effects,
namely, social support. Dale Brashers (University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign), Daena Goldsmith (Lewis and Clark), and I are undertaking a
synthesis of research on the effects of social support on HIV/AIDS patients;
this work is supported by a $1.1 million grant from the National Institute of
Mental Health. A very large number of studies have been conducted examining how
variations in social support (such as having an extensive network of people on
whom to rely or having received emotional or tangible support) might affect the
psychological (e.g., depression), behavioral (e.g., treatment adherence), and
physical functioning of HIV/AIDS patients. Despite the large number of studies,
little has been done to systematically review such research. Our project
involves both a meta-analysis of existing quantitative studies and a systematic
integration of existing qualitative research (such as ethnographies).
Daniel J. O’Keefe
home page
Department
of Communication Studies
School of Communication
Northwestern University