Exemplification Theory: Judging the Whole by Some of Its Parts

Exemplification is a ubiquitous phenomenon in communication. It permeates informative, educational and persuasive endeavors in both interpersonal exchanges and media presentations. Despite this, it has received little attention in communication research. Although its empirical exploration has begun and shown considerable promise, especially in the news context, a theoretical foundation has been missing. This essay attempts to remedy the neglect by conceptually scrutinizing the exemplification process. The relationship between exemplification and representation is given special attention, and exemplification strategies are extracted and their merits appraised. Exemplification is examined in different domains of communication, and the interface between direct and mediated experience is surveyed in conceptual terms. It is hoped that the analysis will foster a theoretical integration of the conceptually diverse and often eclectic research on exemplification effects.

[1]  Dolf Zillmann,et al.  Exaggerated Versus Representative Exemplification in News Reports , 1994 .

[2]  Dolf Zillmann,et al.  Effects of Victim Exemplification in Television News on Viewer Perception of Social Issues , 1996 .

[3]  Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person x situation effects on person perception: it's just a matter of time. , 1988 .

[4]  T. B. Ward.  Structured Imagination: the Role of Category Structure in Exemplar Generation , 1994, Cognitive Psychology.

[5]  B. Burns.  Percepts, concepts, and categories : the representation and processing of information , 1992 .

[6]  D. Krantz,et al.  The use of statistical heuristics in everyday inductive reasoning , 1983 .

[7]  Anthony N. Doob,et al.  Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? , 1979 .

[8]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  The Temporal Effects of Story and Statistical Evidence on Belief Change , 1994 .

[9]  Edward Krupat,et al.  Generalizing From Atypical Cases: How General a Tendency? , 1997 .

[10]  John M. Pearce,et al.  CHAPTER 5 – Discrimination and Categorization , 1994 .

[11]  J. Bargh,et al.  Nature of Priming Effects on Categorization , 1985 .

[12]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. , 1992, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  Hans-Bernd Brosius,et al.  The Utility of Exemplars in Persuasive Communications , 1994 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[15]  E. Higgins.  Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. , 1996 .

[16]  Felicia Pratto,et al.  Automatic Affect , 1988 .

[17]  Pawel Lewicki,et al.  Nonconscious Social Information Processing , 1986 .

[18]  Ron Tamborini,et al.  Fear and Victimization: Exposure to Television and Perceptions of Crime and Fear , 1984 .

[19]  J. Bargh.  Automaticity in social psychology. , 1996 .

[20]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability , 1973 .

[21]  The Hebron massacre, selective reports of Jewish reactions, and perceptions of volatility in Israel , 1996 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Representations of perceptions of risks , 1984 .

[23]  R. Geen,et al.  The Immediate Effects of Media Violence on Behavior , 1986 .

[24]  Dolf Zillmann,et al.  Effects of Exemplification in News Reports on the Perception of Social Issues , 1996 .

[25]  F. Hayes-Roth,et al.  Concept learning and the recognition and classification of exemplars , 1977 .

[26]  E. Rosch,et al.  Categorization of Natural Objects , 1981 .

[27]  A. Tversky,et al.  Subjective Probability: A Judgment of Representativeness , 1972 .

[28]  Joan B. Levine,et al.  The Feminine Routine , 1976 .

[29]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Self-awareness, psychological perspective, and self-reinforcement in relation to personal and social standards. , 1979 .

[30]  J. Bargh.  Automatic and conscious processing of social information. , 1984 .