Amy Wisner
- Courses2
- Reviews11
- School: University of Michigan - Stephen M. Ross School of Business
- Campus: Stephen M. Ross School of Business
- Department: Communication
- Email address: Join to see
- Phone: Join to see
-
Location:
701 Tappan Ave
Ann Arbor, MI - 48109 - Dates at University of Michigan: April 2017 - December 2019
- Office Hours: Join to see
N/A
Would take again: No
For Credit: Yes
0
0
Mandatory
Awful
Professor Wisner is very picky about little things which is what usually differentiates students on the very narrow distribution of grades. Only posts about half the slides, which is annoying. Aside from that it takes forever for her to grade things. She seems like the kind of professor you need to suck up for you to get a good score.
Biography
University of Michigan - Stephen M. Ross School of Business - Communication
Experience
Michigan State University
Business Communication Professor
Amy worked at Michigan State University as a Business Communication Professor
Viracor-IBT Laboratories, Inc.
Hospital Account Executive
MI, IL, MN, WI, ND, SD
Lansing Community College
Adjunct Professor
Amy worked at Lansing Community College as a Adjunct Professor
Ann Arbor Spartans
President
Amy worked at Ann Arbor Spartans as a President
University of Michigan - Stephen M. Ross School of Business
Business Communication Faculty
Amy worked at University of Michigan - Stephen M. Ross School of Business as a Business Communication Faculty
Education
Michigan State University
BA
Marketing
Michigan State University
PhD
Communication
Michigan State University
Business Communication Professor
University of Hawaii at Manoa
MA
Communicology
Publications
Sequential Persuasion Strategies: Testing Explanations for and the Generality of the Legitimization of Paltry Favors Effect
Communication Reports (Vol. 24, No. 2, July-December 2011, pp. 63-73)
The legitimization of paltry favors effect (LPF) is a sequential persuasion tactic whereby small contributions toward some overall compliance-gaining goal are linguistically minimized. An experiment was conducted to test whether self-presentation concerns or barrier removal better explains the LPF. Participants (N = 145) were approached and asked to volunteer for international student programs. Message strategy (LPF/no LPF) and beneficiary party (first-person/third-person) were varied. The data revealed neither main effects for message strategy or beneficiary party, nor any interaction between these variables. Results question the generality of the LPF, as well as the appropriateness of utilizing the LPF in volunteer solicitation efforts. Limitations and implications are discussed.
Sequential Persuasion Strategies: Testing Explanations for and the Generality of the Legitimization of Paltry Favors Effect
Communication Reports (Vol. 24, No. 2, July-December 2011, pp. 63-73)
The legitimization of paltry favors effect (LPF) is a sequential persuasion tactic whereby small contributions toward some overall compliance-gaining goal are linguistically minimized. An experiment was conducted to test whether self-presentation concerns or barrier removal better explains the LPF. Participants (N = 145) were approached and asked to volunteer for international student programs. Message strategy (LPF/no LPF) and beneficiary party (first-person/third-person) were varied. The data revealed neither main effects for message strategy or beneficiary party, nor any interaction between these variables. Results question the generality of the LPF, as well as the appropriateness of utilizing the LPF in volunteer solicitation efforts. Limitations and implications are discussed.
Information Manipulation Theory 2: A Propositional Theory of Deceptive Discourse Production
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
International Association of Language and Social Psychology Best Article Award (for articles published 2013-2015) Information Manipulation Theory 2 (IMT2) is a propositional theory of deceptive discourse production that conceptually frames deception as involving the covert manipulation of information along multiple dimensions and as a contextual problem- solving activity driven by the desire for quick, efficient, and viable communicative solutions. IMT2 is rooted in linguistics, cognitive neuroscience, speech production, and artificial intelligence. Synthesizing these literatures, IMT2 posits a central premise with regard to deceptive discourse production and 11 empirically testable (that is, falsifiable) propositions deriving from this premise. These propositions are grouped into three propositional sets: intentional states (IS), cognitive load (CL), and information manipulation (IM). The IS propositions pertain to the nature and temporal placement of deceptive volition, in relation to speech production. The CL propositions clarify the interrelationship between load, discourse, and context. The IM propositions identify the specific conditions under which various forms of information manipulation will (and will not) occur.
Sequential Persuasion Strategies: Testing Explanations for and the Generality of the Legitimization of Paltry Favors Effect
Communication Reports (Vol. 24, No. 2, July-December 2011, pp. 63-73)
The legitimization of paltry favors effect (LPF) is a sequential persuasion tactic whereby small contributions toward some overall compliance-gaining goal are linguistically minimized. An experiment was conducted to test whether self-presentation concerns or barrier removal better explains the LPF. Participants (N = 145) were approached and asked to volunteer for international student programs. Message strategy (LPF/no LPF) and beneficiary party (first-person/third-person) were varied. The data revealed neither main effects for message strategy or beneficiary party, nor any interaction between these variables. Results question the generality of the LPF, as well as the appropriateness of utilizing the LPF in volunteer solicitation efforts. Limitations and implications are discussed.
Information Manipulation Theory 2: A Propositional Theory of Deceptive Discourse Production
Journal of Language and Social Psychology
International Association of Language and Social Psychology Best Article Award (for articles published 2013-2015) Information Manipulation Theory 2 (IMT2) is a propositional theory of deceptive discourse production that conceptually frames deception as involving the covert manipulation of information along multiple dimensions and as a contextual problem- solving activity driven by the desire for quick, efficient, and viable communicative solutions. IMT2 is rooted in linguistics, cognitive neuroscience, speech production, and artificial intelligence. Synthesizing these literatures, IMT2 posits a central premise with regard to deceptive discourse production and 11 empirically testable (that is, falsifiable) propositions deriving from this premise. These propositions are grouped into three propositional sets: intentional states (IS), cognitive load (CL), and information manipulation (IM). The IS propositions pertain to the nature and temporal placement of deceptive volition, in relation to speech production. The CL propositions clarify the interrelationship between load, discourse, and context. The IM propositions identify the specific conditions under which various forms of information manipulation will (and will not) occur.
Hesitation to Share Bad News: By-Product of Verbal Message Planning or Functional Communication Behavior?
Communication Research (Vol. 42, No. 2, March 2015, pp. 213-236)
Published online before print. Research on bad news delivery reveals a reliable temporal delay in the onset of the bad news message from the sender to the receiver. Two experiments utilized a false feedback test design to determine whether the delay is better accounted for by negative verbal message planning, politeness, or both. Both studies (Ns = 135 and 138) featured participant-senders who delivered either scripted or unscripted good, neutral, or bad news to a stranger. News valence, delay before response, and reluctance were measured. Both experiments supported the functional politeness explanation. Study 2 also supported the negative verbal message–planning explanation. Implications and limitations are discussed.
