COMM 700 Maibach 2015 p.

COMM 700
Developing and Testing Social Science Theory
Fall 2015
Location: Aquia 213

Day & Time: Wednesday, 4:30 to 7:10

Instructor: Ed Maibach, MPH, PhD

Office: Research 1 Room 251
Office phone: 703.993.1587
Email address: emaibach@gmu.edu
Office hour: Wednesdays, 3:00 or by appt.
1. Course Description
In this course we will explore the process of developing and testing social science
theories. This involves close examination of the components and mechanisms of theory
namely, constructs and the (causal) relationships among them. The course will give you a
rigorous basis for social science inquiry that can be used in quantitative and qualitative
research methods.
The doctoral seminar is structured in the manner of a workshop; every member of the
workshop will be expected to take equal responsibility for the discussion. Each of us will
read extensively, think deeply, come prepared to co-lead every class session, and
occasionally make formal presentations to one another.
2.
Course Objectives
The specific learning objectives are to:
Enhance your capacity to critically interrogate a construct and derive its essential
features: this is called the process of explication.
Understand the components and mechanisms of a theoryconstructs and the
causal relationships among them.
Become proficient in the process of developing social science theory.
3. Readings
We will be reading articles (posted in Blackboard), and these books (which are
inexpensive and excellent):

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Explication. Communication concepts. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications Inc. [This book it out of print; a PDF is posted in Blackboard.]
Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social
science theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

COMM 700 Maibach 2015 p.

Recommended additional readings (for winter break):

E.O. Wilsons (2013) Letters to a young scientist. New York: Liveright.
Stuart Firesteins (2012) Ignorance, how it drives science. New York: Oxford.
For reference only:
A list of social science theories maintained by the University of Twente
[http://www.utwente.nl/cw/theorieenoverzicht]
A list of health behavior constructs maintained by the National Cancer Institute
[http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/constructs/index.html].
4. Requirements
Your grade for this course will be determined by the following three assignments:
Class Participation (25 points). You are expected to critically analyze the readings, raise
and answer questions, connect key ideas between readings, and express your point of
view in every class session. Please come to each class session prepared to co-lead the
discussion.
Explication paper + oral presentation of the explication (25 points). In 8-10 doublespaced pages (plus references), explicate an existing social science construct. As you will
learn from Chaffee (1991), an explication is a rigorous process of examination to define a
construct (conceptually and empirically), distinguish it from other constructs, and
consider how we can use it in research to better understand the observable world.
Constructs you cannot select because we will be reading strong explications of them
are: mass media, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, social identity, and political will. You
will present your explication to the class on October 21st.
Final Paper + oral presentation (50 points). In 15-20 double-spaces pages (plus
references) propose a research project involving two (or if necessary three) variables, one
of which must be the construct you previously explicated. Specifically, identify a
hypothesized relationship between the explicated concept and a 2nd variable that you
believe influences it (a causal antecedent), or that it influences (a casual consequence).
Alternatively, your originally explicated concept can be a mediating or moderating
variable that influences the relationship between two other variables, leading to a
proposal containing 3 variables. Please note that the first half of this paper can be a
revision of your explication paper. The point of this paper is to develop a rigorous
theoretical statement i.e., a statement of hypothesized relationship(s) between two or
three clearly identified constructs. However, your paper should also include (i.e., end
with) some preliminary ideas about how you would test your hypothesis. An indicator of
a strong proposal is that if your hypothesis were to be confirmed your research would
make a contribution to the literature by clarifying or extending prior findings in the
literature. Your final paper is due on December 9th, and you will present your proposal to
the class on either December 9th or 16th.

COMM 700 Maibach 2015 p.

5. Grades: I encourage you to focus on learning, rather than the grade. That said,
because grades are required, I will use the standard Mason grading scale (A=90 to 100; B
= 80 to 89; anything lower is not a passing grade). If you apply yourself, you will get a
grade that you feel is fair.
Note: All readings are to be completed BEFORE the indicated class session.
See References for full citations.
Week 1

Theme: Introduction. The theoretical life

Sept 2

Readings:
(Kahneman, 2011) (To be completed before the first day of class)
Comm 700 What I learned
Theme: Our building blocks: Concepts, Variables
Readings:
(Shoemaker, Tankard, & Lasorsa, 2004, chap. 1, 2)
Witte, K (2013)
(Bandura, 2005) The evolution of social cognitive theory
Bandura (2001) Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective
Bandura (2002) Social cognitive theory of mass communication
Lecture: Unpacking Banduras social cognitive theory
Theme: Explication
Readings:
(Chaffee, 1991)
(Chaffee & Berger, 1987)
Assignment: What construct will you explicate?
Theme: Explication applied
Reading:
(Thaker, 2012, Chapter 2 only - through page 48 - the explication of
collective efficacy)
Potter, J. (2013) Synthesizing a working definition of mass media
Abdelal et al. (2006) Identity as a variable
Post et al. (2010) Defining political will
Ginsburg (2007) The importance of play [Note: How do the authors
explicate play?]
Theme: Linking Variables.
Readings:
(Shoemaker et al., 2004, chap. 3, 4)
Chabris & Simons (2013) Does this ad make me look fat?
Reynolds (2015) The joy of (just the right amount) of sex
Shen & Dillard (2014) Threat, fear & persuasion
(Cohen, 1990) Things I have learned (so far)

Week 2
Sept 9

Week 3
Sept 16

Week 4
Sept 23

Week 5
Sept 30

COMM 700 Maibach 2015 p.

Week 6
Oct 7

Week 7
Oct 14

Week 8
Oct 21
Week 9
Oct 28

Week 10

Assignment: Find an award-winning (recent) dissertation of interest to you:

What was the main construct? How well was it explicated? Was it used as A
(an IV), B (a DV), or as a mediating or moderating variables?
Workshop your explications
Come prepared to show your work thus far on your explication. Think of
this less as a presentation of finished product, and more as an opportunity to
solicit feedback that will clarify and improve your thinking.
At end of class, join a methodological team: become a positivist,
interpretivist or critical theorist.
Theme: Metatheory and philosophy of science
Readings:
(Kuhn, 1996, chap. 24, 9)
(L. Neuman, 1997)
Pavitt, 1999
Optional: Pavitt (2001) chapter 1
Optional: Chang (2011) The philosophical grammar of scientific
practice
Assignment: Each team (positivists, interpretivists & critical theorists) will
give a 10- minute pitch to members of the Mason Dissertation Research
Grant Committee (which is composed of faculty and PhD from across the
university) requesting dissertation funding to study the impact of social media
on university students. Make clear why you think this is an important
question, the methods you will use, and why your philosophical approach
(positivism/scientific realism, interpretive social science, or critical social
science) is the superior option for shedding light on this question.
Explication Presentations
Give a concise oral presentation with a supporting PPT of your concept
explication.
Theme: History of communication theory, and current tensions
Readings:
(Katz, 1987)
(Neuman & Guggenheim, 2011)
Lang, A. (2013) + Perloff Response to Lang (2013) + Lang response
(Clarke & Primo, 2012)
Frank & Gleiser (2015) A crisis at the edge of physics
(Kagan, 2012)
Stevens 2012
Gutting 2012
Lam (2015) The new science of bad science
Aschwanden (2015) Science isnt broken. Read this online at:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/
Theme: Multivariate Thinking and Levels of Analysis
Readings:

COMM 700 Maibach 2015 p.

Nov 4

Week 11
Nov 11

Week 12
Nov 18

Nov 25

Week 13
Dec 2

(Shoemaker et al., 2004, chap. 5, 6)

(McLeod et al., 2010)
Slater et al 2006
Abroms & Maibach, 2008
Kim & Ball-Rokeach (2006)
Floyd (2014) Humans are people too
For future reference only: Hayes (2006) Primer on multi-level
modeling
3/4 hour of workshop time to discuss your AB hypothesis
Theme: Theory, Model Building, and Comparing Theory.
Readings:
(Shoemaker et al., 2004, chap. 5, 6)
(McLeod et al., 2010)
3/4 hour of workshop time to discuss your AB hypothesis
(Shoemaker et al., 2004, chap. 7, 9)
(Reynolds, 1971, chap. 5)
Pencil (1976) [Note: A bit of levity to wake you up after the Reynolds
chapter.]
Levine, T. (2013)
1.5 hours of workshop time to discuss your AB hypothesis
Theme: Linking Theory and Method, Creativity and Inspiration
Readings:
(King, Keohane, & Verba, 1994, chap. 1)
(Shoemaker et al., 2004, chap. 8)
Slater (2013) Content analysis as a foundation for programmatic
research
(Bodemer & Ruggeri, 2012)
Uzzi (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact
Lungeanu & Contractor (2014) The effects of diversity & network ties
Maibach (2015) Two heuristics chapter [Note: Pay special attention to
Fischhoffs model for improving science communication.]
Professor Zhaos scholarship profile
McDonnell (2015) Creating a research brand
Thanksgiving Break
Readings:
Re-read Comm 700 What I learned (in Week 1 folder)
Theme: Place of Theory in Research
Readings:
(Reynolds, 1971, chap. 7, 8)
(Firestein, 2012) What science wants to know
Wilson (2013) Great scientist (is not equal to) good at math
Hayes (2013) When you have something good, stick with it

COMM 700 Maibach 2015 p.

Week 14
Dec 9
Dec 16

Smith (2010) Five proposals (for improving articles)

Glass (2000) Letter from a frustrated author
Nicholas (2011) How to do a good peer-review
Jenquist (2015) A plea for reasoned reviewers
Maibach (undated) Grant writing A guide for the perplexed
Folder containing Amy Chadwicks adventure in getting her
dissertation findings published in Health Communication
Final papers due.
Final presentations Part 1.
Final presentations Part 2.

General Notes:
Possible Changes to the Syllabus
As the instructor, I reserve the right to make changes to the syllabus. Students will be
given ample notice regarding any major changes to the course plan.
Attendance and participation
I consider class attendance extremely important to your understanding of the class
materials. You are expected to attend every class session. If you cannot attend a class
session, please notify me in advance by email (emaibach@gmu.edu).
No Cell Phone Use in Class
Please make sure to turn off your cell phones before class. I will keep my cell phone on in
the event of emergency alerts by the university.
Communication about Grades
If you have a question or a concern with any grade received, you should contact me
within three class periods of receiving that grade.
Email Use
Email is a great way to stay in touch even after school hours. I encourage you to use
email to communicate with me. However, when you email me, please make sure that you
identify yourself clearly using both your full name and the course number.
Honor Code
George Mason University students are expected to adhere to the Honor Code; please
familiarize yourself with the Honor Code if you have not already done so. All papers,
projects, and exams are to be original and prepared for this class. Papers and projects for

COMM 700 Maibach 2015 p.

this class may be related to a task in another class, but you must get specific permission
from both instructors. While hired typists and proofreaders are permitted, your exams,
papers, and projects must be your own work.
Student Notification of Grades
Grade reports are not automatically mailed to students at the end of the term. Instead,
students may access their grades by calling 4GMU (703-993-4468) or by checking
http://webGMU.gmu.edu for the grade report.
Incompletes or Withdrawals
The situations in which an incomplete can be given are specified very clearly in the
university catalogue, which indicates that such a grade may be given 'to a student who is
passing a course but who may be unable to complete scheduled course work for a cause
beyond reasonable control. Along the same lines, the policies regulating withdrawal are
clearly specified in the catalogue, but they are granted ONLY for non-academic reasons.
Reasonable Accommodation
Any student in this course who has a disability that may prevent him or her from fully
demonstrating his or her abilities should contact the instructor or the course directors as
soon as possible so that the necessary accommodations can be made to ensure full
participation and facilitate the students educational opportunities. A Disability Support
Services office is available on campus to assist students with special needs. If you have a
disability or suspect you might have a disability, contact this office at 703-993-2474. If
you have a disability that will require assistance, let your instructor know within the first
two weeks of this course.

COMM 700 Maibach 2015 p.

References
Abroms, L. & Maibach, E. (2008) The effectiveness of mass communication to change
public behavior. Annual Review of Public Health, 29:16.1-16.16.
Bandura, A. (2005). The evolution of social cognitive theory. In K. Smith & M. Hitt (eds)
Great Minds in Management: The Process of Theory Development. pgs. 9-35.
Bodemer, N., & Ruggeri, A. (2012). Finding a Good Research Question, in Theory.
Science, 335(6075), 14391439. doi:10.1126/science.335.6075.1439-a
Chabris, C. & Simons, D. (2013) Does this ad make me look fat? New York Times,
March 8th.
Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Explication. Communication concepts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications Inc.
Chaffee, S. H., & Berger, C. (1987). What Communication Scientists Do. In C. Berger &
S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of Communication Science (pp. 99122). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Clarke, K. A., & Primo, D. M. (2012, March 30). The Social Sciences Physics Envy.
The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/the-social-sciences-physicsenvy.html
Delia, J. (1987). Communication Research: A History. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.),
Handbook of Communication Science (pp. 2098). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Firestein, S. (2012). What Science Wants to Know: An impenetrable mountain of facts
can obscure the deeper questions. Scientific American. Retrieved from
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-science-wants-to-kno
Kagan, J. (2012). Psychologys Missing Contexts. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Psychologys-MissingContexts/131430/
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: scientific
inference in qualitative research. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Lang, A. (2013) Discipline in crisis? The shifting paradigm of mass communication
research. Communication Theory, 23, 10-24.
Levine, T. (2013) Quantitative communication research: Review, trends and critique.
Review of Communication Research, 1, 69-84.
Miner, H. (1956). Body Ritual among the Nacirema. American Anthropologist, 58(3),
503507.
Neuman, L. (1997). Chapter 4: The Meanings of Methodology. Social Research
Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches (3rd ed., pp. 6087). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Neuman, W. R., & Guggenheim, L. (2011). The Evolution of Media Effects Theory: A
Six-Stage Model of Cumulative Research. Communication Theory, 21(2), 169
196. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2011.01381.x
Pavitt, C. (1999). The Third Way: Scientific Realism and Communication Theory.
Communication Theory, 9(2), 162188. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00356.x

COMM 700 Maibach 2015 p.

Pavitt, C. (2000). Answering Questions Requesting Scientific Explanations for
Communication. Communication Theory, 10(4), 379404. doi:10.1111/j.14682885.2000.tb00199.x
Pencil, M. (1976). Salt Passage Research: The State of the Art. Journal of
Communication, 26(4), 3136.
Potter, J (2013) Synthesizing a working definition of "mass" media. Review of
Communication Research, 1, 1-30.
Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. New York: Macmillan.
Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science
theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thaker, J. (2012). Climate Change in the Indian Miind: Role of Collective Efficacy in
Climate Change Adaptation (Dissertation). George Mason University, Fair.
Wilson, E.O. (2013) Great science [does not equal] good at math. Wall Street Journal,
April 5th.
Witte, K. (2013) Introduction: Pathways. Health Communication, 28, 3-4.