Communications | Penn Today

Trump loses a battle in his war on truth

The Annenberg Public Policy Center’s Kathleen Hall Jamieson said, of the status of truth in contemporary politics, that “checks and balances can still forestall or prevent unjustified action in domestic affairs (assuming that those in the Congress and the courts retain their respect for the knowable and known).”

Culture and technology scholar Julia Ticona studies the promise and perils of the gig economy

The new faculty member at the Annenberg School for Communication has researched the underrepresentation of women in the media's coverage of the gig economy, and the reliance on technology, specifically the cell phone, on gig workers and the working class, arguing that it acts as a lifeline for finding jobs when internet access is lacking.

Is a meme born in a private account still a meme?

Doctoral candidate Emily Hund of the Annenberg School for Communication discussed the move away from specificity on Instagram. “People aren’t saying they’re fashion or beauty people anymore—it’s all flattened into a generic lifestyle brand,” said Hund.

Viral content-vaccine scandal test Beijing’s grip on information control

The Annenberg School for Communication’s Kecheng Fang discussed the Chinese government’s failed attempts to suppress discourse about current events on WeChat, a popular messaging platform. “This is a guerrilla war. The government cannot tackle it just like it does traditional media,” said Fang.

What makes food photos on Instagram popular?

A study out of the Annenberg School for Communication examines our likes and dislikes in relation to social media, and finds they are more habitual than aesthetic, and uncovers what elements make food photos go viral.

Researchers from the Annenberg School for Communication at Penn discovered that “dehumanization” and “dislike” are processed by two completely separate brain regions, which suggests that they may be two different psychological processes.

In the brain, ‘dislike’ and ‘dehumanization’ are not the same thing

It has long been thought that characterizing people as less than human was an expression of extreme dislike. Annenberg neuroscientists now find that neurologically, these two viewpoints actually differ.

The Magic Number of People Needed to Create Social Change

The Annenberg School for Communication’s Damon Centola was cited for his research on social change, which found that just 25 percent of a given group would need to adopt a new norm to convince everyone else to follow.

Penn student Nicholas Seymour in the Kelly Writers House recording studio.

Behind the Scenes

Rising senior Nicholas Seymour is a summer intern at Philadelphia’s 1812 Productions, helping with all aspects of running a theater. The communications major has experience working on technical crews at Kelly Writers House and in student theater productions.

A two-week summer intensive workshop run by mindCORE focused on social and behavioral sciences, and on language science and technology, included a visit to Eastern State Penitentiary.

Sharing the science behind what we do, what we say, and how we learn

Through mindCORE, a two-week undergrad program through Arts and Sciences, faculty from eight departments and five schools explore the mind and the brain via disciplines like behavioral science and language acquisition.

Damon Centola is a professor in the Annenberg School for Communication and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences and director of the Network Dynamics Group.

(Image: Courtesy of Annenberg School for Communication)

Tipping point for large-scale social change? Just 25 percent

How many people need to take a stand before a behavior is no longer seen as normal? According to research from Annenberg’s Damon Centola, there’s now a quantifiable answer: roughly 25 percent.

Filters