Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses

Communication Research

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 481-506

  Price, Vincent ^a   Tewksbury, David ^a   Powers, Elizabeth ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031528865     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009365097024005002     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Power, G. J., Guthrie, K. K., & Waring, H. R. (1990). Value-framing abortion in the United States: An application of media system dependency theory. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 249-273.
2. Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & Rokeach, M. (1987). Contribution to the future study of public opinion: Asymposium. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, S184-S185.
3. Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Rokeach, M., & Grube, J. W. (1984). The great American values test: Influencing behavior and belief through television. New York: Free Press.
4. Bennett W. L. (1988). News: The politics of illusion. New York: Longman.
5. Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought-listing technique. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 114-138). New York: Guilford.
6. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
7. Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8. Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of the CBS evening news, NBC nightly news, Newsweek, and Time. New York: Vintage.
9. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10. Graber, D. (1993). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.
11. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
12. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kuglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford.
13. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. A. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Iyengar, S., (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. (1993). News coverage of the gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda setting, priming, and framing. Communication Research, 20, 365-383.
17. Jackson, S. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. New York: Guilford.
18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
19. Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 659-741). New York: Random House.
20. Krosnick, J., & Kinder, D. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497-512.
21. MacDougall, C. (1982). Interpretive reporting. New York: Macmillan.
22. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187.
23. McLeod, J. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, D. M. (1994). The expanding boundaries of political communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 123-162). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
25. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 59-79.
26. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1997). Priming and media impact on the evaluations of the president's performance. Communication Research, 24, 3-30.
27. Patterson, T. (1993). Out of order. New York: Knopf.
28. Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., & Brock, T. C. (1981). Historical foundations of the cognitive response approach to attitudes and persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses inpersuasion (pp. 5-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (pp. 173-212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
30. Sedikides, C. (1990). Effects of fortuitously activated constructs versus activated communication goals on person impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 397-408.
31. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). "To thine own self be true": Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509-560.
32. Shapiro, M. A. (1994). Think-aloud and thought-list procedures in investigating mental processes. In A. Lang (Ed.), Measuring psychological responses to media messages (pp. 1-14). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33. Weaver, D. H., Graber, D. A., McCombs, M. E., & Eyal, C. H. (1981). Media agenda setting in a presidential election: Issues, images, and interests. New York: Praeger.