The implications of framing effects for citizen competence

Political Behavior

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 225-256

  Druckman, James N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Behavioral decision theory; Competence; Framing effects; Mass communication; Public Opinion

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035457368     PISSN: 01909320     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1015006907312     Document Type: Article

References (148)

1. Allen, Barbara, O'Loughlin, Paula, Jasperson, Amy, and Sullivan, John L. (1994). The media and the Gulf War: framing, priming, and the spiral of silence. Polity 27: 255-284.
2. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John (1995). American ambivalence toward abortion policy: a heteroskedastic probit method for assessing conflicting values. American Journal of Political Science 39: 1055-1082.
3. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John (1997). Are Americans ambivalent about racial policies? American Journal of Political Science 41: 345-374.
4. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John (1998). Speaking in two voices: American equivocation about the internal revenue service. American Journal of Political Science 42: 418-452.
5. Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John (2000). Binding the frame: how important are frames for survey response? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 31-September 2.
6. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1982). Risk perception in psychology and economics. Economic Inquiry 20: 1-9.
7. Ball-Rokeach, SJ., Power, Gerard J., Guthrie, K. Kendall, and Waring, H. Ross (1990). Value-framing abortion in the United States: an application of media system dependency theory. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2: 249-273.
8. Bargh, John A., Bond, R., Lombardi, W., and Tota, M. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 869-878.
9. Bargh, John A., and Pietromonaco, Paula (1982). Automatic information processing and social perception: the influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43: 438-449.
10. Bartels, Larry M. (1998). Democracy with attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, September 3-6.
11. Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N. (1954). Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
12. Berinsky, Adam J., and Kinder, Donald R. (2000). Making sense of issues through frames: understanding the Kosova crisis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 31-September 2.
13. Bishop, George F., Oldendick, Robert W., and Tuchfarber, Alfred J. (1982). Political information processing: question order and context effects. Political Behavior 4: 177-200.
14. Bless, Herbert, Betsch, Tilmann, and Franzen, Axel (1998). Framing the framing effect: the impact of context cues on solutions to the "Asian disease" problem. European Journal of Social Psychology 28: 287-291.
15. Boettcher, III, William A. (2000). Framing effects in the "real world": evaluating the political psychology adaptation of prospect theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 31-September 2.
16. Bohm, Peter, and Lind, Hans (1992). A note on the robustness of a classical framing result. Journal of Economic Psychology 13: 355-361.
17. Brewer, Paul R. (2000). Passive receivers or motivated reasoners?: an experimental study of how citizens process value frames. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 27-30.
18. Brewer, Paul R. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values? Political Psychology 22: 45-64.
19. Cappella, Joseph N., and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1997). Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press.
20. Chong, Dennis (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science 37: 867-899.
21. Chong, Dennis (1996). Creating common frames of reference on political issues. In Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody (eds.), Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, pp. 195-224. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
22. Chong, Dennis (2000). Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
23. Cohen, Jacob, and Coheu, Patricia (1983). Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24. Converse, Philip E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In David E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206-261. New York: Free Press.
25. Converse, Philip E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 331-353.
26. Dahl, Robert A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
27. Dawes, Robyn M. (1988). Rational Choice in an Uncertain World. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
28. Druckman, James N. (2001a). On the limits of framing effects: who can frame? Journal of Politics 63: 1041-1066.
29. Druckman, James N. (2001b). Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 17: 62-82.
30. Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science 3: 1-24.
31. Edelman, Murray (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication 10: 231-242.
32. Entman, Robert M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents. Journal of Communication 41: 6-27.
33. Entman, Robert M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51-58.
34. Fagley, N. S., and Miller, Paul M. (1987). The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs. certain options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39: 264-277.
35. Fagley, N. S., and Miller, Paul M. (1990). The effect of framing on choice: interactions with risk-taking propensity, cognitive style, and sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16: 496-510.
36. Fagley, N. S., and Miller, Paul M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice: your money or your life? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 71: 355-373.
37. Farr, James (1993). Framing democratic discussion. In George E. Marcus and Russell L. Hanson (eels.). Reconsidering the Democratic Public, pp. 379-391. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
38. Fazio, Russell H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In Richard E. Petty and Jon A. Krosnick (eels.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, pp. 247-282. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbanm.
39. Federico, Christopher M. (2001). Predispositions, sophistication, and the framing of affirmative action. Unpublished paper, University of California. Los Angeles.
40. Fillmore, Charles J. (1985). Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222-254.
41. Freedman, Paul (2000). The political logic of framing. Unpublished paper, University of Virginia.
42. Frisch, Deborah (1993). Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54: 399-429.
43. Gamson, William A. (1992). Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Gamson, William A., and Lasch, Katherine E. (1983). The political culture of social welfare policy. In Shimon E. Spiro and Ephraim Yuchtman-Yaar (eds.), Evaluating the Welfare State, pp. 397-415. New York: Academic.
45. Gamson, William A., and Modigliani, Andre (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In Richard D. Braungart (ed.), Research in Political Sociology, vol. 3. pp. 137-177. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
46. Gamson, William A., and Modigliani, Andre (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.
47. Gitlin, Todd (1980). The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
48. Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49. Gross, Kimberly (2000). The limits of framing: how framing effects may be limited or enhanced by individual level predispositions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 27-30.
50. Gross, Kimberly Ann, and D'Ambrosio, Lisa (1999). Media framing, causal attribution and emotions: an experimental investigation of the framing of emotion response. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA, September 2-5.
51. Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Joslyn, Mark R. (2001a). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: the conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics 63: 520-543.
52. Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Joslyn, Mark H. (2001b). Should we really "kill" the messenger: issue frames and the limited role of messengers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 30-September 2.
53. Herr, Paul M. (1986). Consequences of priming: judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1106-1115.
54. Higgins, E. Tory, and Rholes, William S., and Jones, Carl R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology 13: 141-154.
55. Hyman, Herbert H., and Sheatsley, Paul B. (1950). The current status of American public opinion. In J. C. Payne (ed.), The Teaching of Contemporary Affairs, pp. 11-34. New York: National Council of Social Studies.
56. Iyengar, Shanto (1990). The accessibility bias in politics: television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2: 1-15.
57. Iyengar, Shanto (1991). Is Anyone Responsible?: How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
58. Jackman, Simon, and Sniderman, Paul M. (1999). Institutional organization of choice spaces: a political conception of political psychology. Unpublished paper. Stanford University.
59. Jacoby, William G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science 44: 750-767.
60. Jones, Bryan D. (2001). Politics and the Architecture of Choice: Bounded Rationality and Governance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
61. Joslyn, Mark R., and Haider-Markel, Donald P. (2001). The two faces of issue framing: examining framing effects on personal opinion and perception of public opinion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association. Las Vegas, NV, March.
62. Kalmeman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39: 341-350.
63. Kellstedt, Paul M. (2000). Media framing and the dynamics of racial policy preferences. American Journal of Political Science 44: 239-255.
64. Kinder, Donald R. (1998). Communication and opinion. Annual Review of Political Science 1: 167-197.
65. Kinder, Donald R., and Herzog, Don (1993). Democratic discussion. In George E. Marcus and Russell L. Hanson (eds.), Reconsidering the Democratic Public, pp. 347-377. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
66. Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions: the case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. Social Cognition 8: 73-103.
67. Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M. (1996). Divided By Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
68. Kowert, Paul A., and Hermann, Margaret G. (1997). Who takes risks?: daring and caution in foreign policy making. Journal of Conflict Resolution 41: 611-637.
69. Krosnick, Jon A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: a study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 196-210.
70. Krosnick, Jon A. (1989). Attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin .55: 297-308.
71. Kühberger, Anton (1995). The framing of decisions: a new look at old problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 62: 230-240.
72. Kühberger, Anton (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 75: 23-55.
73. Kühberger, Anton, Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael, and Perner, Josef (1999). The effects of framing, reflection, probability, and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78: 204-231.
74. Kuklinski, James H., and Hurley, Norman L. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: a cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. Journal of Politics 56: 729-751.
75. Kuklinski, James H., and Hurley, Norman L. (1996). It's a matter of interpretation. In Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody (eds.), Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, pp. 125-144. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
76. Kuklinski James H., and Quirk, Paul J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin (eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, pp. 153-182. New York: Cambridge University Press.
77. Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Jerit, Jennifer, Schwieder, David, and Rich, Robert F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics 62: 790-816.
78. Lacy, Dean (1997). A theory of nonseparable preferences in survey responses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Methodology Society, Columbus, Ohio, July.
79. Lau, Richard R., Smith, Richard A., and Fiske, Susan T. (1991). Political beliefs, policy interpretations, and political persuasion. Journal of Politics 53: 644-675.
80. Levin, Irwin P., and Chapman, Daniel P. (1990). Risk taking, frame of reference, and characterization of victim groups in AIDS treatment decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 26: 421-434.
81. Levin, Irwin P., Schneider, Sandra L., and Gaeth, Gary J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76: 149-188.
82. Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need To Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.
83. Manheim, Jarol B. (1991). All of the People All of the Time: Strategic Communication and American Politics. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
84. Martin, Leonard L., and Achee, John W. (1992). Beyond accessibility: the role of processing objectives in judgment. In Leonard L. Martin and Abraham Tesser (eds.), The Constniction of Social Judgments, pp. 195-216. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
85. McCaffery, Edward J., Kahneman, Daniel J., and Spitzer, Matthew L. (1995). Framing the jury: cognitive perspectives on pain and suffering awards. Virginia Law Review 81: 1341-1420.
86. Mendelsohn, Matthew (1996). The media and interpersonal communication: the priming of issues, leaders, and party identification. Journal of Politics 58: 112-125.
87. Meyerowitz, Beth E., and Chaiken, Shelly (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 500-510.
88. Miller, Joanne M., and Krosnick, Jon A. (1996). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: a program of research on the priming hypothesis. In Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody (eds.), Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, pp. 79-99. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
89. Miller, Joanne M., and Krosnick, Jon A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science 44: 295-309.
90. Miller, Paul M., and Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variations, and providing rationale on choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17: 517-522.
91. Mueller, John E. (1994). Policy and Opinion in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
92. Nelson, Thomas E. (2000.) Goals and values in the language of issue framing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, August 31-September 2.
93. Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M. (1997a). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91: 567-583.
94. Nelson, Thomas E., and Kinder, Donald R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics 58: 1055-1078.
95. Nelson, Thomas E., and Oxley, Zoe M. (1999). Issue framing effects and belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics 61: 1040-1067.
96. Nelson, Thomas E., Oxley, Zoe M., and Clawson, Kosalee A. (1997b). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior 19: 221-246.
97. Nelson, Thomas E., Willey, Elaine, and Oxley, Zoe M. (1998). Belief content, importance, and accessibility in issue opinion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, September 3-6.
98. Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y. (1992). The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
99. Pan, Zhongdang, and Kosicki, Gerald M. (1993). Framing analysis: an approach to news discourse. Political Communication 10: 55-75.
100. Parenti, Michael (1999). Methods of media manipulation. In Ray Eldon Hiebert (ed.), Impact of Mass Media: Current Issues. 4th ed, pp. 120-124. New York: Longman.
101. Patterson, Thomas E. (1993). Out of Order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
102. Payne, John W., Bettman, James R., and Johnson, Eric J. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
103. Petrocik, John R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40: 825-850.
104. Petty, Richard E., and Wegener, Duane T. (1998). Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion variables. In Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., vol. II, pp. 323-390. New York: McGraw-Hill.
105. Popkin, Samuel L. (1994). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns, 2nd ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
106. Price, Vincent, and Na, Eun-Kyung (2000). Citizen deliberation and resistance to framing effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Portland, Oregon, May.
107. Price, Vincent, and Tewksbury, David (1997). News values and public opinion: a theoretical account of media priming and framing. In George A. Barnett and Franklin J. Boster (eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences: Advances in Persuasion, vol. 13, pp. 173-212. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
108. Price, Vincent, Tewksbury, David, and Powers, Elizabeth (1997). Switching trains of thought: the impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses. Communication Research 24: 481-506.
109. Ouattrone, George, and Tversky, Amos (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review 82: 719-736.
110. Rabin, Matthew (1998). Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature 36: 11-46.
111. Hhee, June Woong (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication 47: 26-48.
112. Riker, William H. (1986). The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
113. Riker, William H. (1995). The political psychology of rational choice theory. Political Psychology 16: 23-44.
114. Riker, William H. (1996). The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. Randall L. Calvert, John Mueller, and Rick K. Wilson (eds.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
115. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
116. Scheufele, Dietram A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49: 103-122.
117. Scheufele, Dietram A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society 3: 297-316.
118. Schuman, Howard, and Ludwig, Jacob (1983). The norm of even-handedness in surveys as in life. American Sociological Review 48: 112-120.
119. Schuman, Howard, and Presser, Stanley (1981). Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments in Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press.
120. Schumpeter, Joseph Alois (1942). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper.
121. Schwarz, Norbert (1996). Cognition and Communication: Judgmental Biases, Research Methods, and the Logic of Conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
122. Sears, David O., and Lau, Richard R. (1983). Inducing apparently self-interested political preferences. American Journal of Political Science 27: 223-52.
123. Shah, Dhavan V., Domke, David, and Wackman, Daniel B. (1996). "To thine own self be true": values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research 23: 509-560.
124. Sieck, Winston, and Yates, J. Frank (1997). Exposition effects on decision making: choice and confidence in choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70: 207-219.
125. Silverstein, Gordon (2000). How law kills politics. Unpublished paper, University of Minnesota.
126. Simon, Adam F. (2001). A unified method for analyzing media framing. In Roderick P. Hart and Daron R. Shaw (eds.), Communication in U.S. Elections: New Agendas, pp. 75-89. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
127. Sniderman, Paul M. (2000). Taking sides: a fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin (eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, pp. 67-84. New York: Cambridge University Press.
128. Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
129. Sniderman, Paul M., and Theriault, Sean M. (1999). The dynamics of political argument and the logic of issue framing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 15-17.
130. Somin, Ilya (1998). Voter ignorance and the democratic ideal. Critical Review 12: 413-458.
131. Stanovich, Keith E., and West, Richard F. (1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning 4: 289-317.
132. Stapel, Diederik, Koomen, Willem, and Zeelenberg, Marcel (1998). The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: accuracy × knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 878-893.
133. Sweetser, Eve and Fauconnier, Gilles (1996). Cognitive links and domains: basic aspects of mental space theory. In Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar, pp. 1-28. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
134. Takemura, Kazuhisa (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. The Journal of Psychology 128: 33-39.
135. Tetlock, Philip E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 819-827.
136. The American Heritage Dictionary, Second college edition (1983). Houghton Mifflin Company.
137. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. Second edition (1987). Edited by Stuart Berg Flexner, Random House Inc.
138. Tourangeau, Roger, Rasinski, Kenneth A., Bradburn, Norman, and D'Andrade, Roy (1989). Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25: 401-421.
139. Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211: 453-458.
140. Tversky, Amos, and Kahneman, Daniel (1987). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In Robin M. Hogarth and Melvin W. Reder (eds.), Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology, pp. 67-94. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
141. Tversky, Amos, and Thaler, Richard H. (1990). Preference reversals. Journal of Economic Perspectives 4: 201-211.
142. Tykocinski, Orit, Higgins, E. Tory, and Chaiken, Shelly (1994). Message framing, self-discrepancies, and yielding to persuasive messages: the motivational significance of psychological situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20: 107-115.
143. van der Pligt, Joop, and Eiser, J. Richard (1984). Dimensional salience, judgment, and attitudes. In J. Richard Eiser (ed.), Attitudinal Judgment, pp. 161-177. New York: Springer-Verlag.
144. Wang, X. T. (1996). Framing effects: dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68: 145-157.
145. Wittman, Donald (1995). The Myth of Democratic Failure: Why Political Institutions Are Efficient. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
146. Wyer Jr., Robert S., and Srull, Thomas K. (1989). Memory and Cognition in its Social Context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
147. Zald, Mayer N. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In Doug McAdam, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald (eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
148. Zaller, John (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion, pp. 261-274. New York: Cambridge University Press.