Framing the Lewinsky Affair: Third-Person Judgments by Scandal Frame

Political Psychology

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 829-844

  Joslyn, Mark R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Issue framing; Lewinsky Clinton scandal; Perceptual judgments; Third person effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347526247     PISSN: 0162895X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1467-9221.2003.00356.x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Atwood, L. E. (1994). Illusions of media power: The third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 269-281.
2. Brody, R. A., & Jackman, S. (1999, April). The Lewinsky affair and popular support for President Clinton. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
3. Capella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Chong, D. (1996). Creating common frames of reference on political issues. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 195-224). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
5. Cohen, J., Mutz, D., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third-person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161-173.
6. Collins, R. L., Taylor, S. E., Wood, J. V., & Thompson, S. C. (1988). The vividness effect: Elusive or illusory? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 1-18.
7. Davison, P. W. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1-15.
8. Duck, J. M., & Mullin, B. (1995). The perceived impact of the mass media: Reconsidering the third-person effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 77-93.
9. Fallows, J. (1996). Breaking the news: How the media undermine American democracy. New York: Pantheon.
10. Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1976). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, 427-448.
11. Gamson, W. A., & Lasch, K. E. (1983). The political culture of social welfare policy. In S. E. Spiro & E. Yuchtman-Yaar (Eds.), Evaluating the welfare state (pp. 225-249). New York: Academic Press.
12. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
13. Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355-372.
14. Gunther, A. C. (1995). Overrating the x-rating: The third-person perception and support for censorship of pornography. Journal of Communication, 45, 27-38.
15. Gunther, A. C., & Mundy, P. (1993). Biased optimism and the third-person effect. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 2-11.
16. Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 750-767.
17. Kinder, D. R. (1981). Presidents, prosperity, and public opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45, 1-21.
18. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. Social Cognition, 8, 73-103.
19. Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. (1999). Warp speed: America in the age of mixed media. New York: Century Foundation Press.
20. Kuklinski, J. H., & Hurley, N. L. (1994). On hearing and interpreting political messages: A cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking. Journal of Politics, 56, 729-751.
21. Lasorsa, D. L. (1992). Policymakers and the third-person effect. In J. D. Kennamer (Ed.), Public opinion, the press, and public policy (pp. 163-175). Westport, CT: Praeger.
22. Mutz, D. (1989). The influence of perception of media influence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1, 3-24.
23. Mutz, D. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583.
25. Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue framing and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 1055-1078.
26. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
27. Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York: Knopf.
28. Perloff, R. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third-person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236-262.
29. Perloff, R. M. (1996). Perceptions and conceptions of political media impact: The third-person effect and beyond. In A. N. Crigler (Ed.), The psychology of political communication (pp. 177-198). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
30. Ross, M., Green, D., & House, P. (1977). The "false consensus effect": An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279-301.
31. Ross, S. (1988). Fall from grace: Sex, scandal, and corruption in American politics from 1702 to the present. New York: Ballantine.
32. Salwen, M. B. (1998). Perceptions of media influence and support for censorship: The third-person effect in the 1996 presidential election. Communication Research, 25, 259-285.
33. Simon, H. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.
34. Smith, T. (1987). That which we call welfare would by any other name smell sweeter: An analysis of the impact of question wording on response patterns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51, 75-83.
35. Tyler, T. R., & Cook, F. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 693-708.
36. Vallone, R. P., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1985). The hostile media phenomenon: Biased perceptions and perceptions of media bias in coverage of the Beirut massacre. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 577-588.
37. Weinstein, N. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820.
38. Woodward, B. (1999). Shadow: Five presidents and the legacy of Watergate. New York: Simon & Schuster.
39. Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17-78). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
40. Zaller, J. (2001). Monica Lewinsky and the mainsprings of American politics. In L. Bennett & R. M. Entman (Eds.), Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy (pp. 252-278). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.