Chronic accessibility and individual cognitions: Examining the effects of message frame in political advertisements

Journal of Communication

Volumn 54, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 123-137

  Shen, Fuyuan ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COGNITION;

EID: 1642528401     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2004.tb02617.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York: Free Press.
2. Benoit, W. L. (2001). The functional approach to presidential television spots: Acclaiming, attacking, defending 1952-2000. Communication Studies, 52, 109-126.
3. Biocca, F. (1991). Viewers' mental models of political messages: Toward a theory of the semantic processing of television. In F. Biocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising, Vol. 1: Psychological processes (pp. 27-89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Cacioppo, J. T., Harkins, S. G., & Petty, R. E. (1981). The nature of attitudes and cognitive responses and their relationships to behavior. in R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 31-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Chang, C. (2001). The impacts of emotion elicited by print political advertising on candidate evaluation. Media Psychology, 3, 91-118.
7. Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Wackman, D. B. (1998). Media priming effects: Accessibility, associations, and activation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10, 51-74.
8. Druckman, J. (2001). On limits on training effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
9. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm, Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
10. Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12. Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Garramone, G. M. (1983). Issue versus image orientation and effects of political advertising. Communication Research, 10, 59-76.
14. Garramone, G. M., Atkin, C. K., Pinkleton, B. E., & Cole, R. T. (1990). Effects of negative political advertising on the political process. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 299-311.
15. Goldsten, A., & Morin, R. (2002, October 20). Young voters' disengagement skews politics: Graying electorate's issues predominate, fueling trend. Washington Post, p. A8.
16. Hacker, K. L., Zakahi, W. R., Giles, M. J., & McQuitty, S. (2000). Components of candidate images: Statistical analysis of the issue-personal dichotomy in the presidential campaigns of 1996. Communication Monographs, 67, 227-238.
17. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford.
18. Higgins, E. T., Bargh, J. A., & Lombardi, W. (1985). Nature of priming effects on categorization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 11, 59-69.
19. Iyengar, S. (1990). Shortcut to political knowledge: The role of selective attention and accessibility. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 160-185). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
20. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Johnson-Cartee, K. S., & Copeland, G. (1991). Negative political advertising. Coming of age. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
22. Kinder, D. R., & Berinsky, A. (1999). Making sense of issues through frames. Political Psychologist, 4(2), 3-8.
23. 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.
24. Lau, R. R. (1989). Construct accessibility and electoral choice. Political Behavior, 11, 5-32.
25. Lim, J. S. (2001, August). Political advertising and the "transaction process" model of campaign agenda setting in the 2000 New York senatorial election. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Washington, DC.
26. Lippmann, W. (1992). Public opinion, New York: Macmillan.
27. McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political communications effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theories and research (pp. 215-267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
28. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Political knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295-309.
29. Nelson, T. E. (1999). Framing as persuasion, Political Psychologist, 4, 9-13.
30. 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, 97, 567-583.
31. Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 1055-1078.
32. Oliver, M. B. (2002). Individual differences in media effects In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects; Advances in theories and research (pp. 507-524). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Ottati, V. C., & Wyer, R. S. Jr. (1990). The cognitive mediators of political choice: Toward a comprehensive model of political information processing. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 186-218). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
34. 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.), Prcgress in the communication sciences (pp. 173-212). New York: Ablex.
35. Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481-506.
36. Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (1990). A social-cognitive model of candidate appraisal. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 136-159). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
37. Reese, S. D., Gandy, O. H., & Grant, A. E. (2001). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum.
38. Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47(3), 26-48.
39. Roddy, B. L., & Garramone, G. M. (1988). Appeals and strategies of negative political advertising. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 32, 415-427.
40. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (1997). Attitude accessibility and persuasion: Review and a transactive model. In B. Burleson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 20 (pp. 185-225). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
41. Schenck-Hamlin, W. J., Procter, D. E., & Rumsey, D. J. (2000). The influence of negative advertising frames on political cynicism and political accountability. Human Communication Research, 26, 53-74.
42. Severin, W. J., & Tankard, J. W. (2001). Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in mass media. New York: Longman.
43. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (2001). The effects of value-framing on political judgment and reasoning. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 227-243). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Shyles, L. (1984). Defining images of presidential candidates from televised political spot advertisements. Political Behavior, 6, 171-181.
45. Smith, E. R. (1998). Mental representation and memory. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 391-445). New York: McGraw-Hill.
46. Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1981). Getting inside the head: Methodologies for process analysis in attribution and social cognition. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 3, pp. 459-534). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Valentino, N. A., Beckmann, M. N., & Buhr, T. A. (2001). A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government. Political Communication, 18, 347-367.
48. West, D. M. (1994). Television advertising in election campaigns. Political Science Quarterly, 109, 789-809.
49. West, D. M. (2001). Air wars: Television advertising in election campaigns, 1952-2000. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
50. Wyer, R. S., & Ottati, V. C. (1993). Political information processing. In S. Iyengar & W. J. McGuire (Eds.), Explorations in political psychology (pp. 264-295). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
51. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.