Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects

Journal of Communication

Volumn 55, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 795-809

  Shen, Fuyuan ^a,c   Edwards, Heidi Hatfield ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA   (United States)

^c PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; MODEL; WELFARE ECONOMICS;

EID: 31044431727     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/joc/55.4.795     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & Loges, W. E. (1996). Making choices: Media roles in the construction of value-choices. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 8 (pp. 277-298). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Bargh, J. A., Bond, R. N., Lombardi, W. J., & Tota, M. E. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 50, 869-878.
3. Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A framing-based account. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173-201.
4. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.
5. 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.
6. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
7. Feldman, S. (1988) Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 416-440.
8. Feldman, S., & Steenbergen, M. (2001). Social welfare attitudes and the humanitarian sensibility. In H. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 366-400). New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268-307.
10. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
11. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Gamson, W. A., & Lasch, K. E. (1983) The political culture of social welfare reform. In S. E. Spiro & E. Yuchtman-Yaar (Eds.), Evaluating the welfare state: Social and political perspectives (pp. 397-425). New York: Academic Press.
13. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. D. Braungart (Ed.), Research in political psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
14. 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 Press.
15. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16. Kinder, D. R. (1983). Diversity and complexity in American public opinion. In A. W. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 389-425). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
17. 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.
18. Kuklinski, J. H. (2001). Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Markus, G. B. (2001). American individualism reconsidered. In H. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 401-432). New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. McClosky, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21. 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.
22. Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 1055-1078.
23. Nelson, T. E.,.& Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61, 1040-1067.
24. 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). New York: Ablex.
25. 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.
26. Republican Contract With America (1996). Retrieved September 25, 2004, from http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html
27. 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.
28. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
29. Scheufele, D. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(4), 103-122.
30. Scheufele, D. (2000). Agenda setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297-316.
31. Severin, W. J., & Tankard, J. W. (2001). Communication theories: Origins, methods, and uses in mass media. New York: Longman.
32. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1997). Values and the vote: Linking issue interpretations to the process of candidate choice. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 357-387.
33. 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.
34. Shen, F. (2004). Chronic accessibility and individual cognitions: Examining the effects of message frames in political advertisements. Journal of Communication, 54, 123-137.
35. Sotirovic, M. (2000). Effects of media use on audience framing and support of welfare. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 269-296.
36. Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Wanke, M., & Winkielman, P. (2003). Accessibility revisited. In G. V. Bodenhausen & A. J. Lambert (Eds.), Foundations of social cognition (pp. 51-77) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Valkenburg, P. M., Semetko, H. A., & de Vreese, C. H. (1999). The effects of news frames on readers' thoughts and recall. Communication Research, 26, 550-569.
38. 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.
39. Witte, G. (2004, September 26). Poverty up as welfare enrollment declines. Washington Post, p. A3.
40. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1989). Memory and cognition in its social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Wyer, N. (2003). Value conflicts in intergroup perception: A social-cognitive perspective. In G. V. Bodenhausen & A. J. Lambert (Eds.), Foundations of social cognition (pp. 263-290) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.