Fahrenheit 9-11, need for closure and the priming of affective ambivalence: An assessment of intra-affective structures by party identification

Human Communication Research

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 109-129

  Holbert, R Lance ^a   Hansen, Glenn J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645721370     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: 14682958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00005.x     Document Type: Article

References (69)

1. Abelson, R. P., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Fiske, S. T. (1982). Affective and semantic components in political person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 619-630.
2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Boster, F. J. (2002). On making progress in communication science. Human Communication Research, 28, 473-490.
4. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Bernston, G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3-25.
5. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: John Wiley.
6. Chaffee, S. H., & Hochheimer, J. L. (1985). The beginnings of political communication research in the United States: Origins of the "limited effects model." In M. Gurevitch & M. R. Levy (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook 5 (pp. 75-104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7. Citrin, J., & Luks, S. (2005). Patriotic to the core? American ambivalence about America. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 127-148). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
8. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
9. Craig, S. C., & Martinez, M. D. (2005). Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Craig, S. C., Martinez, M. D., & Kane, J. G. (2005). Ambivalence and response instability: A panel study. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 55-72). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
11. Dennis, J. (1988). Political independence in America, Part I: On being an independent partisan supporter. British Journal of Political Science, 18, 77-109.
12. Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research, 27, 461-495.
13. Dillard, J. P., Plotnick, C. A., Godbold, L. C., Freimuth, V. S., & Edgar, T. (1996). The multiple affective consequences of AIDS PSAs: Fear appeals do more than scare people. Communication Research, 23, 44-72.
14. Dillard, J. P., & Wilson, B. J. (1993). Communication and affect: Thoughts, feelings, and issues for the future. Communication Research, 20, 637-646.
15. Edwards, A. L. (1946). A critique of 'neutral' items in attitude scales constructed by the method of equal appearing intervals. Psychological Review, 53, 159-169.
16. Faul, F., & Erdfelder, E. (1992). GPOWER: A priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS [Computer program]. Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany: Bonn University, Department of Psychology. Retrieved April 1, 2005, from http://www.psycho.uni-duesseldorf.de/aap/projects/gpower
17. Gelman, A., & King, G. (1993). Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when voters are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science, 23, 409-451.
18. Green, R. F., & Goldfried, M. R. (1965). On the bipolarity of semantic space. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 79(6), 1-31.
19. 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 Associates.
20. Holbert, R. L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 436-453.
21. Holbert, R. L., Pillion, O., Tschida, D. A., Armfield, G. G., Kinder, K., Cherry, K, et al. (2003). The West Wing as endorsement of the American presidency: Expanding the domain of priming in political communication. Journal of Communication, 53, 427-443.
22. Holbrook, A. L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2005). Meta-psychological versus operative measures of ambivalence: Differentiating the consequences of perceived intra-psychic conflict and real intra-psychic conflict. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 73-104). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
23. Hsu, M. L., & Price, V. (1993). Political expertise and affect: Effects on news processing. Communication Research, 20, 671-695.
24. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Iyengar, S., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Krosnick, J. A. (1984). The evening news and presidential evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 778-787.
26. 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.
27. Izard, C. E. (1977). Human emotions. New York: Plenum Press.
28. Jacoby, W. G. (2005). Is it really ambivalence? Public opinion toward government spending. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 149-172). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism and motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
30. Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Review, 77, 361-372.
31. Krosnick, J. A. (1993). The media and the foundations of presidential support: George Bush and the Persian Gulf conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 167-182.
32. Krosnick, J. A., & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497-512.
33. Kruglanski, A. W. (2004). The psychology of closed mindedness: Essays in social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.
34. Kruglanski, A. W., Webster, D. M., & Klem, A. (1993). Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 215-225.
35. Lavine, H., Thomsen, C. J., Zanna, M. P., & Bordiga, E. (1998). On the primacy of affect in the determination of attitudes and behavior: The moderating role of affective-cognitive ambivalence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 398-421.
36. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Lazarus, R. S. (2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In K. S. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, and research (pp. 37-67). New York: Oxford University Press.
38. Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (2001). Emotions and politics: The dynamic functions of emotionality. In J. H. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology and public opinion (pp. 41-67). New York: Cambridge University Press.
39. Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional under pinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 672-685.
40. Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41. Martinez, M. D., Craig, S. C., & Kane, J. G. (2005). Pros and cons: Ambivalence and public opinion. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 1-14). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
42. McGraw, K. M., & Bartels, B. (2005). Ambivalence toward American political institutions: Sources and consequences. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 105-126). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
43. McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421-448.
44. McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191-229). New York: Academic Press.
45. McLeod, D. M., Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (2002). Resurveying the boundaries of political communication effects. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 215-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. McLeod, J. M., & Reeves, B. (1980). On the nature of mass media effects. In S. B. Withey & R. P. Abeles (Eds.), Television and social behavior: Beyond violence and children (pp. 17-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47. Meffert, M. F., Guge, M., & Lodge, M. (2000). Good, bad, indifferent and ambivalent: The consequences of multidimensional political attitudes. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), The issue of belief: Essays in the intersection of non-attitudes and attitude change (pp. 60-100). Amsterdam: Amsterdam School of Communication.
48. Menard, L. (2004, August 9). Nanook and me; Fahrenheit 9-11 and the documentary tradition. The New Yorker, 80, pp. 90-94.
49. Mitchell, M. M., Brown, K. M., Morris-Villagran, M., & Villigran, P. D. (2001). The effects of anger, sadness and happiness on persuasive message processing: A test of the negative state relief model. Communication Monographs, 68, 347-359.
50. Mutz, D. C. (2001). The future of political communication research: Reflections on the occasion of Steve Chaffee's retirement from Stanford University. Political Communication, 18, 231-236.
51. Nabi, R. L. (2002). Discrete emotions and persuasion. In J. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), Handbook of Persuasion (pp. 289-308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
52. Nadeau, R., Niemi, R. G., & Amato, T. (1995). Emotions, issue importance, and political learning. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 558-574.
53. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1997). Priming and media impact on the evaluations of president's performance. Communication Research, 24, 3-30.
54. Pfau, M. (1997). Inoculation model of resistance to influence. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 133-171). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
55. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1995). News values and public opinion: A process. In F. Bocca (Ed.), Television and political advertising (pp. 265-309). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 173-212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
57. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449.
58. Roskos-Ewoldson, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldson, B., & Carpentier, F. R. D. (2002). Media priming: A synthesis. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 97-120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
59. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297-316.
60. Simon, A. F., & Iyengar, S. (1996). Toward theory-based research in political communication. PS: Political Science and Politics, 29, 29-33.
61. Thompson, M. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1995). The conflicted individual: Personality-based and domain specific antecedents of ambivalent social attitudes. Journal of Personality, 63, 259-288.
62. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
63. Waxman, S. (2004, 27 June). The political Fahrenheit sets record at box office. The New York Times, p. E1.
64. Wayne, S. J. (1999). Clinton's legacy: The Clinton persona. PS: Political Science and Politics, 32, 558-561.
65. Weaver, D., McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. L. (2004). Agenda-setting research: Issues, attributes, and influences. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of Political Communication Research (pp. 257-282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
66. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.
67. Willnat, L. (1997). Agenda-setting and priming: Conceptual links and differences: In M. McCombs, D. Shaw, & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory (pp. 51-66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
68. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1986). Human cognition in its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322-359.
69. Zaller, J. R. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117-123.