"Social change" and "status quo" framing effects on risk perception: An exploratory experiment

Science Communication

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 459-495

  Durfee, Jessica L ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

Air quality; Framing effects; Risk perception; Science communication

Indexed keywords

EID: 33646598409     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547005285334     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Altschull, J. H. 1984. Agents of power: The role of the news media in human affairs. New York: Longman.
2. American Lung Association. 2003. State of the air: 2003. Washington, DC: American Lung Association. http://www.stateoftheair.org.
3. Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84: 191-215.
4. Bryant, J., and S. Thompson. 2002. Fundamentals of media effects. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5. Coleman, C. L. 1993. The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research 20 (4). 611-628.
6. Corbett, J. B., and J. L. Durfee. 2004. Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication 26: 129-151.
7. Culbertson, H. M., and G. H. Stempel. 1985. "Media malaise": Explaining personal optimism and societal pessimism about health care. Journal of Communication 35: 180-190.
8. Davison, W. P. 1983. The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly 47: 1-15.
9. Davison, W. P. 1996. The third-person effect revisited. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 8: 113-119.
10. Donohue, G. A., P. J. Tichenor, and C. N. Olien. 1995. A guard dog perspective on the role of media. Journal of Communication 45 (2). 115-132.
11. Dunwoody, S., and K. Neuwirth. 1991. Coming to terms with the impact of communication on scientific and technological risk judgments. In Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk and public policy, edited by L. Wilkins and P. Patterson, 11-30. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
12. Entman, R. 1993. Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4). 51-58.
13. Fischer, G. W., M. G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, I. Nair, and L. B. Lave. 1991. What risks are people concerned about? Risk Analysis 11: 303-314.
14. Gamson, W. 1989. News as framing. American Behavioral Scientist 33 (2). 157-161.
15. Gamson, W., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.
16. Ghanem, S. 1997. Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting. In Communicating and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda setting theory, edited by M. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, and D. Weaver, 3-14. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Gibson, R., and D. Zillmann. 1994. Exaggerated versus representative exemplification in news reports: Perception of issues and personal consequences. Communication Research 21: 64-91.
18. Gitlin, T. 1980. The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
20. Grabe, M. E., A. Lang, S. Zhou, and P. D. Bolls. 2000. Cognitive access to negatively arousing news: An experimental investigation of the knowledge gap. Communication Research 27: 3-26.
21. Gregory, R. 1989. Improving risk communications: Questions of content and intent. In Prospects and problems in risk communication, edited by W. Leiss, 98-132. Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo Press.
22. Gregory, R., and R. Mendelsohn. 1993. Perceivedrisk, dread, and benefits. Risk Analysis 13: 259-264.
23. Griffin, R. J., S. Dunwoody, T. Dybro, and F. Zabala. 1994. The relationship of communication to risk perceptions and preventative behavior related to lead in drinking water. Paper presented to the Science Communication Interest Group, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, at the 1994 annual convention, Atlanta, GA.
24. Harris, R. J. 1994. A cognitive psychology of mass communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Herman, E. S., and N. Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon.
26. Hertog, J., and D. McLeod. 1995. Anarchists wreak havoc in downtown Minneapolis: A multilevel study of media coverage of radical protest. Journalism Monographs 151: 4-52.
27. Hohenemser, C., R. W. Kates, and P. Slovic. 1983. The nature of technological hazard. Science 220: 376-384.
28. Hornig, S. 1990. Science stories: Risk, power and perceived emphasis. Journalism Quarterly 67 (4). 767-776.
29. Iyengar, S. 1991. Is anyone responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30. Kepplinger, H., and G. Daschmann. 1997. Today's news - Tomorrow's context: A dynamic model of news processing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 41: 548-565.
31. Klaidman, S. 1991. Health in the headlines: The stories behind the stories. New York: Oxford University Press.
32. Lang, G. E., and K. Lang. 1984. Politics and television re-viewed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33. Lasorsa, D. L. 1992. How media affect policymakers: The third-person effect. In Public opinion, the press and public policy, edited by J. D. Kennamer, 163-175. New York: Praeger.
34. Litt, M. D. 1988. Cognitive mediators of stressful experience: Self-efficacy and perceived control. Cognitive Theory and Research 12: 241-260.
35. Luhmann, N. 2000. The reality of mass media (K. Cross, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36. McLeod, D. M., and B. H. Detenber. 1999. Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication 49 (3). 3-23.
37. McLeod, D. M., and J. K. Hertog. 1998. Social controland the mass media's role in the regulation of protest groups: The communicative acts perspective. In Mass media, social control and social change, edited by D. Dembers and K. Viswanath, 305-330. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
38. Morley, D. 1976. Industrial conflict and the mass media. Sociological Review 24: 245-268.
39. Murray, D., J. Schwartz, and S. R. Lichter. 2001. It ain't necessarily so: How media make and unmake the scientific picture of reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
40. Paletz, D. L., and R. M. Entman. 1981. Media power and politics. New York: Free Press.
41. Pan, Z., and G. Kosicki. 1993. Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication 10: 55-75.
42. Perloff, R. M. 1993. Third-person effect research 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 5: 167-184.
43. Perloff, R. M. 1996. Perceptions and conceptions of political media impact: The third-person effect and beyond. In The psychology of political communication, edited by A. N. Crigler, 177-191. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
44. Pilisuk, M., and C. Acredolo. 1988. Fear of technological hazards: One concern or many? Social Behavior 3: 17-24.
45. Price, V., L. N. Huang, and D. Tewksbury. 1997. Third-person effects of news coverage: Orientations toward media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74: 525-540.
46. Price, V., and D. Tewksbury. 1997. News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In Progress in communication sciences, edited by G. Barnett and F. J. Boster, 173-212. Greenwich, CT: Albex.
47. Price, V., D. Tewksbury, and E. Powers. 1997. Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses. Communication Research 24: 481-506.
48. Reese, S. 2001. Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understandings of the social world, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, and A. E. Grant, 7-31. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49. Robinson, J. P. 1986. Long-term information and media use. In The main source, edited by J. P. Robinson and M. Levy, 57-85. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
50. Scheufele, D. A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49 (1). 103-122.
51. Shoemaker, P. J., and S. D. Reese. 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. New York: Longman.
52. Singer, E. T., and P. M. Endreny. 1993. Reporting risk: How the mass media portray accidents, diseases, disasters and other hazards. New York: Russell Sage.
53. Stamm, K. R., F. Clark, and P. R. Eblancas. 2000. Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science 9: 219-237.
54. Swenson, J. 1990. News coverage of the abortion issue: Framing changes in the 1980s. Paper presented to the Committee on the Status of Women, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Minneapolis, MN.
55. Tankard, J., L. Hendrickson, J. Silberman, K. Bliss, and S. Ghanem. 1991. Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
56. Tichenor, P., G. Donohue, and C. Olien. 1970. Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly 34: 159-170.
57. Tuchman, G. 1978. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
58. Weinstein, N. D. 1980. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 39: 806-820.
59. Weinstein, N. D. 1987. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 10: 481-498.
60. Wilkins, L., and P. Patterson. 1987. Risk analysis and the construction of news. Journal of Communication 37: 80-92.