Can we frame the terrorist threat? Issue frames, the perception of threat, and opinions on counterterrorism policies

Terrorism and Political Violence

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 545-559

  Haider Markel, Donald P ^a   Joslyn, Mark R ^a   Al Baghal, Mohammad Tarek ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Counterterrorism; Framing; Opinion; Terrorism; Threat

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748994015     PISSN: 09546553     EISSN: 15561836     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09546550600880625     Document Type: Review

References (55)

1. Frank Davies, "U.S. Ignorance of Iraq Startles Pollsters: Study Finds Large Numbers With Mistaken Beliefs About 9-11 And Alleged Weapons," Lawrence Journal World, 15 June 2003, 1A.
2. Davies, "U.S. Ignorance of Iraq Startles Pollsters," p. 1A;
3. Steven Kull, Clay Ramsey, Evan Lewis, "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War," Political Science Quarterly (2004): 569-598
4. . 3. Jim Rutenberg, "Suffering News Burnout? The Rest of America Is, Too." The New York Times, 11 August 2003.
5. John Zaller, "The Myth of Massive Media Impact Revisited: New Support for a Discredited Idea," in Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard Brody, eds., Political Persuasion in American Politics (Ann Arbor, MI The University of Michigan Press, 1996).
6. See also Timothy E. Cook, Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Institution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998).
7. See Cook, Governing with the News, 1998;
8. William G. Jacoby, "Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending," American Journal of Political Science (2000): 750-767;
9. William G. Jacoby, "Levels of Measurement and Political Research: An Optimistic View," American Journal of Political Science (1999): 271-301;
10. and Thomas E. Nelson and Donald R. Kinder, "Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion," Journal of Politics (1996): 1055-78.
11. See James N. Druckman, "On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?" The Journal of Politics (2001): 1041-1066;
12. Marjorie Randon Hershey, "The Constructed Explanation: Interpreting Election Results in the 1984 Presidential Race," The Journal of Politics (1992): 943-976;
13. Mark R. Joslyn and Donald P. Haider-Markel, "Guns in the Ballot Box: Information, Groups, and Opinion in Ballot Initiative Campaigns," American Politics Quarterly (2000): 355-78;
14. Benjamin I. Page, Who Deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 199 6);
15. and Zaller, "The Myth of Massive Media Impact Revisited" (see note 4 above).
16. See Thomas E. Nelson, Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley, "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and its Effect on Tolerance," American Political Science Review (1997): 567-83;
17. Donald R. Kinder and Lynn M. Sanders, "Mimicking Political Debate With Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks," Social Cognition (1990): 73-103;
18. and Michael L. Roberts, Peggy A. Hite, and Cassie F. Bradley, "Understanding Attitudes Towards Progressive Taxation," Public Opinion Quarterly (1994): 165-190
19. For examples see Druckman, "On the limits of framing effects" (see note 7 above);
20. Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley, "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and its Effect on Tolerance;" (see note 8 above)
21. and Kinder and Sanders, "Mimicking Political Debate With Survey Questions" (see note 8 above).
22. William H. Riker, The Art of Political Manipulation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986);
23. and Deborah A. Stone, Policy Paradox and Political Reason. (Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, 1988).
24. Susan T. Fiske and Shelley E. Taylor, Social Cognition, 2nd edition (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991);
25. Bryan D. Jones, Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994);
26. and Hebert Simon, Models of Man (New York: Wiley, 1957).
27. Dennis Chong, "Creating Common Frames of Reference on Political Issues," in Diana C. Mutz., Paul M. Sniderman and Richard A. Brody, eds., Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1996).
28. Chong, "Creating Common Frames of Reference on Political Issues" (see note 12 above)
29. Stanley Feldman and John R. Zaller, "The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State," American Journal of Political Science (1992): 268-307;
30. and Robert Lane, Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does (New York: Free Press, 1962).
31. Assignments of blame have been found to influence both policy preferences and political behavior, including voting and collective protest activity. See Debra Javeline, "The Role of Blame in Collective Action: Evidence From Russia," American Political Science Review (2003): 107-121.
32. Jones, Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics (see note 11 above).
33. Chong, "Creating Common Frames of Reference on Political Issues" (see note 12 above);
34. Philip E. Converse, "The Nature of Beliefs Systems in Mass Publics," in D. E. Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press, 1964);
35. and Donald P. Haider-Markel and Mark R. Joslyn, "Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution: The Conditional Influence of Issue Frames," The Journal of Politics (2001): 520-543.
36. Chong, "Creating Common Frames of Reference on Political Issues" (see note 12 above);
37. Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder, News That Matters: Television and American Opinion (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987);
38. and John R. Zaller and Stanley Feldman. "A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences," American Journal of Political Science (1992): 579-616.
39. See Chong, "Creating Common Frames of Reference on Political Issues" (see note 12 above);
40. Donald P. Haider-Markel and Mark R. Joslyn, "Framing Effects on Personal Opinion and Perception of Public Opinion: The Cases of Physician-Assisted Suicide and Social Security," Social Science Quarterly (2003): 690-705;
41. Haider-Markel and Joslyn, "Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution" (see note 16 above);
42. William G. Jacoby, "Public Attitudes Toward Government Spending," American Journal of Political Science (1994): 336-361;
43. Jacoby, "Levels of Measurement and Political Research," (see note 6 above);
44. Kinder and Sanders, "Mimicking Political Debate With Survey Questions" (see note 8 above);
45. Nelson and Kinder, "Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion" (see note 6 above);
46. Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley, "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and its Effect on Tolerance" (see note 8 above);
47. Roberts, Hite, and Bradley, "Understanding Attitudes Towards Progressive Taxation" (see note 8 above);
48. and Tom Smith, "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 (1987): 75-83.
49. Darren K. Carlson, "What About the War on Terrorism?" Gallup News Service, 11 February 2003;
50. and Jeffrey M. Jones, "Fear of Terrorism Increases Amidst Latest Warning," Gallup News Service, 12 February 2003.
51. Respondents who refused to answer the question were not included in the analysis.
52. Kimberly Gross, "The Limits of Framing: How Framing Effects May be Limited or Enhanced by Individual Level Predispositions." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 2000;
53. and Haider-Markel and Joslyn, "Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution" (see note 16 above)
54. . 22. Liberals were counted as "Strong Liberal, Not so strong liberal, and Moderate liberal." Moderates were simply those responding "Moderate." And conservatives were those responding "Strong conservative, Not so strong conservative, and Moderate conservative."
55. Davies, "U.S. Ignorance of Iraq Startles Pollsters" (see note 1 above).