A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments

Journal of Communication

Volumn 57, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 99-118

  Chong, Dennis ^a   Druckman, James N ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; THEORY;

EID: 33847263474     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Ajzen, I., & Sexton, J. (1999). Depth of processing, belief congruence, and attitude-behavior correspondence. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 117-140). New York: Guilford Press.
2. Bargh, J. A., Bond, R., Lombardi, W., & Tota, M. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 869-878.
3. Bargh, J. A., Lombardi, W. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person X situation effects on perception: It's just a matter of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 599-605.
4. Barker, D. C. (2005). Values, frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns. Political Behavior, 27, 375-394.
5. Bless, H., Fiedler, K., & Strack, F. (2004). Social cognition: How individuals construct social reality. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
6. Brewer, P. R. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values? Political Psychology, 22 (1), 45-64.
7. Brewer, P. R., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens' thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26, 929-948.
8. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (Eds.) (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
10. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.
11. Chong, D. (1996). Creating common frames of reference on political issues. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 195-224). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
12. Chong, D. (2000). Rational lives: Norms and values in politics and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Chong, D., & Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (2003). Framing the growth debate. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 28-31, 2003.
14. D'Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870-888.
15. Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Wackman, D. B. (1998). Media priming effects: Accessibility, association, and activation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 10 (1), 51-74.
16. Druckman, J. N. (2001a). Evaluating framing effects. Journal of Economic Psychology, 22 (1), 91-101.
17. Druckman, J. N. (2001b). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
18. Druckman, J. N. (2001c). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
19. Druckman, J. N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. Journal of Politics 65, 559-571.
20. Druckman, J. N. (2004a). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
21. Druckman, J. N. (2004b). Priming the vote: Campaign effects in a US senate election. Political Psychology, 25, 577-594.
22. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 728-744.
23. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
24. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4), 51-58.
25. Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 23 (pp. 75-109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26. 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.
27. Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude-behavior processes. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 97-116). New York: Guilford Press.
28. Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In H. E. Howe Jr. & M. M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation, 1979, Vol. 27 (pp. 65-116). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
29. Ford, T. E., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1995). Effects of epistemic motivations on the use of accessible constructs in social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 950-962.
30. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. D. Braungart (Ed.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
31. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1), 1-37.
32. Glaberson, W. (1999, September 30). Hazy legal terrain. New York Times, B12.
33. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Gross, K. (2000). 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, April 27-30, 2000.
35. Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics, 63, 520-543.
36. Herr, P. M., Sherman, S. J., & Fazio, R. H. (1983). On the consequences of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 323-340.
37. Herszenhorn, D. M. (1999, September 30). Brooklyn museum accused of trying to spur art value. New York Times, A1.
38. 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.
39. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). 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: Erlbaum.
40. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13 (2), 141-154.
41. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42. Iyengar, S., & D. R. Kinder. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
43. Jasperson, A., Shah, D. V., Watts, M. D., Faber, R. J., & Fan, D. P. (1998). Framing and the public agenda: Media effects on the importance of the federal budget deficit. Political Communication, 15, 205-224.
44. Jou, J., Shanteau, J., & Harris, R. J. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects. Memory & Cognition, 24 (1), 1-15.
45. Kellstedt, P. M. (2000). Media framing and the dynamics of racial policy preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 239-255.
46. Kimmelman, M. (1999, September 29). After long silence, biggest museums joined fight. New York Times, B5.
47. 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 (1), 73-103.
48. Koromvokis, L. (Executive Producer). (1999, October 8). News hour with Jim Lehrer [Television broadcast]. New York and Washington, DC: Public Broadcasting Service.
49. Lombardi, W. J., Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). The role of consciousness in priming effects on categorization: Assimilation versus contrast as a function of awareness of the priming task. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 411-429.
50. Martin, L. L., & Achee, J. W. (1992). Beyond accessibility: The role of processing objectives in judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 195-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
51. McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
52. Messaris, P., & Abraham, L. (2001). The role of images in framing news stories. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 215-226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Miller, J. M. (2005). Examining the mediators of agenda setting: A new experimental paradigm. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Minnesota.
54. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295-309.
55. Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion. Communication Research, 30, 224-247.
56. 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.
57. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221-246.
58. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (2001). Framing as a strategic action in publication deliberation. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 35-66). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
59. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. II, 4th ed., pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
60. Petty, R. E., Wheeler, S. C., & Tormala, Z. L. (2003). Persuasion and attitude change. In T. Mellon & M. J. Learner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 5: Personality and social psychology (pp. 353-282). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
61. 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.
62. 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.
63. Riker, W. H. (1995). The political psychology of rational choice theory. Political Psychology, 16 (1), 23-44.
64. Scheufele, B. (2004). Framing-effects approach: A theoretical and methodological critique. European Journal of Communication Research, 29, 401-428.
65. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49 (1), 103-122.
66. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297-316.
67. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). 'To thine own self be true': Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509-560.
68. Shah, D. V., Watts, M. D., Domke, D., & Fan, D. P. (2002). News framing and cueing of issue regimes: Explaining Clinton's public approval in spite of scandal. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 339-370.
69. Shen, F., & Edwards, H. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55, 795-809.
70. Slothuus, R. (2005). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual process model of issue framing effects. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 6-10, 2005.
71. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.) Studies in public opinion (pp. 133-165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
72. Stapel, D., Koomen, W., & Zeelenberg, M. (1998). The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: Accuracy X knowledge accessibility effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 878-893.
73. Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 429-442.
74. Wittman, D. (1995). The myth of democratic failure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
75. Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 539-570.
76. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.