Social distance, framing, and judgment: A construal level perspective

Human Communication Research

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 489-514

  Nan, Xiaoli ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34548814156     PISSN: 03603989     EISSN: 14682958     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00309.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Block, L. G. Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 192 203.
2. Davis, J. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 285 299.
3. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47, 1 15.
4. Ebert, J. E. J. (2005). Self-sympathy in the short-term: Self-other differences in long-term benefits and short-term costs. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 182 183.
5. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Nathanson, A. I., Detenber, B. H. McLeod, D. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary: Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third-person perception. Communication Research, 26, 275 302.
6. Eyal, T., Liberman, N. Trope, Y 2004). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 781 795.
7. Fiedler, K., Semin, G. R., Finkenauer, C. Berkel, I 1995). Actor-observer bias in close relationships: The role of self-knowledge and self-related language. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 525 538.
8. Forster, J., Friedman, R. S. Liberman, N 2004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177 189.
9. Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third-person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355 372.
10. Gunther A. C. Thorson, E 1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcements: Third-person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574 596.
11. Jones, E. E., Wood, G. C. Quattrone, G. A. (1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in ingroups and outgroups: The role of knowledge and evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 523 528.
12. Kahneman, D. Tversky, A 1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263 291.
13. Keppel, G 1991). Design and analysis: A researcher's handbook (3rd ed Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall.
14. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L. Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149 188.
15. Lewin, K 1951). Field theory in social science. New York : Harper.
16. Liberman, N. Trope, Y 1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5 18.
17. Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W. Yoon, C 1996). Perceived covariation among the features of ingroup and outgroup members: The outgroup covariation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 421 436.
18. Maheswaran, D. Meyers-Levy, J 1990). The Influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361 367.
19. McLeod, D. M., Detenber, B. H. Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2001). Behind the third-person effect: Differentiating perceptual processes for self and other. Journal of Communication, 51, 678 685.
20. McLeod, D. M., Eveland, W. P., Jr. Nathanson, A. I. (1997). Support for censorship of violent and misogynic rap lyrics: An analysis of the third-person effect. Communication Research, 24, 153 174.
21. Meirick, P. C. (2005). Self-enhancement motivation as a third variable in the relationship between first- and third-person effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 473 483.
22. Meyerowitz, B. E. Chaiken, S 1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500 510.
23. Mitchell, M. M. (2001). Risk, Threat, and information seeking about genital herpes: The effects of mood and message framing. Communication Studies, 52, 141 152.
24. O'Keefe, D. J. Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Communication Yearbook, 30, 1 43.
25. O'Keefe, D. J. Jensen, J. D. (in press-a). Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic review. Communication Studies.
26. O'Keefe, D. J. Jensen, J. D. (in press-b). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication.
27. Pennington, G. I. Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 563 576.
28. Perloff, R. M. (1989). Ego-involvement and the third person effect of televised news coverage. Communication Research, 16, 236 262.
29. Perloff, R. M. (2002). The third-person effect. In B. Jennings D. Zillman (Eds Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 489 506). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
30. Price, V., Tewksbury, D. Huang, L 1998). Third person effects on publication of a Holocaust-denial advertisement. Journal of Communication, 48 (2 3 26.
31. Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J. Salovey, P 2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, S202 S220.
32. Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K. Martin, C 1993). The influence of message framing on health behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 408 433.
33. Shah, D. V., Faber, R. J. Youn, S 1999). Susceptibility and severity: Perceptual dimensions underlying the third-person effect. Communication Research, 26, 240 267.
34. Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M. Zubric, J 2004). The interplay of news frames on cognitive complexity. Human Communication Research, 30, 102 120.
35. Trope, Y. Liberman, N 2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403 421.
36. Umphrey, L. R. (2003). The effects of message framing and message processing on testicular self-examination attitudes and perceived susceptibility. Communication Research Reports, 20 (2 97 105.
37. Weinstein, N. D. (1987). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, 481 498.
38. Ziamou, P. Veryzer, R. W. (2005). The influence of temporal distance on consumer preferences for technology-based innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 336 346.