Beyond accessibility? Toward an on-line and memory-based model of framing effects

Communications

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 51-78

  Matthes, Jörg ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

Accessibility; Framing; Media effects; Memory based judgments; On line judgments; Persuasion

Indexed keywords

EID: 61249531925     PISSN: 03412059     EISSN: 16134087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/COMMUN.2007.003     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Cappella, J. N. and Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism. The press and the public good. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press
2. Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (Eds.) (1999). Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford
3. Druckman, J. N. and Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 1-24
4. Druckman, J. N. and Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729-745
5. Druckman, J. N. (2002). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225-256
6. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58
7. Fazio, R. H. (2000). Accessible attitudes as tools for object appraisal: Their costs and benefits. In G. Maio and J. Olson (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 1-36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
8. Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-211
9. Festinger, L. and Maccoby, N. (1964). On resistance to persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, 359-366
10. Gross, K. and D'Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology. 25(1), 1-29
11. Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., and Maddox, K. B. (1999). Dualities and continua: Implications for understanding perceptions of persons and groups. In S. Chaiken, and Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 606-626). New York: Guilford
12. Hastie, R. and Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93(3), 258-268
13. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins, and A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford
14. Huang, L. (2000). Examining candidate information search processes: The impact of processing goals and sophistication. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 93-114
15. Igartua, J. J., Cheng, L., and Muñiz, C. (2005). Framing Latin America in the Spanish press. A cooled down friendship between two fraternal lands. Communications, 30(3), 359-372
16. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of California Press
17. Jarvis, W. B. G. and Petty, R. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 172-194
18. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 38, 341-350
19. Klapper, J. T. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Glenco, IL: The Free Press
20. Lavine, H. (2002). On-Line versus memory-based process models of political evaluation. In K. R. Monroe (Ed.), Political Psychology (pp. 225-274). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
21. Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Free Press
22. Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., and Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. The American Political Science Review, 83(2), 399-419
23. Mackie, D. M. and Asuncion, A. G. (1990). On-line and memory-based modification of attitudes: Determinants of message recall - attitude change correspondence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 5-16
24. Matthes, J. (2006). The need for orientation. Revising and validating a classic concept. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18(4), 422-444
25. Matthes, J., Wirth, W., and Schemer, C. (2007). Measuring the Unmeasurable? Toward operationalizing on-line and memory-based political judgments in surveys. - International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(2) (forthcoming)
26. McCombs, M. E. (2004). Setting the agenda: The news media and public opinion. Maiden, MA: Polity Press
27. McCombs, M. E. and Ghanem, S. I. (2001). The convergence of agenda setting and framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, and A. E Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: perspectives of media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 67-81). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
28. McGraw, K. (2000). Contributions of the cognitive approach to Political Psychology. Political Psychology, 21(4), 805-832
29. McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E., Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24(3), 421-448
30. McGuire, W. J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 192-229), New York: McGraw-Hill
31. Nabi, R. L. (2003). The framing effects of emotion: Can discrete emotions influence information recall and policy preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224-247
32. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, A., and Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246
33. Peter, J. (2004). Our long 'return to the concept of powerful mass media' - A crossnational comparative investigation of the effects of consonant media coverage. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16(2), 144-168
34. Petty, R. E. and Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. New York: Academic Press
35. Petty, R. E., Ostrom, T. M., and Brock, T. C. (1981). Cognitive responses in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates
36. Price, V. and Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. Barnett and F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progresses in the Communication Sciences (pp. 173-212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex
37. Price, V., Tewksbury, D., and Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on reader's cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24(5), 481-506
38. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (1997). Attitude accessibility and persuasion: Review and a transactive model. In B. R. Burleson and A. W. Kunkel (Eds.), Communication Yearbook (pp. 185-225), Thousand Oaks: Sage
39. Scheufele, B. (2004). Framing-effects approach: A theoretical and methodological critique. Communications, 29(4), 401-428
40. Scheufele, B. (2006). Frames, schemata and news reporting. Communications, 31(1), 65-83
41. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 5(2), 297-316
42. Schwarz, N. (2000). Social judgment and attitudes: warmer, more social, and less conscious. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 149-176
43. Schwarz, N. (in press). Attitude construction: Evaluation in context. Social Cognition. Shen, F. (2004). Chronic accessibility and individual cognitions: Examining the effects of message frames in political advertisements. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 123-137
44. Shrum, L. J. (2004). The cognitive processes underlying cultivation effects are a function of whether the judgments are on-line or memory-based. Communications, 29(3), 327-344
45. Tormala, Z. L. and Petty, R. E. (2001). On-line versus memory-based processing: The role of "need to evaluate" in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(12), 1599-1622
46. Valkenburg, P. M., Semetko, H. A., and de Vreese, C. H. (1999). The effects of news frames on readers' thoughts and recall. Communication Research, 26(5), 550-569
47. Vreese, C. H., de (2004). The effects of strategic news on political cynicism, issue evaluations and policy support: A two-wave experiment. Mass Communication and Society, 7(2), 191-215
48. Vreese, C. H., de and Boomgaarden, H. (2003). Valenced news frames and public support for the EU. Communications, 28(4), 361-381
49. Weaver, D. H. (1980). Audience need for orientation and media effects. Communication Research, 5, 361-376
50. Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., Smoak, N. D., and Fabrigar, L. R. (2004). Multiple routes to resisting attitude change. In E. S. Knowles and J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 13-38). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
51. Wilson, T. D. and Hodges, S. D. (1992). Attitudes as temporary constructions. In L. L Martin and A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 37-65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
52. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., and Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101-126
53. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press