Seeking more information and conversations: Influence of competitive frames and motivated processing

Communication Research

Volumn 38, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 303-325

  Borah, Porismita ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

competitive framing; framing effects; motivated processing; psychological mechanisms

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955732717     PISSN: 00936502     EISSN: 15523810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0093650210376190     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. Afifi,W. A., & Weiner, J. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory, 14, 167-190.
2. Alvarez, M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information and American public opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Anderson, T.D. (2006). Uncertainty in action: Observing information seeking within the creative processes of scholarly research. Information Research, 12, 283-298.
4. Ball-Rokeach, S.J., & Loges, W.E. (1996). Making choices: Media roles in the construction of value choices. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 277-298). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5. Ball-Rokeach, S.J., Power, G.J., Guthrie, K.K., & Waring, H.R. (1990). Value-framing abortion in the United States: An application of media system dependency theory. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 249-273.
6. Berger, C.R. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 39-62). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
7. Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99-112.
8. Borah, P. (2008). Examining media content: A case study of newspaper coverage of dowry in India. Asian Journal of Communication, 18, 379-395.
9. Borah, P. (2011). Conceptual issues in framing: A systematic examination of a decade's literature. Journal of Communication, 61 (2), 246-263.
10. Boyle, M., Schmierbach, M., Armstrong, C. Cho, J., McCluskey, M. McLeod, D.et al.(2006). Expressive responses to news stories about extremist groups: A framing experiment. Journal of Communication, 56, 271-288.
11. Bradac, J.J. (2001). Theory comparison: Uncertainty reduction, problematic integration, uncertainty management, and other curious constructs. Journal of Communication, 51, 456-476.
12. Brashers, D.E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51, 477-497.
13. Brashers, D.E., Goldsmith, D.J., & Hsieh, E. (2002). Information seeking and avoiding in health context. Human Communication Research, 28, 258-271.
14. Brewer, P. (2002). Framing, value words, and citizens' explanations of their issue opinions. Political Communication, 19, 303-316.
15. Brewer, P. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A framing-based account. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173-201.
16. Burkhalter, S., Gastil, J., & Kelshaw, T. (2002). A conceptual definition and theoretical model of public deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Communication Theory, 12, 398-422.
17. Carragee, K.M., & Roefs, W. (2004). The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication, 54, 214-233.
18. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.
19. Cho, H., & Lee, J. (2008). Collaborative information seeking in intercultural computer- mediated communication groups: Testing the influence of social context using social network analysis. Communication Research, 35, 548-573.
20. Chong, D. (2000). Rational lives: Norms and values in politics and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
21. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007a). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118.
22. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007b). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. Annual Review of Political Science, 101, 637-655.
23. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007c). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
24. Choudhury, S., & Gibbs, F. (2009). Relationship among activities and problems causing uncertainty in information seeking and retrieval. Journal of Documentation, 65, 470-499.
25. Domke, D., Shah, D., & Wackman, D. (1998). Moral referendums: Values, news media, and the process of candidate choice. Political Communication, 15, 301-321.
26. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
27. Druckman, J. (2001a). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
28. Druckman, J. (2001b). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
29. Druckman, J. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
30. Druckman, J., & Bolsen, T. (IN PRESS). How scientific evidence links attitudes to behaviors. In D. Dana (Ed.), The nanotechnology challenge: Creating law and legal institutions for uncertain risks. New York: Cambridge University Press.
31. Druckman, J., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behavior, 30, 297-321.
32. Druckman, J. Kuklinski, J., & Sigelman, L. (2009). The unmet potential of interdisciplinary research: Political psychological approaches to voting and public opinion. Political Behavior, 31, 485-510.
33. Dutwin, D. (2003). The character of deliberation: Equality, argument, and the formation of public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 40-264.
34. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.
35. Entman, R. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6-27.
36. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
37. Erdelyi, M.H. (1974). A new look at the new look: Perceptual defence and vigilance. Psychological Review, 81, 1-25.
38. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
39. Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 268-307.
40. Gamson, W., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.
41. Gerend, M., & Cullen, M. (2008). Effects of message framing and temporal context on college student drinking behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1167-1173.
42. Gerend, M., Shepherd, J., & Monday, K. (2008). Behavioral frequency moderates the effects of message framing on HPV vaccine acceptability. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 221-229.
43. Gibson, J. (1998). A sober second thought: An experiment in persuading Russians to tolerate. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 819-850.
44. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.
46. Hass, R.G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Moore, L. (1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786-797.
47. Holbrook, A.L., & Krosnick, J.A. (2005). Meta-psychological versus operative measures of ambivalence: Differentiating the consequences of perceived intra-psychic conflict and real intra-psychic conflict. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 73-103). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
48. Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12(1), 19-40.
49. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
50. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory-Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
51. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
52. Kim,J., & Kim, E. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and dialogue. Communication Theory, 18, 51-70.
53. Kim, J., Wyatt, R.O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16, 361-385.
54. Kinders, D., & Sanders, L. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
56. Kwak, N., Williams, A.E., Wang, X., & Lee, H. (2005). Talking politics and engaging politics: An examination of the interactive relationships between structural features of political talk and discussion elements. Communication Research, 32(1), 7-111.
57. Levine, T., & Hullet, C. (2002). Eta-squared, partial eta-squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 612-625.
58. Marchionini, G. (1995). Information seeking in electronic environments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59. Marcus, G., Neuman, R., & Mackuen, M. (2000).Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60. MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 440-458.
61. McGraw, K.M., Hasecke, E., & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24, 421-448.
62. McGraw, K.M., & Bartels, B. (2005). Ambivalence toward American political institutions. In S. C. Craig & M. D. Martinez (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 106-126). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
63. McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D.A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315-336.
64. McLeod, J.M., Scheufele, D.A., Moy, P., Horowitz, E.M., Holbert, R.L., Zhang, W., Zubric, S., & Zubric, J. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects of discussion networks on participating in a public forum. Communication Research, 26, 743-774.
65. Nabi, R. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking and policy preference? Communication Research, 30, 224-247.
66. Newby-Clark, I.R., McGregor, I., & Zanna, M. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 157-166.
67. Nelson, T., Clawson, R.A., & Oxley, Z.M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583).
68. Nelson, T., Oxley, Z., & Clawson, R. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221-246.
69. Nelson, T., & Willey, E. (2001). Issue frames that strike a value balance: A political psychology perspective. In S. Reese, O. Gandy, Jr., A. Grant. (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp 245-266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
70. Nordgren, L.F., van Harreveld, F., & van der Pligt, J. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 252-258.
71. Pan, Z., & Kosicki,G. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10(1), 55-75.
72. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. (2005). Framing and the understanding of citizenship. In S. Dunwoody, L. Backer, D. McLeod, & G. Kosicki (Eds.), The evolution of key mass communication concepts (pp. 165-204). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
73. Planalp, S., & Honeycutt, J. (1985). Events that increase uncertainty in personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 11, 593-604.
74. 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.
75. Reinhart, A., Marshall, H. Feeley, T., & Tutzauer, F. (2007). The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Monographs, 74, 229-255.
76. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
77. Rotham, A. Bartels, R., 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.
78. Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.
79. Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297-316.
80. Scheufele, D.A. (2000b). Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion and their implications for democracy. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 727-743.
81. Scheufele, D.A. & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting and priming: The evolution of three media effects model. Journal of Communication, 57, 9-20.
82. Simon, A. (2001). A unified method for analyzing media framing. In R. P. Hunt & D. R. Shaw (Eds.), Communication in U.S. election: new agendas (pp 74-89) Lanham, MD.: Rowman & Littlefield.
83. 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.
84. Shah, D., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. (1996). To thine own self be true: Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509-560.
85. Shah, D., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M., & Zubric, J. (2004). The interplay of news frames on cognitive complexity. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 102-120.
86. Valentino, N., Beckmann, M., & Buhr, T. (2001). A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government. Political Communication, 18, 347-367.
87. Weaver, D. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 142-147.
88. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and opinions of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
89. Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.
90. Zhao X., & Cai, X. (2008). The role of ambivalence in college nonsmokers' information seeking and information processing. Communication Research, 35, 298-318.