When Good News Is Bad News: Explicating the Moderated Mediation Dynamic Behind the Reversed Mobilization Effect

Journal of Communication

Volumn 62, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 57-77

  Schuck, Andreas R T ^a   de Vreese, Claes H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BOOTSTRAPPING; EUROPEAN UNION; RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 84856513746     PISSN: 00219916     EISSN: 14602466     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01624.x     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Bandura, A. (1997). Self efficacy: The exercise of control New York: W.H. Freeman.
2. Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3. Baron, R., Logan, H., Lilly, J., Inman, M., & Brennan, M. (1994). Negative emotion and message processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 181-201.
4. Baumeister, R., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenhauer, C., & Vohs, K. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-370.
5. Bizer, G., & Petty, R. (2005). How we conceptualize our attitude measures: The effects of valence framing on the resistance of political attitudes. Political Psychology, 26(4), 553-568.
6. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Bullock, J., Green, D., & Ha, S. (2010). Yes, but what's the mechanism? (Don't expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 550-558.
8. Bullock, J., & Ha, S. (2010). Mediation analysis is harder than it looks. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9. Campbell, D., & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
10. Christin, T., Hug, S., & Sciarini, P. (2002). Interests and information in referendum voting: An analysis of Swiss voters. European Journal of Political Research, 41, 759-776.
11. Ditto, P., & Lopez, D. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568-584.
12. Druckman, J., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behavior, 30, 297-321.
13. Dunlop, S., Wakefield, M., & Kashima, Y. (2008). Can you feel it? Negative emotion, risk, and narrative in health communication. Media Psychology, 11, 52-75.
14. Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace & Janovich.
15. Fiske, S. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(6), 889-906.
16. Frone, M. (1999). Work stress and alcohol use. Alcohol Research & Health, 23, 284-291.
17. Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169-192.
18. Gross, K., & D'Ambrosio, L. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25(1), 1-29.
19. Hastings, J., Kane, T., Staiger, D., & Weinstein, J. (2007). The effect of randomized school admissions on voter participation. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 915-937.
20. Hobolt, S. B. (2005). When Europe matters: The impact of political information on voting behaviour in EU referendums. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 15(1), 85-109.
21. Hobolt, S. B. (2006). How parties affect vote choice in European integration referendums. Party Politics, 12(5), 623-647.
22. Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. (2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. In W. Marcus, G. Neuman, A. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior (pp. 202-230). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Jordan, N. (1965). The asymmetry of 'liking' and 'disliking': A phenomenon meriting further reflection and research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29(3), 315-322.
24. Kahn, K., & Kenney, P. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 877-889.
25. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrics, 47, 111-132.
26. Kenny, D. (2008). Reflections on mediation. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 353-358.
27. Kernell, S. (1977). Presidential popularity and negative voting. The American Political Science Review, 71, 44-66.
28. Kirchgässner, G., & Schulz, T. (2005). Expected closeness or mobilisation: Why do voters go to the polls? Empirical results for Switzerland, 1981-1999. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1387.
29. Lau, R. (1985). Two explanations for negative effects in political behavior. Journal of Political Science, 29, 119-138.
30. Lecheler, S., de Vreese, C., & Slothuus, R. (2009). Issue importance as a moderator of framing effects. Communication Research, 36(3), 400-425.
31. Lerner, J., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Social Psychology, 81(1), 146-159.
32. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
33. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
34. Maddux, J., & Rogers, R. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 469-479.
35. Maibach, E., & Murphy, D. (1995). Self-efficacy in health promotion research and practice: Conceptualization and measurement. Health Education Research, 10, 37-50.
36. Marcus, G., & MacKuen, M. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 672-685.
37. Marcus, G., Neuman, W., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgement. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Martin, P. (2004). Inside the black box of negative campaign effects: Three reasons why negative campaigns mobilize. Political Psychology, 25(4), 545-562.
39. Martin, P. (2008). The mass media as sentinel: Why bad news about issues is good news for participation. Political Communication, 25(2), 180-193.
40. Meffert, M., Chung, S., Joiner, A., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. Journal of Communication, 56, 27-51.
41. Miller, J., & Krosnick, J. (2002). Threat as a motivator of political activism: A field experiment. Political Psychology, 25(4), 507-523.
42. Min, Y. (2004). News coverage of negative political campaigns. An experiment of negative campaign effects on turnout and candidate preference. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(4), 95-111.
43. Muller, D., Judd, C., & Yzerbyt, V. (2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 852-863.
44. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205).
45. Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences(pp. 93-130). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
46. Pfau, M., Szabo, E., Anderson, J., Morrill, J., Zubric, J., & Wan, H.-H. (2001). The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 27(2), 216-252.
47. Pratto, F., & John, O. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 380-391.
48. Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(4), 717-731.
49. Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008a). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879-891.
50. Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008b). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Preacher, K., Rucker, D., & Hayes, A. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185-227.
52. Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thoughts: The impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24(5), 481-506.
53. Rimal, R., & Real, K. (2003). Perceived risk and efficacy beliefs as motivators of change: Use of the risk perception attitude (RPA) framework to understand health behaviours. Human Communication Research, 29(3), 370-399.
54. Schneider, T. R., Salovey, P., Apanovitch, A. M., Pizarro, J., McCarthy, D., Zullo, J., et al. (2001). The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychology, 20, 256-266.
55. Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2008). The Dutch No to the EU constitution: Assessing the role of EU skepticism and the campaign. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties, 18(1), 101-128.
56. Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2009). Reversed mobilization in referendum campaigns: How positive news framing can mobilize the skeptics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 40-66.
57. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422-445.
58. Sigelman, L., & Kugler, M. (2003). Why is research on the effects of negative campaigning so inconclusive? Understanding citizens' perceptions of negativity. The Journal of Politics, 65(1), 142-160.
59. Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual-process model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology, 29(1), 1-28.
60. Sobel, M. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1986 (pp. 159-186). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
61. Tao, C.-C., & Bucy, E. (2007). Conceptualizing media stimuli in experimental research: Psychological versus attribute-based definitions. Human Communication Research, 33, 397-426.
62. Turner, M. (2006). Using emotion in risk communication: The anger activism model. Public Relations Review, 33, 114-119.
63. Williams, J., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2008). Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 23-51.
64. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349.
65. Witte, K., & Allen, A. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education Behavior, 27(5), 591-615.