MASS COMMUNICATION & SOCIETY, 2007, 10(4), 439460

Frame Intensity Effects of Television News Stories About a High-Visibility Protest Issue
Benjamin H. Detenber
School of Communication and Information Nanyang Technological University

Melissa R. Gotlieb and Douglas M. McLeod

School of Journalism and Mass Communication University of WisconsinMadison

Olga Malinkina
TNS Gallup Media

This study investigated the effects of the intensity of the protest paradigm frame in news stories about social protests. In contrast to previous research, this experiment examined framing effects in the context of a highly visible and familiar issue. The intensity of the application of the protest paradigm frame and its attendant signifying elements and framing devices were manipulated in television news stories about pro-choice and pro-life protests. Specifically, the high-intensity protest paradigm frame conditions were more critical of the protesters. We tested six hypotheses regarding whether this greater frame intensity would lead viewers to be more negative toward the protesters. Results showed significant main effects of frame intensity for some dependent measures but not others. The findings offer more evidence of framing effects but also suggest limitations on their influence.

Research on the influence of news frames on audience perceptions reveals that framing effects can and do occur across a range of domains (Reese, 2001; Scheufele, 1999). In the specific context of media coverage of social protests, past
Correspondence should be addressed to Douglas M. McLeod, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of WisconsinMadison, 5115 Vilas Communication Hall, 821 University Avenue, Madison, WI 53706. E-mail: dmmcleod@wisc.edu

440

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

studies have demonstrated that differences in the way news stories are constructed can lead to particular audience effects. These studies indicate that, under certain conditions, variations in frames and the intensity with which they are presented in news stories can influence audience perceptions of the nature of the protest, the groups involved, and the degree of public support they receive (McLeod, 1995; McLeod & Detenber, 1999; Shoemaker, 1982). This study builds on research examining the effects of protest news frames by first classifying the characteristics of Chan and Lees (1984) protest paradigm according to the framework offered by Pan and Kosicki (1993). Thus, in addition to examining effects of social protest frames on audiences, this study also focuses on the way in which various signifying elements are manipulated in a news story, through the use of framing devices, and combined to communicate an overall frame (Pan & Kosicki, 1993; see also DAngelo, 2002; Entman, 1993). Specifically, we examine how the use of particular elements of the protest paradigm identified by McLeod and Hertog (1999), including the conflict narrative, the use of official sources, invocation of pubic opinion, the use of stance adverbs, and the use of images in the construction of protest stories, affects audience responses. We further demonstrate the way in which these framing devices can be modified to alter the intensity with which a frame is presented in a news story and the effects this has on viewers. That is, we examine frame intensity, which we conceptualize as the degree to which the elements of a particular frame (e.g., the protest paradigm) are incorporated into news stories. In the process of examining the effects of frame intensity, this study also addresses two specific limitations of past research. First, past studies of the effects of protest paradigm coverage used issues that were unfamiliar to participants. In other words, the news stories covered issues for which participants had likely given little previous thought and involved protest groups with which they may have had little if any direct experience or preexisting knowledge. Ball-Rokeach and DeFleurs (1976) Dependency Model of Media Effects suggests that such conditions would enhance framing effects. Drawing on this theory and Zallers (1992) discussion of issue intensity and familiarity, we contend that it is possible, and even likely, that this lack of familiarity and salience may have magnified the observed effects of the news stories on viewers perceptions. In light of this interpretation of the findings from previous research, an important question arises: Will similar news effects of frame intensity occur when audience members are shown news stories about protests involving familiar issues? To answer this question, this study uses the more familiar issue of abortion rights, a highly contentious social issue in America and one that concerns a great many people. Second, this study addresses the desire for more precise control over the message stimuli. Past research examining the framing effects of protest news stories utilized naturally occurring messages (i.e., actual items from news telecasts) to operationalize differences in news frames and frame intensity (McLeod, 1995; McLeod & Detenber, 1999). To eliminate potential message idiosyncrasies and

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

441

possible confounds, this study creates news stories that hold as much of the content as possible constant, manipulating only those factors that vary the intensity of the frame (i.e., adherence to the protest paradigm).

NEWS FRAMES, FRAME CONSTRUCTION, AND FRAMING EFFECTS Communication researchers have defined a frame as a central theme or organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events, weaving a connection among them (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987, p. 143). As such, news frames provide journalists with recognizable patterns for packaging the events and issues of a news story (Gamson, 1992; Pan & Kosicki, 1993, 2005; Tankard, 2001). In other words, they provide journalists with guidelines for the selection, emphasis, and presentation of news stories based on journalists tacit theories of newsworthiness and the social function of their profession. The selection of elements, emphasis, and presentation of a news story are all important factors to consider in constructing and communicating a particular news frame. Thus, in addition to examining a particular frame, or underlying theme of a news story, it is equally important to examine the contributing roles of the individual framing devices used to construct, or operationalize, the frame (Pan & Kosicki, 1993; see also Gamson & Modiglianis, 1987, discussion of symbolic devices). In addition to providing journalists the means to communicate the central frame of a news story, these framing devices, which may be categorized according to their contribution to a news storys thematic, script, syntactical, and rhetorical structure, also provide the audience with concrete elements to process (see Pan & Kosicki, 1993). Thus, in addition to enabling journalists to package and present large amounts of information quickly and routinely, frames (and framing devices) allow for efficient processing and recall by audiences. That is, frames not only guide news production, they also affect audience perceptions (Iyengar, 1991; Price & Tewksbury, 1997; Shah, Domke, & Wackman, 2001). Framing effects have been demonstrated in a variety of contexts. For example, Iyengar (1990b, 1991) has shown that particular frames in news coverage of social problems like unemployment and poverty influence audience perceptions of the causes of problems and the responsibility for fixing them. Various dimensions of news frames have been shown to be influential in the context of political campaigns: strategic versus issue frames (Rhee, 1997), issue versus character frames (Shen, 2004), ethical versus material frames (Shah, Domke, & Wackman, 1996, 2001), and individual versus group frames (Keum et al., 2005). Price, Tewksbury, and Powers (1997) made the distinction among human interest, conflict, and personal consequences frames in newspaper stories about university funding and demonstrated their effect on how the audience

442

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

thought about the issue. Shoemaker (1982) found that the nature of newspaper stories influences readers perceptions of the political groups legitimacy. In considering the framing process and resulting effects, researchers have focused on two mechanisms: accessibility and salience. With respect to the former, many researchers believe that framing effects are a function of construct accessibility (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; Price & Tewksbury, 1997; Shen, 2004; Zaller, 1992). That is, they believe people are cognitive misers who rely on heuristic processing or mental shortcuts to help reduce the load of information processing. Rather than consciously evaluating all the relevant information, associations, and feelings one has stored in memory, people make judgments and interpretations and form opinions based on which constructs are most accessible. In a connectionist or associative model of cognition, accessibility refers to the readiness with which constructs (i.e., knowledge or attitudes) can be activated (Fazio, 1995; Higgins, 1996). The likelihood of accessible constructs influencing perceptions or opinions has been called both the availability heuristic (Shrum & OGuinn, 1993; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973) and the accessibility bias (Iyengar, 1990a). In other words, exposure to news stories and the frames embedded within them make certain considerations more readily accessible when individuals are called upon to make evaluations of groups and issues mentioned in the story. In this way, news frames enhance the accessibility of particular interpretations of characters, events, and issues in news stories. However, frames may also influence peoples perceptions and judgments by making specific features of a message or news story salient, thereby increasing the likelihood that attention will be paid to those features (see Higgins, 1989, 1996; Taylor & Thompson, 1982). These salient features are important to peoples understanding and interpretation of news stories and are therefore influential in shaping their processing and subsequent perceptions and evaluations. Although Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley (1997) found evidence supporting the roles of both accessibility and salience in framing effects, the authors conclude, the accessibility of different considerations is not nearly as important as the weight attached to these considerations (p. 578). As such, a goal of this study is to show how amplifying the intensity of a particular frame by manipulating the individual framing devices used to construct a news story can make the frame and corresponding devices more salient, thereby rendering certain interpretations more accessible for making subsequent judgments related to the story.

PROTEST PARADIGM AS A FRAMING DEVICE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON AUDIENCE PERCEPTIONS As Entman (1993) explained, news frames select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating context, in such a way as to

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

443

promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described (p. 52). News coverage of social protests illustrates this particular function of news frames. Specifically, in defining, interpreting, and morally evaluating social protests, news coverage tends to adopt a loosely defined set of characteristics that has been referred to as the protest paradigm (Chan & Lee, 1984). As a whole, the protest paradigm provides the central organizing idea (see Gamson & Modigliani, 1989, p. 3) as well as a template that guides the construction of news stories for print and broadcast journalists. Regarding frame construction, Entman (1993) explained that frames are manifested by the presence or absence of certain key words, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of information, and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments (p. 52). With respect to the protest paradigm, McLeod and Hertog (1999) identified several of these elements, or framing devices, including narrative structure and story themes, reliance on official sources and definitions, and the invocation of public opinion. The presence of these framing devices serves, though perhaps unintentionally, to delegitimize, marginalize, and demonize the protest and protesters (McLeod & Hertog, 1999). As a result, the protest paradigm contributes to the maintenance of the status quoa characteristic of the mass media resulting from the biases of individual journalists, professional conventions and practices, organizational goals, ideologies, economic considerations, and sociocultural world views (Dimmick & Coit, 1983; Herman & Chomsky, 1988; Hertog & McLeod, 1995; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996; Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1973). In terms of thematic structure (Pan & Kosicki, 1993), protest stories may adopt several subthemes including crime, where the emphasis is on arrests and legal violations, and the depiction of a riot scene, where the emphasis is on the resulting chaos. However, most prevalent is the depiction of confrontation. That is, the narrative theme of news stories adhering to the protest paradigm inherently depicts a confrontation between the protesters and police (McLeod & Hertog, 1999). Specifically, news stories tend to cast participants as adversaries and emphasize any violent acts associated with the protest (Gitlin, 1980; McLeod & Hertog, 1992). Negative portrayals of social protests focus on the violent actions of a few while ignoring the peaceful actions of the majority of protesters (Hertog & McLeod, 1995). Protesters often engage in violence to get media attention, which in turn shifts the focus of the news stories from the issues of the protest to the clash between the protesters and police (McLeod & Hertog, 1992). Another important feature of the protest paradigm is journalists reliance on official sources and definitions of the protest situation. By using official sources, journalists add importance to the news stories, increase efficiency of news production, and ultimately support the status quo (Fishman, 1980; Sigal, 1973; Soley, 1992). Use of official sources may also make the stories more influential in shaping viewers perceptions by adding credibility to the message.

444

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

The protest paradigms third characteristic is the invocation of public opinion. News stories communicate cues to public opinion in different ways: through opinion polls, by making generalizations about public opinion, by referring to social norms and laws, and by including comments from bystanders. These representations of public opinion help to locate the event in the broader landscape of the public sphere and serve as cues for audience interpretations of the protest (McLeod & Detenber, 1999). Frequently, public opinion is used to comment on the deviance of the protesters. For example, it is common for protest coverage to focus on violations of norms and laws (embodiments of the social consensus), accentuating the protesters deviance (McLeod & Hertog, 1992). Beyond the reinforcement of social norms, a variety of presentational techniques effectively delegitimizes, marginalizes, and even demonizes protesters (McLeod & Hertog, 1999). For instance, print journalists engage in the strategic use of quotation marks to draw certain ideas into question without compromising journalistic objectivity (Tuchman, 1978). Gitlin (1980) provided an example from the coverage of antiwar protests in which journalists used quotation marks when using the protesters self-designated label of peace march. The reliance on official sources, invocation of public opinion, and strategic use of quotation marks correspond to the framing devices that Pan and Kosicki (1993) classified as contributing to the syntactical structure of a news story. They explained that practices such as citing empirical data, linking certain points of view to authority by quoting official sources, and marginalizing certain points of view by relating a quote or point of view to a social deviant are indicative of attempts to provide balance or impartiality to the story (p. 60). Also inherent to the protest paradigm are framing devices that provide rhetorical structure (Pan & Kosicki, 1993). In the protest paradigm these include the use of stance adverbs and visuals. Stance adverbs (e.g., allegedly, presumably, or supposedly) undermine credibility or convey a preferred interpretation of events (Lipari, 1996). In broadcast news, voice inflections, facial expressions, and body language can convey a reporters feelings or position on an issue (McLeod & Detenber, 1999). Engaging in these activities provides the opportunity for a kind of editorial commentary within the bounds of hard-news reporting. Similarly, the selection and juxtaposition of visual content can reflect a particular stance or ideological orientation. Indeed, the very nature of images (i.e., their analogic quality, their indexicality, etc.) makes them less obtrusive as framing devices than linguistic constructions, and the use of images, especially those dealing with race, to communicate a particular frame has been well documented (Messaris & Abraham, 2001). Although ample research demonstrates media support for the status quo and illustrates the characteristics of the protest paradigm, very few studies have specifically examined the impact of protest coverage on the viewing audience; however, it is expected that when viewers encounter a news story about a social protest, they

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

445

are likely to respond to the framing devices within the story when formulating thoughts about the groups and issues involved in the protest. Although they did not examine the protest paradigm per se, Nelson et al. (1997) found that news coverage of a Ku Klux Klan rally presented with a free speech frame led to greater tolerance for the group than when a public order frame was imposed. This suggests that news stories adhering to the protest paradigm (in this case, we consider the public order frame as indicative of the protest paradigm) are more likely to demonize protesters in the minds of viewers. Along this line, experiments by McLeod (1995) and McLeod and Detenber (1999) found that participants exposed to a news story that was slanted against a group of protesters were more critical of the group than participants who saw a more balanced story. These studies revealed that relatively subtle differences in the framing of a protest story (i.e., the extent to which story content marginalizes the protesters) can affect the audiences perceptions of the protesters legitimacy. In this study, we refer to differences in the degree to which a news story adheres to the protest paradigm as differences in frame intensity.

INDIVIDUAL AND MESSAGE-LEVEL MODERATORS OF FRAMING EFFECTS Research on the influence of news on public opinion reveals that effects on audience perceptions depend on both individual- and message-level factors. With respect to individual-level factors, Zaller (1992) explained that political awareness and political predispositions are key variables to consider when predicting whether an individual will receive and accept a particular message. However, he also acknowledged the equally important role of message attributes in message reception and acceptance. In particular, Zaller highlighted the importance of the intensity, or penetrating power of a message, as well as individuals familiarity with the issue: The greater the concern and initial knowledge, the more likely they are to notice and comprehend additional information that comes their way (p. 152). However, he further explained that in the case of familiar issues large stores of preexisting considerations act to dilute the effects of any news message (p. 152). Thus, news coverage of familiar issues is more likely to be received but not necessarily likely to have an effect. As mentioned previously, one limitation of past studies examining the influence of the protest paradigm applied in varying degrees was the use of an issue (the anarchy movement) that was relatively low profile (i.e., few study participants had previous knowledge of the issue or the groups involved). From Zallers discussion of issue intensity and familiarity and Ball-Rokeach and DeFleurs (1976) Dependency Model of Media Effects, we contend that the lack of familiarity or involve-

446

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

ment with the issue may have been responsible for the strong observed effects of the news stories on viewers perceptions. To better explain the persuasive effect of news coverage that features less prominent issues on peoples perceptions, we draw on research from the cognitive-processing literature, which explains that peoples perceptions are based on information from the environment (external stimuli) and knowledge stored in memory or schemas (Berkowitz & Rogers, 1986; Higgins & King, 1981; Neisser, 1976; Sanbonmatsu & Fazio, 1991). In situations in which no relevant or available schemas exist or the pertinent knowledge structures are underdeveloped due to a lack of direct experience or involvement with the subject matter, information from the environment (e.g., news stories) is likely to be more influential in shaping perceptions. To examine whether news coverage presenting viewers with familiar issues will still produce effects, we apply the protest frame to the more familiar issue of abortion. Few social issues in recent history have polarized public opinion in the United States like the abortion issue. Abortion has been a central issue in presidential election campaigns for many years. It has become a key criterion in official, media, and public discourse surrounding the nomination and confirmation processes for Supreme Court justices. Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, and Rucht (2002) provided a comparative analysis of how various actors shaped the evolution of abortion discourse in the United States and Germany. In tracing the historical evolution of media frames, the authors clearly demonstrated the salience of the abortion issue to contemporary political discourse.

HYPOTHESES This study builds on past research and examines the effects of the protest paradigm, when applied in varying degrees, in covering a social protest involving an issue that is familiar to participants. Specifically, it examines the effects of news coverage of social protests relating to the abortion issue on audience perceptions and attitudes toward the protesters and their message. In addition to framing effects on audience expression of criticism toward protesters (McLeod, 1995; McLeod & Detenber, 1999; Shoemaker, 1982), the mass communication research literature suggests some other important areas in which to examine potential framing effects including support for expressive rights (Andsager & Miller, 1994), perceptions of public opinion (Mutz, 1994), and the newsworthiness of a news story (Galtung & Ruge, 1981). This study examines the framing effects of protest stories, and more specifically the intensity with which the protest paradigm is applied, on each of these outcomes. Thus, we pose the following six hypotheses:

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

447

H1: Viewers presented with a high-frame-intensity version of a protest paradigm news story covering social protests will express greater criticism of protesters than will those who are presented with a low-frame-intensity version. H2: Viewers presented with a high-frame-intensity version of a protest paradigm news story covering social protests will exhibit lower levels of identification with the protesters than will those who are presented with a low-frame-intensity version. H3: Viewers presented with a high-frame-intensity version of a protest paradigm news story covering social protests will be less likely to see the protest as being effective than will those who are presented with a lowframe-intensity version. H4: Viewers presented with a high-frame-intensity version of a protest paradigm news story covering social protests will be less likely to support the protesters expressive rights than will those who are presented with a low-frame-intensity version. H5: Viewers presented with a high-frame-intensity version of a protest paradigm news story covering social protests will estimate public support for the protest group as being lower than will those who are presented with a low-frame-intensity version. H6: Viewers presented with a high-frame-intensity version of a protest paradigm news story covering social protests will be less likely to see the protest as being newsworthy than will those who are presented with a low-frame-intensity version.

METHOD Participants Two hundred fifty-six undergraduate students at the University of Delaware participated in this study. They received partial credit toward the research participation component of their introductory communication research methods course or extra credit in another introductory communication class. Consistent with the student demographics of the department, nearly three fourths of the participants were women (n = 186). The number and gender of participants were balanced across conditions. Stimuli The stimuli consisted of television news coverage of protests involving the familiar issue of abortion. The high salience of the abortion issue was validated by data col-

448

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

lected from a similar group of respondents to those who were the focus of this study. These data showed that respondents perceived themselves to be significantly more knowledgeable about the abortion issue than about environmental issues or issues of government oppression, the issue used in two past studies of the framing effects of protest news stories (McLeod, 1995; McLeod & Detenber, 1999). In addition, respondents were significantly more likely to talk and think about the issue of abortion rights than about the other two issues. These respondents also indicated that they felt significantly stronger on the abortion rights issue than the other two issues. However, to ensure that any effects would be the result of the intensity of the protest frame and not the protesters position on the issue, separate news stories were constructed featuring coverage of either pro-choice or pro-life protests. These were constructed using video footage from actual news stories on prochoice and pro-life protests. The scripts for the constructed stories were also adapted from the voice-overs of actual protest stories. The protest story was embedded in a mock newscast that presented four news stories, a commercial break, and an opening and closing sequence by professional newscasters, with the target news story placed in the second story slot. All stories were approximately 2 minutes long, and all of them featured a reporters voice-over, assorted footage or b-roll of the protest, and interviews. The complete newscasts with the embedded target stories ranged in length from 10 to 11 minutes. These news stories were also constructed to present high or low intensity of the protest paradigm frame. For the purpose of this study, the high-frame-intensity stimulus was more critical of the protesters presented in the news story. The highand low-intensity stimulus stories were very similar in factual content. Both the pro-choice and pro-life stories were about protests in response to a Supreme Court decision that went against the interests of the protesters. The protests included marches in downtown Washington, speeches outside the White House, and some arrests. In addition, many of the events and voice-over phrases were shared between the pro-life and pro-choice stories. The high- and low-intensity stories were operationalized by varying the degree of adherence to the protest paradigm through the manipulation of the individual framing devices. Specifically, the high- and low-intensity stories differed in terms of word choice by the reporter, whether the protesters were allowed to speak on camera, and the nature of characterizations of public opinion embedded within the stories. For example, the two versions of the pro-choice stories used different terms to refer to the protesters: feminist protesters (high intensity) and citizens groups (low intensity). In the parallel passage of the pro-life stories, the protesters were called activist protesters (high intensity) and citizens groups (low intensity). Another difference between the versions was the motivating factor behind the protests. With the pro-choice story, the high-intensity version stated, The protesters were driven by the fear of losing additional ground on the abortion issue,

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

449

whereas the low-intensity story stated, The groups were motivated by the prospect of losing the civil rights that they had fought so hard for. All four stories described the purpose of the speeches outside the White House. The high-intensity stories explained that the protesters gathered to shout their objections and express their demands. The low-intensity stories said that the protesters wanted to have their say and express their concerns. Such differences in phrasing were found throughout the stories. Allowing protesters to state their views on camera accords them a certain status; for the purposes of the news story, showing protesters speaking on camera treats them as legitimate sources of information or commentary. The low-intensity stories had protesters speaking into the camera, whereas the high-intensity versions of both protests did not. Rather, the high-intensity story used the voice-over to paraphrase the protesters views. Representations of public opinion also differed between the high- and low-intensity versions. All four stories reported the results of call-ins to the White House phone banks in response to the Supreme Court decision. Phone calls were characterized as overwhelmingly supporting the position of the protesters in the case of the low-intensity stories and as opposed to the position of the protesters in the high-intensity stories. The portrayal of bystander reaction was another key difference in the representation of public opinion. In the high-intensity stories, it was noted that many [bystanders] were frustrated by the traffic jams caused by the protest. In contrast, the low-intensity versions reported that many of the bystanders joined in the march. As part of a manipulation check of these stimuli, a panel of 25 participants rated each of the four stories (pro-choice, low intensity; pro-choice, high intensity; pro-life, low intensity; pro-life, high intensity) in terms of the extent to which the stories were critical, sympathetic, hostile, and supportive of the protesters. For both the pro-life and pro-choice protest stories, the high-intensity story was significantly more critical, less sympathetic, more hostile, and less supportive of the protesters than the low-intensity story at the .001 level. Design and Procedure This study used a 2 (high vs. low intensity) x 2 (pro-choice vs. pro-life) between-subjects design with random assignment of participants to treatment groups. Aside from the stimulus materials used, the procedures followed were identical to those used by McLeod and Detenber (1999). Upon arriving at the research lab, participants were provided with a brief description of the stimuli and questionnaire and then signed an informed consent form. In a modified classroom, the participants were seated in a semicircle positioned approximately 3 meters in front of the television (a Sony 27-inch color monitor). They watched one of the four versions of the constructed newscasts played back on a U-matic videocassette recorder. At the end of the newscast, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire on what they had

450

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

seen. After completing the questionnaire, the students were verbally debriefed and thanked for their participation. The entire experiment lasted 30 minutes.

Measurement All items used to create the dependent variables were measured on 5-point Likert-type scale unless otherwise noted. Seven items were used to create the Criticism of the Protesters scale (Cronbachs a = .81, M = 2.54, SD = .68).1 The Identification With the Protesters scale consisted of six items (a = .73, M = 3.23, SD = 1.11), one of which (How close are your beliefs to those of the protesters) was measured on a 9-point scale.2 Perceived Protest Effectiveness was measured using six items (a = .76, M = 3.41, SD = .63).3 Support for the Protesters Expressive Rights consisted of three items (a = .72, M = 4.30, SD = .63).4 Estimated Public Support for the Protesters was a single item that asked participants to estimate the percentage of the population that agree with most of the protesters viewpoints (M = 50.27, SD = 14.55). Perceived Newsworthiness of the Protest was measured using seven items (a = .80, M = 3.41, SD = .62).5 Three covariates were included in the analysis. In addition to controlling for possible gender effects, we also controlled for political awareness and political ideology, variables that Zaller (1992) considered to be important in predicting message reception and attitude change. Specifically, in the case of familiar issues, political awareness has been found to moderate attitude change such that individu1This index was based on responses to the following statements: The protesters were violent, The protesters were troublemakers, These protesters were disrespectful, These protesters were annoying, These protesters are out to cause trouble, Ive heard all that I want to about these protesters, and The protesters views were very radical. 2This index was based on responses to the following statements: I share some of the protesters viewpoints, I would consider getting involved with a group who supported causes similar to the protesters, The protesters actions were justified, I felt sorry for the protesters because of the way they were treated by this news story, I agree with most of what the protesters stand for, and How close are your beliefs to those of the protesters? 3This index was based on responses to the following statements: This protest was an effective way to influence politicians, This protest was an effective way to influence public opinion, This protest was waste of time (reversed), These protesters offer new insights on the abortion issue, These protesters provide a useful service to our democracy, and These protesters could bring some issues to my attention. 4This index was based on responses to the following statements: These protesters have a right to protest, These protesters should not be allowed to protest in public places [reversed], and These protesters have the right to be heard. 5This index was based on responses to the following statements: The media should not encourage there protesters by giving them attention [reversed], The media should provide these protesters with the means to be heard, It is the medias obligation to cover this protest, News stories about this protest arent of interest to the public [reversed], The news story about this protest is relatively important compared to the other stories on the television news, The news media should cover other stories rather than this protest [reversed], and The public can learn a lot from news stories about this protest.

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

451

als low in political awareness are more likely to yield to a given message, whereas those high in awareness may be more resistant. Political interest, a proxy for political awareness, was constructed from two items that asked participants about their interest in politics and about their interest in the outcome of the next presidential election. Each was measured on a 9-point scale ranging from not at all interested to very interested (interitem correlation = .74, M = 5.23, SD = 2.01). Political ideology was constructed from two items that asked participants to rate themselves on social and economic issues. Each was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from very liberal to very conservative (interitem correlation = .63, M = 3.19, SD = 1.22).

RESULTS To examine the influence of frame intensity, separate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were run for each of the six dependent variables. The protest context (pro-choice vs. pro-life) was included in the analysis to account for possible effects of the protesters position on the issue. For each 2 2 factorial model, gender, conservatism, and political interest were included as covariates. Estimated marginal means and standard errors for all experimental groups after controlling for the three covariates are reported in Table 1. H1, which predicted that participants presented with a high-intensity protest paradigm news story would be more critical of the protesters than those presented with a low-intensity news story, was supported (see Table 2). The ANCOVA yielded a significant main effect for level of intensity, F(1, 249) = 6.97, p < .01, such that participants who saw the high-intensity version (Estimated Marginal Mean [EMM] = 2.65, SE = .07) expressed more criticism toward the protesters than those who saw the low-intensity version (EMM = 2.43, SE = .06). The ANCOVA also produced a significant main effect for protest context, F(1, 249) = 26.16, p < .001, such that exposure to the pro-choice version (EMM = 2.33, SE = .06) resulted in greater expressed criticism toward the protesters than did exposure to the pro-life version (EMM = 2.74, SE = .06), showing that protesters position on the issue did have an effect on viewers perceptions. H2 predicted that watching a high-intensity news story would lead to lower levels of identification with the protesters. This hypothesis was not supported. However, there was a significant effect of protest context, F(1, 249) = 19.93, p < .001, such that participants tended to identify more with the pro-choice protesters (EMM = 3.12, SE = .071) than they did with the pro-life protesters (EMM = 2.68, SE = .069). H3, which predicted that participants would be less likely to see the protest as being effective when they watch a high-intensity news story, was partially supported. Although there was not a significant main effect for frame intensity, the interaction with protest context was significant, F(1, 249) = 4.02, p < .05, showing that the protesters position on the issue moderated the effect of frame intensity, or

452

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

TABLE 1 Estimated Marginal Means and Standard Errors for Exposure Groups Controlling for Three Covariates (Gender, Conservatism, and Political Interest) High Frame Intensitya Low Frame Intensityb

Scale Criticism of the Protesters Pro-choiced Pro-lifee Total Identification With Protesters Pro-choiced Pro-lifee Total Protest Effectiveness Pro-choiced Pro-lifee Total Support for Expressive Rights Pro-choiced Pro-lifee Total Estimated Public Support Pro-choiced Pro-lifee Total Newsworthiness of Protest Pro-choiced Pro-lifee Total

Totalc

2.41 (.072) 2.87 (.082) 2.65 (.069) 3.15 (.079) 2.66 (.100) 2.91 (.071) 3.64 (.069) 3.08 (.074) 3.35 (.055) 4.45 (.073) 4.14 (.079) 4.29 (.054) 53.50 (1.91) 44.01 (1.51) 48.58 (1.37) 3.54 (.076) 3.28 (.071) 3.41 (.054)

2.23 (.073) 2.61 (.084) 2.43 (.061) 3.09 (.081) 2.68 (.103) 2.87 (.073) 3.63 (.070) 3.35 (.076) 3.48 (.056) 4.37 (.074) 4.29 (.082) 4.32 (.056) 56.85 (1.94) 47.40 (1.56) 52.01 (1.31) 3.55 (.077) 3.33 (.073) 3.43 (.055)

2.33 (.056) 2.74 (.058)

3.12 (.069) 2.68 (.071)

3.63 (.052) 3.22 (.053)

4.40 (.054) 4.22 (.055)

55.15 (1.20) 45.75 (1.24)

3.53 (.053) 3.31 (.054)

Note. The range of each of the scales was 1 to 5, except for the Newsworthiness of Protest scale, which ranged from 0 to 100. an = 125. bn = 131. cN = 256. dn = 132. en = 124.

adherence to the protest paradigm, on viewers perceptions. Specifically, the impact of intensity on perceptions of protest effectiveness occurred only among participants who viewed the pro-life stories. A one-way ANCOVA confirmed the effect of frame intensity on protest effectiveness for those who watched the pro-life versions of the newscasts, F(1, 127) = 6.75, p < .01. For pro-life protest context, participants perceived less protest effectiveness when they saw the high-intensity version (EMM = 3.08, SE = .07) than when they saw the low-intensity version (EMM = 3.35, SE = .08). The main effect for protest context was also significant, F(1, 249) = 30.27, p < .001, such that participants tended to think that the pro-choice protest would be more effective (EMM = 3.12, SE = .07) than the pro-life protest would be (EMM = 2.68, SE = .07).

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

453

TABLE 2 Analysis of Covariance Tests for the Dependent Measures by Exposure Groups Controlling for Three Covariates (Gender, Conservatism, and Political Interest) Dependent Variables Criticism of the Protesters Frame intensity (high vs. low) Protest context (pro-choice vs. pro-life) Frame Intensity 3 Story Identification With Protesters Frame intensity (high vs. low) Protest context (pro-choice vs. pro-life) Frame Intensity 3 Story Protest Effectiveness Frame intensity level (high vs. low) Protest context (pro-choice vs. pro-life) Frame Intensity 3 Story Support for Protesters Expressive Rights Frame intensity level (high vs. low) Protest context (pro-choice vs. pro-life) Frame Intensity 3 Story Estimated Public Support Frame intensity level (high vs. low) Protest context (pro-choice vs. pro-life) Frame Intensity 3 Story Newsworthiness of Protest Frame intensity level (high vs. low) Protest context (pro-choice vs. pro-life) Frame Intensity 3 Story Note. F p 2 .027 .095 .001 .001 .074 .001 .012 .108 .009 .001 .021 .009 .016 .107 .000 .000 .034 .001

6.97 26.16 .30 .14 19.93 .34 2.96 30.27 2.29 .17 5.43 2.29 4.03 29.73 .02 .07 8.66 .20

.009 .000 .587 .710 .000 .563 .087 .000 .131 .684 .021 .131 .046 .000 .888 .791 .004 .655

N = 256 (pro-life n = 132; pro-choice n = 124). For all effects reported, df = 1, 249.

H4 predicted that watching a high-intensity news story would lead to lowered support for the expressive rights of the protesters; however, analysis did not support this prediction. Neither the main effect for frame intensity nor its interaction with protest context (pro-choice vs. pro-life) was significant. Support for expressive rights did vary significantly between protest contexts, however, F(1, 249) = 5.43, p < .05. Overall, participants supported the expressive rights of the prochoice protesters more (EMM = 4.40, SE = .06) than they did the rights of the pro-life protesters (EMM = 4.22, SE = .05). H5 predicted that participants presented with a high-intensity story would estimate public support for the protesters to be lower than those who were presented with a low-intensity version. The ANCOVA yielded a significant main effect for frame intensity, F(1, 249) = 19.93, p < .001, that supported this hypothesis. That is, participants estimated public support for the protest groups to be higher (EMM = 52.01, SE = 1.31) if they saw the

454

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

low-intensity version of the news stories than if they saw the high-intensity version (EMM = 48.58, SE = 1.37). Again, there was also a significant main effect for protest context, F(1, 249) = 19.93, p < .001, such that participants estimated greater public support for the pro-choice protesters (EMM = 55.15, SE = 1.24) than they did for the pro-life protesters (EMM = 45.75, SE = 1.20). The interaction, however, was not significant. H6 predicted that participants presented with high-intensity news story would be less likely to see the protest as newsworthy than those presented with a low-intensity version. This hypothesis was not supported, however. Although, there was a significant main effect for protest context, F(1, 249) = 8.66, p < .01, such that participants thought that the pro-choice protest was a more newsworthy event (EMM = 3.53, SE = .05) than the pro-life protest (EMM = 3.31, SE = .05). There was no significant interaction between frame intensity and protest context.

DISCUSSION Although past studies have demonstrated framing effects of news coverage of social protests on audience perceptions (McLeod, 1995; McLeod & Detenber, 1999), they have tended to involve issues that were relatively low in salience and familiarity to participants. Drawing on Zallers (1992) findings that news coverage of unfamiliar issues is more likely to influence attitudes than news coverage of more familiar issues, we examined whether these previously found effects would hold up when news coverage featured the more familiar issue of abortion. The results of this study demonstrate the ability of television news stories to shape audience perceptions of the groups and issues involved. Specifically, highframe-intensity protest paradigm stories had significant effects on a subset of the dependent measures. However, the effects were not as consistent or as strong as those found in the results of past research on framing effects of television protest coverage (McLeod, 1995; McLeod & Detenber, 1999). Both of these previous studies found significant effects for all of the dependent measures used. In our study, however, a significant effect of frame intensity only occurred for two of the six dependent measures, with an additional effect of frame intensity among the pro-life versions of the news story on a third dependent measure. Further, the effects size measures (h2) indicate that when significant effects did occur, they were not as large as those found in past research. One explanation for the weaker relationships may be that the manipulations were not as strong as those used in previous studies. The stimuli used in past research were stories filed by different reporters from different stations about the same protest. However, the stimuli for this study featured the same reporter and nearly identical footage, which may have produced only subtle content differences, which may account for the smaller effects. However, a manipulation check

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

455

revealed that panelists clearly recognized that these stories were framed differently in terms of their inherent frame intensity level. In addition, by holding as much of the content as possible constant and manipulating only those elements identified as framing devices, we can be more confident that the effects we did find were a result of the intensity with which the protest paradigm frame was applied rather than the result of unsystematic differences in message content. A more interesting and theoretical explanation for the results of the study lies in the context used for the stimulus stories. That is, the use of the abortion issuea highly salient topic in political campaigns and in social discourseas the context for the protests featured in the news stories may have reduced potential effects. As previously noted, a pretest revealed that respondents reported giving a lot of thought to the abortion issue, being very knowledgeable on the issue, and feeling strongly on the issue relative to several other issues. As such, it is likely that some participants were very involved in the issue and may even be familiar with some of the activist groups on both sides of the issue through past exposure to news stories or personal experience. Thus, the participants were less likely to have been strongly influenced by exposure to the experimental stimulus story. Past research that demonstrated stronger effects used stimulus stories that dealt with either relatively low visibility protest groups (McLeod, 1995; McLeod & Detenber, 1999) or fictitious political groups (Shoemaker, 1982). In these studies, the participants were unfamiliar with the groups and thus more likely to be swayed by the news story. Although our goal was to examine whether effects would occur under conditions in which participants were familiar with the issue and related controversy, future studies might consider using only moderately familiar issues. Individuals presented with moderately familiar issues should have enough preexisting knowledge to receive the message but will be less likely to have attitudes that are fairly strong and stable. Future studies might also consider examining varying levels of issue familiarity. Of the six dependent measures used in this study, significant main effects for frame intensity were found only for participants level of criticism of the protesters and their perceptions of estimated public support for the protesters. If preexisting knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes, as a result of participants familiarity and involvement with the issue, account for the four nonsignificant main effects, a question is raised as to why the main effects were significant for the other two measures. First, items used to construct the criticism of protesters measure asked respondents for their assessment of the actions of the specific group featured in the story. By contrast, many of the items assessing identification with the protesters asked participants to judge the similarity between their personal viewpoint and those of the protesters. Media research that led to the conclusion of limited media effects (Klapper, 1960) indicates that exposure to a single news story is unlikely to change views on a salient issue like abortion, where opinions are likely to be deeply entrenched. However, perceptions of specific groups are likely to be less

456

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

developed than personal views on the general topic and therefore more malleable. Hence, viewpoints on the issue (and in turn degree of identification with the protesters) are probably more stable than perceptions of the specific group (i.e., criticism of the protesters) to the influences of media messages. The significant main effect of frame intensity on the estimate of public support for the protest group may be a function of specific references to public support in the news stories. The different versions of each protest story offered opposing depictions of the nature of public reaction to the Supreme Court decision (the alleged impetus for both protests) as expressed through phone calls to the White House phone banks. The high-intensity stories described the phone banks as flooded with calls supporting the Supreme Courts decision, an indicator that public opinion was running against the protesters. Alternatively, the low-intensity stories stated that the phone banks were flooded with calls criticizing the Supreme Courts decision. We attribute this finding to the fact that the manipulation of this framing device in particular (an invocation of public opinion) resulted in differences between the high- and low-intensity frames that were quite concrete and distinctive leading to effects on perceptions of public support, whereas the other manipulations of level of criticism involved more subtle shifts in tone and wording. Although the main effect for protest effectiveness was not significant, there was a significant effect of frame intensity for the pro-life protest stories. The interpretation for why this effect occurred for only one of the protests is not readily apparent. It is conceivable that there is a stronger manipulation of the indicators of protest effectiveness inherent in the pro-life stories than in the pro-choice stories. However, given the significant proportion of parallel language in the scripts across the two protest contexts, this difference is unlikely to emanate from the voice-overs. The low-intensity stories allowed the protesters to speak on camera, so perhaps differences are indicative of audience reactions to the spokespersons. It might be that the pro-life spokespersons were more effective than the pro-choice spokespersons. If this were the case, the significant difference for the pro-life story might stem from the fact that the pro-life spokespersons made the protest seem more effective than it seemed in the high-intensity version, which used the voice-over to paraphrase the ideas. If the pro-choice spokespersons were indeed less effective, the difference between the two versions of the story might not be significant. Although this explanation provides a plausible account of why the interaction was found, we offer it tentatively for if it is a case of differences in the effectiveness of the spokespersons, it is not obvious when one looks at the clips. An alternative explanation lies in participants perceptions of the pro-choice and pro-life movements rather than in the stories themselves. Although we did not expect any effects, rather we used this manipulation to control for possible effects of the protesters position on the issue (pro-life vs. pro-choice), as previously mentioned, it is likely that participants previous knowledge and perceptions abortion-related protests might have had an effect. That is, participants may have perceived the pro-life movement

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

457

as being more varied in terms of strategies and tactics relative to the pro-choice movement. In other words, the audience may not have perceived pro-choice groups as being all that different, but they may see distinct differences among various groups within the pro-life movement. This may stem from media attention to the more extreme tactics of some pro-life groups or individuals, which have included bombings at abortion clinics or shootings of clinic personnel. Thus, participants may have had more initial uncertainty about how they felt about the particular pro-life group featured in the story. This wider initial perceptual latitude may have led to a greater impact on effectiveness judgments of the specific protest. Further support for this interpretation may be found in the fact that the absolute difference between frame intensity levels means was greater for the pro-life stories than for the pro-choice stories for five of the six dependent measures, though protest effectiveness was the only dependent measure for which frame intensity by protest interaction was significant. In addition to controlling for media attention to a particular issue, future studies examining the effects of protest news coverage might also include a pretest measure of participants position on the issue, as individuals tend to be less tolerant and less supportive of the expressive rights of disliked groups (see Sullivan, Pierson, & Marcus, 1982). For all six dependent measures, there were significant main effects for the protest story context (pro-choice vs. pro-life). In each case, participants were more positive toward the pro-choice protesters than the pro-life protesters. The groups that saw the pro-choice protest story were less critical and more likely to identify with the protesters than the people who saw the pro-life protest story. The groups presented with a pro-choice story saw the protest as being more effective and exhibited higher support for the protesters expressive rights, greater public support for the protesters cause, and greater newsworthiness of the protest. These findings are not surprising given that survey data show that a majority of people support basic abortion rights. This study contributes to the growing body of research suggesting that story frames can influence audience perceptions in predictable ways. Whereas earlier studies demonstrated the existence of various news frames and the considerable effects that actual news stories with distinctly different frames can have, our study shows the impact of specific but relatively subtle differences in a story frame, or more specifically differences in the intensity with which framing devices are employed. It is important to note several limitations of this study. First, the design of the study does not permit inferences to be made about the impact of specific preexisting knowledge and attitudes. Pretest data from a similar group of respondents indicate that abortion is a relatively salient issue, more salient than the issues that were the focus of protesters in news stories used in past research. To further validate the interpretation that the greater visibility of the issue reduced the framing effects of news stories, future research should employ a pretest with half the participants to assess their attitudes toward and knowledge of the protest groups and to detect any

458

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

sensitization this pretest may cause. Because it appears that the influence of the protest paradigm is somewhat idiosyncratic, the study would have also benefited from the use of additional conditions featuring different protest groups. Ideally, the protest groups would vary in terms of how well known they were and how strongly held peoples attitudes were toward them. Last, there are limitations that are inherent in all experimental designs. Now that the relationship between the protest paradigm and specific audience perceptions has been demonstrated and replicated, efforts should be made to address the issue of external validity. Although this presents a formidable challenge to communication researchers, it needs to be undertaken to more fully understand the impact of various news frames.

REFERENCES
Andsager, J. L., & Miller, M. M. (1994). Comparing journalists and the publics willingness to support expressive rights. Newspaper Research Journal, 15, 102114. Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & DeFleur, M. P. (1976). A dependency model of mass media effects. Communication Research, 3, 321. Berkowitz, L., & Rogers, K. H. (1986). A priming effect analysis of media influences. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 5781). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chan, J. M., & Lee, C. C. (1984). The journalistic paradigm on civil protests: A case study of Hong Kong. In A. Arno & W. Dissanayke (Eds.), The news media in national and international conflict (pp. 183202). Boulder, CO: Westview. DAngelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870888. Dimmick, J., & Coit, P. (1983). Level of analysis in mass media decision making: A taxonomy, research strategy, and illustrative data analysis. In E. Wartella, D. C. Whitney, & S. Windahl (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook, Vol. 4 (pp. 361390). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward a clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 5158. 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. 247282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin, TX: University of Austin Press. Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. (1981). Structuring and selecting the news. In S. Cohen & J. Young (Eds.), The manufacture of news: Deviance, social problems and the mass media (pp. 273). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. G. Braungart & M. M. Braungart (Eds.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3. pp. 137177). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Gamson, W. A., & Modigiliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 137. Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media and the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.

FRAME INTENSITY EFFECTS

459

Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon. Hertog, J. K., & McLeod, D. M. (1995). Anarchists wreak havoc in downtown Minneapolis: A multi-level study of media coverage of radical protest. Journalism Monographs, 151, 148. Higgins, E. T. (1989). Knowledge accessibility and activation: Subjectivity and suffering from unconscious sources. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 75123). New York: Guilford. 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. 133168). New York: Guilford. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Iyengar, S. (1990a). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 115. Iyengar, S. (1990b). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12, 1940. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Keum, H., Hillback, E. D., Rojas, H., Gil de Zuniga, H., Shah, D. V., & McLeod, D. M. (2005). Personifying the radical: How news framing polarizes security concerns and tolerance judgments. Human Communication Research, 31, 337364. Klapper, J. (1960). The effects of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Lipari, L. (1996). Journalistic authority: Textual strategies of legitimation. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 73, 821834. McLeod, D. M. (1995). Communicating deviance: The effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39, 419. McLeod, D. M., & Detenber, B. H. (1999). Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication, 49, 323. McLeod, D. M., & Hertog, J. K. (1992). The manufacture of public opinion by reporters: Informal cues for public perceptions of protest groups. Discourse and Society, 3, 259275. McLeod, D. M., & Hertog, J. K. (1999). Social control and the mass medias role in the regulation of protest groups: The Communicative Acts Perspective. In D. Demers & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Mass media, social control and social change (pp. 305330). Ames: Iowa State University Press. Messaris, P., & Abraham, L. (2001). The role of images in framing news stories. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 215226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mutz, D. C. (1994). The political effects of perceptions of mass opinion. Research in Micropolitics, 4, 143167 Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman. 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, 567583. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 5575. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (2005). Framing and understanding of citizenship. In S. Dunwoody, L. Becker, G. Kosicki, & D. McLeod (Eds). The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod (pp. 165204). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

460

DETENBER, GOTLIEB, McLEOD, MALINKINA

Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (pp. 173212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481506. Reese, S. D. (2001). PrologueFraming public life: A bridging model for media research. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 731). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47, 2648. Sanbonmatsu, M. D., & Fazio, H. R. (1991). Construct accessibility: Determinants, consequences, and implications for the media. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 4562). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103122. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). To thine own self be true: Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communicating Research, 23, 509560. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (2001). The effects of value-framing on political judgment and reasoning. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 227243). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shen, F. (2004). Chronic accessibility and individual cognitions: Examining the effects of message frames in political advertisements, Journal of Communication, 54, 123137. Shoemaker, P. J. (1982). The perceived legitimacy of deviant political groups: Two experiments on media effects. Communication Research, 9, 249286. Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: The theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Shrum, L. J., & OGuinn, T. C. (1993). Processes and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 20, 436471. Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Soley, L. C. (1992). The news shapers: The sources who explain the news. New York: Praeger. Sullivan, J. L., Pierson, J. E., & Marcus, G. E. (1982). Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tankard, J. W. (2001). The empirical approach to media framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive vividness effect. Psychological Review, 89, 155181. Tichenor, P. J., Donohue, G. A., & Olien, C. N. (1973). Mass communication research: Evolution of a structural model. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 419425. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news. New York: Free Press. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207232. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of public opinion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.