Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T01:52:54.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Thomas E. Nelson ,
Rosalee A. Clawson  and
Zoe M. Oxley
Thomas E. Nelson
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Rosalee A. Clawson
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Zoe M. Oxley
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Framing is the process by which a communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy. Two experiments examined the effect of news frames on tolerance for the Ku Klux Klan. The first presented research participants with one of two local news stories about a Klan rally that varied by frame: One framed the rally as a free speech issue, and the other framed it as a disruption of public order. Participants who viewed the free speech story expressed more tolerance for the Klan than participants who watched the public order story. Additional data indicate that frames affect tolerance by altering the perceived importance of public order values. The relative accessibility of free speech and public order concepts did not respond to framing. A second experiment used a simulated electronic news service to present different frames and replicated these findings.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 567 - 583
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ajzen, Icek, and Fishbein, Martin. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Brehm, John. 1995. “American Ambivalence towards Abortion Policy: Development of a Heteroskedastic Probit Model of Competing Values.” American Journal of Political Science 39(11):1055–82.Google Scholar
Anderson, Norman H. 1991. “Functional Memory in Person Cognition.” In Contributions to Information Integration Theory, Volume 1: Cognition, ed. Anderson, Norman H.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, Norman H., and Zalinski, James. 1991. “Functional Measurement Approach to Self-Estimation in Multiattribute Evaluation.” In Contributions to Information Integration Theory, Volume 1: Cognition, ed. Anderson, Norman H.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Behr, Roy, and Iyengar, Shanto. 1993. The Media Game. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Asher, Herbert B. 1983. Causal Modeling. 2d ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1993. “Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure.” American Political Science Review 87(2):267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Paul Allen, Dalton, Russell J., and Huckfeldt, Robert. 1995. “Political Intermediation in a Multi-Message Environment: The Case of the United States.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Cross-National Election Project, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance. 1996. News: The Politics of Illusion. 3d ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Best, Joel, ed. 1995. Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, John T., and Berntson, Gary G.. 1994. “Relationship between Attitudes and Evaluative Space: A Critical Review, with Emphasis on the Separability of Positive and Negative Substrates.” Psychological Review 115(3):401–23.Google Scholar
Carroll, John S., and Johnson, Eric J.. 1990. Decision Research: A Field Guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 1993. “How People Think, Reason and Feel about Rights and Liberties.” American Journal of Political Science 37(3): 867–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David E.. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray. 1993. “Contestable Categories and Public Opinion.” Political Communication 10(3):231–42.Google Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication 43(4):51–8.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders, and Simon, Herbert A.. 1980. “Verbal Reports as Data.” Psychological Review 87(3):215–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. 1990. “A Practical Guide to the Use of Response Latency in Social Psychological Research.” In Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 11: Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology, ed. Hendrick, Clyde and Clark, Margaret S.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Zaller, John. 1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36(1):268–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiske, Susan T., and Taylor, Shelley. 1991. Social Cognition. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A. 1992. Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A., and Lasch, Katherine E.. 1983. “The Political Culture of Social Welfare Policy.” In Evaluating the Welfare State, ed. Spiro, Shimon E. and Yuchtman-Yaar, Ephraim. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A., and Modigliani, Andre. 1987. “The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action.” Research in Political Sociology 3:137–77.Google Scholar
Gamson, William A., and Modigliani, Andre. 1989. “Media Discourse and Public Opinion on Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach.” American Journal of Sociology 95(1): 1–37.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Bingham, Richard D.. 1985. Civil Liberties and Nazis: The Skokie Free Speech Controversy. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Graber, Doris A. 1993. Mass Media and American Politics. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Graber, Doris A. 1994. Media Power in Politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Kimberly A., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1996. “A Collision of Principles: Free Speech, Racial Egalitarianism, and the Prohibition of Racist Speech.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Hanson, Russell L. 1993. “Deliberation, Tolerance, and Democracy.” In Reconsidering the Democratic Public, ed. Marcus, George E. and Hanson, Russell L.. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Hastie, Reid, and Park, Bernadette. 1986. “The Relationship between Memory and Judgments Depends on Whether the Task Is Memory-Based or On-Line.” Psychological Review 93(3):258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald. 1987. News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1994. “Issues, Candidate Image, and Priming: The Use of Private Polls in Kennedy's 1960 Presidential Campaign.” American Political Science Review 88(3):527–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaniss, Phyllis C. 1991. Making Local News. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Katz, Irwin, and Hass, R. Glen. 1988. “Racial Ambivalence and American Value Conflict: Correlational and Priming Studies of Dual Cognitive Structures.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55(12):893–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Harold H. 1973. “The Process of Causal Attribution.” American Psychologist 28(2): 107–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelley, Stanley, and Mirer, Thad. 1974. “The Simple Act of Voting.” American Political Science Review 61(2):572–91.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Palfrey, Thomas R.. 1993. “On Behalf of an Experimental Political Science.” In Experimental Foundations of Political Science, ed. Kinder, Donald R. and Palfrey, Thomas R.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M.. 1990. “Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks.” Social Cognition 8(1):73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M.. 1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Sears, David O.. 1985. “Public Opinion and Political Action.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliot. 4th ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Berent, Matthew K.. 1993. “Comparisons of Party Identification and Policy Preferences: The Impact of Survey Question Format.” American Journal of Political Science 37(3): 941–64.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1990. “Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming.” American Political Science Review 84(2):497–512.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Riggle, Ellen, Ottati, Victor, Schwarz, Norbert, and Wyer, Robert S. Jr. 1991. “The Cognitive and Affective Bases of Political Tolerance Judgments.” American Journal of Political Science 35(1):1–27.Google Scholar
Lane, Robert E. 1955. “Political Personality and Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 49(1):173–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, Steenbergen, Marco R., and Brau, Shawn. 1995. “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 89(2): 309–26.Google Scholar
Manis, Melvin, Shedler, Jonathan, Jonides, John, and Nelson, Thomas E.. 1993. “The Availability Heuristic in Judgments of Set-Size and Frequency of Occurrence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(3):448–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, George E., Sullivan, John L., Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, and Wood, Sandra L.. 1995. With Malice toward Some. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConahay, John B., Hardee, Betty B., and Batts, Valerie. 1981. “Has Racism Declined in America? It Depends on Who Is Asking and What Is Asked.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 25(12):563–79.Google Scholar
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Shaw, Donald R.. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of the Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2):176–87.Google Scholar
McGuire, William J. 1985. “Attitudes and Attitude Change.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Lindzey, Gardner and Aronson, Elliot. 4th ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1991. “Framing Effects Need Not Depend on Changes in Construct Accessibility.” Presented at the third annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., and Kinder, Donald R.. 1996. “Issue Framing and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 58(11): 1055–78.Google Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Oxley, Zoe M., Clawson, Rosalee A.. N.d. “Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects.” Political Behavior. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Nisbett, Richard E., and Wilson, Timothy D.. 1977. “Telling More than We Can Know: Verbal Report on Mental Processes.” Psychological Review 84(3):231–59.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public-Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pan, Zhongdang, and Kosicki, Gerald M.. 1993. “Framing Analysis: An Approach to News Discourse.” Political Communication 10(1): 55–75.Google Scholar
Parenti, Michael. 1986. Inventing Reality. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E. 1993. Out of Order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E., and McClure, Robert D.. 1976. The Unseeing Eye. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
Rahn, Wendy M., Krosnick, Jon A., and Breuning, Marijke. 1994. “Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 38(3):582–600.Google Scholar
Rokeach, Milton. 1973. The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Anne, and Ingram, Helen. 1993. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy.” American Political Science Review 87(2):334–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sears, David O. 1986. “College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology's View of Human Nature.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(3):515–30.Google Scholar
Smith, Eric R. A. N. 1989. The Unchanging American Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Stouffer, Samuel C. 1955. Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James E., and Marcus, George E.. 1982. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Shelly E., and Fiske, Susan T.. 1978. “Salience, Attention, and Attribution: Top of the Head Phenomena.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 11, ed. Berkowitz, Leonard. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E. 1986. “A Value Pluralism Model of Ideological Reasoning.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50(4): 819–27.Google Scholar
Thompson, Megan M., Zanna, Mark P., and Griffin, Dale W.. 1995. “Let's Not Be Indifferent about (Attitudinal) Ambivalence.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, ed. Petty, Richard E. and Krosnick, Jon A.. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van der Pligt, Joop, and Eiser, J. Richard. 1984. “Dimensional Salience, Judgment, and Attitudes.” In Attitudinal Judgment, ed. Eiser, J. Richard. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R., and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36(3):579–616.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.