Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T23:26:23.882Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive Biases and Communication Strength in Social Networks: The Case of Episodic Frames

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2018

Lene Aarøe  and
Michael Bang Petersen
Lene Aarøe
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University
Michael Bang Petersen*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies, Aarhus University
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Media stories often reach citizens via a two-step process, transmitted to them indirectly via their social networks. Why are some media stories strongly transmitted and impact opinions powerfully in this two-step flow while others quickly perish? Integrating classical research on the two-step flow of political communication and novel theories from cognitive psychology, this article outlines a model for understanding the strength of political frames in the two-step flow. It argues that frames that resonate with cognitive biases (that is, deep-seated psychological decision rules) will be transmitted more and have a stronger influence on opinion when citizens recollect media frames in their social networks. Focusing on the case of episodic and thematic frames, the study tests this model. It introduces a novel research design: implementing the children’s game ‘Telephone’ in consecutive experimental online surveys fielded to nationally representative samples. This design helps gauge the reliability of transmission and the degree of persuasiveness in actual chains of transmission.

Keywords

two-step flowtransmissionepisodicthematiccognitive biasesevolutionary psychology
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 50 , Issue 4 , October 2020 , pp. 1561 - 1581
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018

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.)

References

Aarøe, L (2011) Investigating frame strength: the case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication 28 (2):207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarøe, L and Jensen, C (2015) Learning to match: how prior frame exposure increases citizens’ value matching abilities. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 27 (1):46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarøe, Lene and Petersen, Michael Bang (2018) Replication Data for: “Cognitive Biases and Communication Strength in Social Networks: The Case of Episodic Frames”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EM3AZ2, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, CH (1982) Interpreting and Using Regression. Sage University Papers: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 07–029. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, K (2012) Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments. American Journal of Political Science 56 (2):271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K, Johnson, M and Maes, HH (2012) The genetic basis of political sophistication. Twin Research and Human Genetics 15 (1):34–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bar-Hillel, M (1980) The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica 44 (3):211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlett, FC (1932) Remembering. Oxford: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bebbington, K et al. (2017) The sky is falling: evidence of a negativity bias in the social transmission of information. Evolution and Human Behavior 38 (1):92–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, J and Milkman, KL (2012) What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing Research 49 (2):192–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, RM et al. (2012) A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489 (7415):295–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyer, P (2001) Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Foundations of Religious Belief. New York: Random and Basic Books.Google Scholar
Brosius, H-B and Bathelt, A (1994) The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research 21, 48–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, WM, Palameta, B and Moore, C (2003) Are there nonverbal cues to commitment? An exploratory study using the zero-acquaintance video presentation paradigm. Evolutionary Psychology 1, 42–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, TN (2018) Modeling political information transmission as a game of telephone. The Journal of Politics 80 (1):348–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpini, MXD and Keeter, S (1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, S (2015) The two-step flow of communication in Twitter-based public forums. Social Science Computer Review 33 (6):696–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D and Druckman, JN (2007a) Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review 101, 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D and Druckman, JN (2007b) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10, 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, MD and Kuklinski, JH (1997) Changing minds: political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science 41 (1):88–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, PE (1964) The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter DE, (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press, pp. 206–261.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L and Tooby, J (2006) Evolutionary psychology, moral heuristics, and the law. In Gigerenzer G and Engel C, (eds) Heuristics and the Law, Dahlem Workshop Report 94. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 181–212.Google Scholar
De Martino, B et al. (2006) Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science 313 (5787):684–687.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Druckman, JN (2011) What’s it all about? Framing in political science. In Keren G, (ed) Perspectives on Framing. New York: Psychology Press/Taylor and Francis, pp. 279–302.Google Scholar
Druckman, J, Levendusky, M and McLain, A (2018) No need to watch: how the effects of Partisan Media can spread via inter-personal discussions. American Journal of Political Science 62 (1):99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, RIM (1998) The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology 6 (5):178–190.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, JA (1990) Information and the electoral process. In Ferejohn JA and Kuklinski JH, (eds) Information and Democratic processes. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, pp. 234–253.Google Scholar
Ford, R (2015) Who should we help? An experimental test of discrimination in the British Welfare State. Political Studies 64 (3):630–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, JH and Schreiber, D (2008) Biology, politics, and the emerging science of human nature. Science 322 (5903):912–914.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gamson, WA and Modigliani, A (1987) The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology 3, 137–177.Google Scholar
Gamson, WA and Modigliani, A (1989) Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95 (1):1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, AS and Green, DP (2000) The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: a field experiment. American Political Science Review 94 (3):653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G and Goldstein, DG (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review 103 (4):650–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gigerenzer, G and Selten, R (2002) Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilliam, FD JrIyengar, S (2000) Prime suspects: the influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science 44 (3):560–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmer, J and Stewart, BM (2013) Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis 21, 267–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, K (2008) Framing persuasive appeals: episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology 29 (2):169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haley, KJ and Fessler, DMT (2005) Nobody’s watching? Subtle cues affect generosity in an anonymous dictator game. Evolution and Human Behavior 26 (3):245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hetherington, MJ (2001) Resurgent mass partisanship: the role of elite polarization. American Political Science Review 95 (3):619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckfeldt, R and Sprague, J (1987) Networks in context: the social flow of political information. American Political Science Review 81 (4):1197–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S (1996) Framing responsibility for political issues. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546 (1):59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D (2011) Thinking Fast, Thinking Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kashima, Y (2000) Maintaining cultural stereotypes in the serial reproduction of narratives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, 594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, E (1957) The two-step flow of communication: an up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly 21 (1):61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, E and Lazarsfeld, PF (1955) Personal Influence. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Kellstedt, PM (2000) Media framing and the dynamics of racial policy preferences. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):245–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, RL (1995) The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter–Gatherer Lifeways. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, DR (1998) Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In Gilbert DT, Fiske ST and Lindzey G, (eds) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 778–867.Google Scholar
Korpus 90 (2013) Sproglige hitliste – de 150 hyppigste ord i Korpus 90 [Linguistic hitlists – the 150 most frequent words in Korpus 90]. Available at http://korpus.dsl.dk/e-resurser/frekvens150.php?lang=dk, accessed 17 May 2013.Google Scholar
Krippendorf, K (2004) Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kurzban, R (2001) The social psychophysics of cooperation: nonverbal communication in a public goods game. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 25 (4):241–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, M and Garry, J (2000) Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science 44 (3):619–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecheler, S and de Vreese, CH (2013) What a difference a day makes? The effects of repetitive and competitive news framing over time. Communication Research 40 (2):147–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeDoux, JE (1992) Emotion as memory: anatomical systems underlying indelible neural traces. In Christianson SÅ, (ed.) The Handbook of Emotion and Memory: Research and Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 269–288.Google Scholar
Lippmann, W (1922) Public Opinion. Lexington, KY: Feather Trail Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, A and Kashima, Y (2001) The reproduction of culture: communication processes tend to maintain cultural stereotypes. Social Cognition 19 (3):372–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macrae, CN, Milne, AB and Bodenhausen, GV (1994) Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: a peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (1):37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McManus, JH (1994) Market-driven Journalism: Let the Citizen Beware. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, A and Whiten, A (2008) The multiple roles of cultural transmission experiments in understanding human cultural evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 363 (1509):3489–3501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mesoudi, A, Whiten, A and Dunbar, R (2006) A bias for social information in human cultural transmission. British Journal of Psychology 97 (3):405–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mutz, DC and Mondak, JJ (2006) The workplace as a context for cross‐cutting political discourse. Journal of Politics 68 (1):140–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, TE, Clawson, RA and Oxley, ZB (1997) Media framing of a civil liberties controversy and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91 (3):567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostfeld, M and Mutz, D (2014) Revisiting the effects of case reports in the news. Political Communication 31 (1):53–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Keefe, D (2002) Persuasion: Theory of Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Petersen, MB (2015) Evolutionary political psychology: on the origin and structure of heuristics and biases in politics. Advances in Political Psychology 36 (S1):45–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, MB and Aarøe, L (2013) Politics in the mind’s eye: imagination as a link between social and political cognition. American Political Science Review 107 (2):275–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharlemann, JP et al. (2001) The value of a smile: game theory with a human face. Journal of Economic Psychology 22 (5):617–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, A et al. (2009) Human adaptations for the visual assessment of strength and fighting ability from the body and face. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276 (1656):575–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Small, DA and Loewenstein, G (2005) The devil you know: the effects of identifiability on punishment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 18 (5):311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, PM, Brody, RA and Tetlock, PE (1991) Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Springer, SA and Harwood, J (2015) The influence of episodic and thematic frames on policy and group attitudes: mediational analysis. Human Communication Research 41 (2):226–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tooby, J and Cosmides, L (1992) The psychological foundations of culture. In Barkow JH, Cosmides L and Tooby J, (eds) The Adapted Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–135.Google Scholar
Tversky, A and Kahneman, D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185 (4157):1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weimann, G (1991) The influentials: back to the concept of opinion leaders? Public Opinion Quarterly 55 (2):267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, RK and Eckel, CC (2006) Judging a book by its cover: beauty and expectations in the trust game. Political Research Quarterly 59, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zillmann, D and Brosius, HB (2000) Exemplification in Communication: The Influence of Case Reports on the Perception of Issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zillmann, D et al. (1996) Effects of exemplification in news reports on the perception of social issues. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 73, 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Aarøe and Petersen Dataset

Dataset

https://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/EM3AZ2
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Aarøe and Petersen supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Aarøe and Petersen supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 576.1 KB