Suchergebnisse

This review synthesizes the existing literature on cognitive media effects, including agenda setting, framing, and priming, in order to identify their similarities, differences, and inherent commonalities. Based on this review, we argue that the theory and research on each of these cognitive effects share a common view that media affect audience members by influencing the relative importance of considerations used to make subsequent judgments (including their answers to post-exposure survey questions). In reviewing this literature, we note that one important factor is often ignored, the extent to which a consideration featured in the message is deemed usable for a given subsequent judgment, a factor called judged usability, which may be an important mediator of cognitive media effects like agenda setting, framing, and priming. Emphasizing judged usability leads to the revelation that media coverage may not just elevate a particular consideration, but may also actively suppress a consideration, rendering it less usable for subsequent judgments. Thus, it opens a new avenue for cognitive effects research. In the interest of integrating these strands of cognitive effects research, we propose the Judged Usability Model as a revision of past cognitive models.

In 1989, Robert Mapplethorpe's photographic exhibit The Perfect Moment toured the country with the support of a $30,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Arts. The exhibit, which included several sado-masochistic and homo-erotic photographs, drew the ire of the Reverend Donald Wildmon, who turned to Senator Jesse Helms (R- NC). In the summer of 1989, Congress debated policy toward the funding practices of the NEA, sparking a major controversy in Congress and in the arts community. This study examines media coverage of the controversy and the reaction of the public in terms of museum attendance and the value of Mapplethorpe's art.

The digital media environment has transformed the ways information about "collective preference" is communicated. Using 2 survey experiments, this study examines how embedded context may condition the processing and influence of an opinion poll in a multicue, source-confusion environment. Our results suggest that, in general, opinion polls are evaluated more negatively when the results are embedded in a politician's tweet. Consistent with motivated reasoning, congruent polls that support one's side tend to be perceived as more credible, which in turn leads to a more polarized issue position via poll-aligned opinion climate perception. This self-serving perception may be heightened by politician repurposing of polling outcomes, especially in the lack of pollster brand names. Importantly, there is partisan asymmetry in how contextual information may alter the processing of polling results. Above and beyond an average effect, politician uptake of polling data undermines a poll's perceived credibility to a greater extent among Democrats than Republicans.

This study used an experiment embedded within a Web-based survey to examine the influence of contextual (i.e., face-to-face vs. online chat room discussion) and social-psychological factors on individuals' willingness to express opinions. In this experiment, respondents were asked whether they would be willing to express an opinion if they were placed in a face-to-face discussion group in one condition and in an online chat room discussion group in the other condition. Results indicate that print news use, fear of isolation, communication apprehension, future opinion congruency, and communication setting significantly predict willingness to speak out. In addition, not only did fear of isolation have a negative main effect on opinion expression, but this effect was significantly attenuated by computer-mediated discussion. Findings suggest that computer-mediated communication may avoid some of the dysfunctional social-psychological influences found in face-to-face interactions and create a forum conducive for public deliberation.

This study analyzed newspaper coverage of conflicts in Afghanistan and Chechnya by the New York Times and the Russian newspaper Izvestia to examine the impact of political change on news coverage. The Soviet Union's dissolution included dramatic changes to the Russian media system. In addition, the dissipation of the Cold War changed the foreign policy of the United States. A content analysis revealed that the changes to the media system in Russia had a profound impact on Izvestia's coverage, but political changes had little impact on the New York Times' coverage.

This study investigates the impact of socioeconomic status (SES), perceived utility indicators, and news media use on public affairs knowledge. A LISREL model was used to evaluate various theoretical arguments that have been used to account for public affairs knowledge. Results reveal that SES was significantly linked to knowledge through each of the aforementioned factors. In addition, we located a strong direct SES effect on public affairs knowledge.