Effect of the content of a news item on Spaniards’ attitudes towards Palestinians and Israelis / Efecto del contenido de una noticia sobre la actitud de los españoles hacia palestinos e israelíes
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2018
Effect of the content of a news item on Spaniards’ attitudes towards Palestinians and Israelis / Efecto del contenido de una noticia sobre la actitud de los españoles hacia palestinos e israelíes
Based on the effects of framing on audience opinion, the attitudes towards Palestinians and Israelis are evaluated when a news item reports on a violent event between the two sides. To do so, a short inter-group experiment was conducted. A 3 (manipulation of the news item) x 2 (group evaluated) design was applied. Three news formats were presented: (1) about a Palestinian attack on Israel; (2) about an Israeli attack on Palestine; (3) no news item. Half of the participants evaluated the Israelis while the other half evaluated the Palestinians. The results of the study, which was performed with a Spanish sample (N = 319), showed that there were no differences in the evaluation of the group according to the group evaluated, although there were differences according to the manipulation of the news item: in both conditions in which one group attacked another, the group evaluated was rated more negatively than the control group. The results also showed that both emotions and stereotypes mediated the effects of framing on prejudice. These results suggest that the participants’ attitude seems to depend more on the violent framing of the news items than on the role assigned to each group and that emotional processes and stereotypes are what regulate these attitudes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaerA. (2007). «Tanques contra piedras»: La imagen de Israel en España. Boletín Elcano, 74, 1–7.
2.
Bar-TalD.LabinD. (2001). The effect of a major event on stereotyping: Terrorist attacks in Israel and Israeli adolescents’ perceptions of Palestinians, Jordanians and Arabs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 265–280.
3.
BetancorV.Rodríguez-PérezA.DelgadoN.AriñoE. (2012). Terroristas y víctimas. La infrahumanización de los marroquíes después del 11-M. Psicothema, 24, 243–248.
4.
BlairI. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242–261.
5.
BoyleM. P.SchmierbachM.ArmstrongC. L.ChoJ.McCluskeyM.McLeodD. M.ShahD. V. (2006). Expressive responses to news stories about extremist groups: A framing experiment. Journal of Communication, 56, 271–288.
6.
BraderT.ValentinoN. A.SuhayE. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 959–978.
7.
BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2015). Elaboration and validation processes: Implications for media attitude change. Media Psychology, 18, 267–291.
8.
ChoJ.De ZunigaH.ShahD. V.McLeodD. M. (2006). Cue convergence: Associative effects on social intolerance. Communication Research, 33, 136–154.
9.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. T.BriñolP.PettyR. E. (2009). Discovering that the shoe fits: The self-validating role of stereotypes. Psychological Science, 20, 846–852.
10.
ClaytonS.KoehnA.GroverE. (2013). Making sense of the senseless: Identity, justice, and the framing of environmental crises. Social Justice Research, 26, 301–319.
11.
Del CampoS.CamachoJ. M. (2006). Informe INCIPE 2006. La opinión pública española y la política exterior y de seguridad. Madrid: INCIPE y Real Instituto Elcano de estudios internacionales y estratégicos.
12.
Echebarria-EchabeA.Fernández-GuedeE. (2006). Effects of terrorism on attitudes and ideological orientation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 259–265.
13.
Echebarria-EchabeA.Fernández-GuedeE. (2007). A new measure of anti-Arab prejudice: Reliability and validity evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 1077–1091.
14.
EsserF.De VreeseC. H.StrömbäckJ.Van AelstP.AalbergT.StanyerJ.ReinemannC. (2012). Political information opportunities in Europe: A longitudinal and comparative study of thirteen television systems. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 17, 247–274.
15.
EssesV. M.ZannaM. P. (1995). Mood and the expression of ethnic stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1052–1068.
16.
EvansM. G. (1991). The problem of analyzing multiplicative composites: Interactions revisited. American Psychologist, 46, 6–15.
17.
FrybergS. A.StephensN. M.CovarrubiasR.MarkusH. R.CarterE. D.LaiducG. A.SalidoA. J. (2012). How the media frames the immigration debate: The critical role of location and politics. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 12, 96–112.
18.
GerhardsJ.RuchtD. (1992). Mesomobilization: Organizing and framing in two protest campaigns in West Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 555–596.
19.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
GrossK.BrewerP. R. (2007). Sore losers: News frames, policy debates, and emotions. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12, 122–133.
21.
GrossK.D’AmbrosioL. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25, 1–29.
22.
HaushoferJ.BiletzkiA.KanwisherN. (2010). Both sides retaliate in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 17927–17932.
23.
HayesA. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
25.
HayesA. F.PreacherK. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67, 451–470.
26.
IgartuaJ. J. (2013). Attitudinal Impact and Cognitive Channelling of Immigration Stereotypes through the News. Revista Latina De Comunicacion Social, 68, 599–621.
27.
Igartua-J.-J.ChengL. (2009). Moderating effect of group cue while processing news on immigration: Is the framing effect a heuristic process?Journal of Communication, 59, 726–749.
28.
Igartua-J.-J.Moral-ToranzoF.FernándezI. (2011). Cognitive, attitudinal, and emotional effects of news frame and group cues, on processing news about immigration. Journal of Media Psychology, 23, 174–185.
29.
KeinanG.SadehA.RosenS. (2003). Attitudes and reactions to media coverage of terrorist acts. Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 149–165.
30.
KlarY.Bar-TalD.KruglanskiA. W. (1988). Conflict as a cognitive schema: Toward a social cognitive analysis of conflict and conflict termination. In StroebeW.KruglanskiA. W.Bar-TalD.HewstoneM. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup conflict: Theory, research and applications (pp. 73–85). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
31.
KohutA.WikeR.Menasce HorowitzJ. (2007). Global unease with major world powers: 47-nation Pew Global attitudes survey. Washington, D.C.: Pew Research Center. Retrievedfromhttp://www.pewglobal.org/files/pdf/256.pdf
32.
KühneR.SchemerC. (2015). The emotional effects of news frames on information processing and opinion formation. Communication Research, 42, 387–407.
33.
LechelerS.BosL.VliegenthartR. (2015). The mediating role of emotions: News framing effects on opinions about immigration. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 812–838.
34.
LechelerS.SchuckA. R. T.De VreeseC. H. (2013). Dealing with feelings: Positive and negative discrete emotions as mediators of news framing effects. Communications, 38, 189–209.
35.
LobatoR. M.MoyaM.TrujilloH. (2015). The image of «conflict»: The content of the stereotype towards Palestinian and Israelis is influenced by the media. International Humanities Studies, 2, 69–90.
36.
LobatoR. M.TrujilloH.MoyaM. (2013). Efecto de una noticia sobre las emociones y los prejuicios (Unpublished manuscript). Universidad de Granada, Granada.
37.
MarcosM.IgartuaJ. J. (2014). Análisis de las interacciones entre personajes inmigrantes/extranjeros y nacionales/autóctonos en la ficción televisiva española. Anuario Electrónico de Estudios en Comunicación Social «Disertaciones», 7, 136–159.
PerseE. M. (2001). Media effects and society. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
40.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
41.
PrattoF.SaguyT.StewartA. L.MorselliD.FoelsR.AielloA.SweetmanJ. (2014). Attitudes toward Arab ascendance Israeli and global perspectives. Psychological Science, 25, 85–94.
42.
RamírezC. Z.VerkuytenM. (2011). Values, media framing, and political tolerance for extremist groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1583–1602.
SandínB.ChorotP.LostaosL.JoinerT. E.SantedM. A.ValienteR. M. (1999). Escalas panas de afecto positivo y negativo: Validación factorial y convergencia transcultural. Psicothema, 11, 37–51.
45.
SchallerM.FaulknerJ.ParkH. J.NeubergL. S.KenrickT. D. (2004). Impressions of danger influence impressions of people: An evolutionary perspective on individual and collective cognition. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 2, 231–247.
46.
ScheufeleD. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 297–316.
47.
Van GorpB.VettehenP. H.BeentjesJ. W. J. (2009). Challenging the frame in the news. Journal of Media Psychology, 21, 161–170.
48.
VandelloJ. A.GoldschmiedN. P.RichardsD. A. R. (2007). The appeal of the underdog. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1603–1616.
49.
YoungJ. R. (2003). The role of fear in agenda setting by television news. American Behavioral Scientist, 46, 1673–1695.
