Two experiments examined the hypothesis that quantitative depictions of improvement in threatening trends that were subsequently discounted would engender greater apprehension than undiscounted depictions of improving trends among men but not among women. Support for this interaction hypothesis was obtained in Experiment 1. When improvement in the threatening trends was depicted verbally, the interaction between discounting cues and gender was hypothesized to reverse. Experiment 2 found evidence supporting the predicted reversal of the interaction found in Experiment 1. These interaction effects are explained in terms of differential vigilance potentiated by quantitative and verbal depictions of threatening trends among women and men and gender differences in quantitative and verbal skills.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altheide, D. L. (2002). Creating fear: News and the construction of crisis. New York: Aldine.
2.
Baesler, E. J. (1991). Message processing of evidence and the long term retention and judgment of beliefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson.
3.
Baesler, E. J., & Burgoon, J. K. (1994). The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research, 21, 582-602.
4.
Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44, 211-233.
5.
Benbow, C. P. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 11, 169-232.
6.
Benbow, C. P., Lubinski, D., Shea, D. L., & Eftekhari-Sanjani, H. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability at age 13: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474-480.
7.
Berger, C. R. (1998). Processing quantitative data about risk and threat in news reports. Journal of Communication, 48(3), 87-106.
8.
Berger, C. R. (2000). Quantitative depictions of threatening trends in news reports: The scary world of frequency data. Human Communication Research, 26, 27-52.
9.
Berger, C. R. (2001). Making it worse than it is: Quantitative depictions of threatening trends in the news. Journal of Communication, 51, 655-677.
10.
Berger, C. R. (2002). Base-rate bingo: Ephemeral effects of population data on cognitive responses, apprehension, and perceived risk. Communication Research, 29, 99-124.
11.
Brosius, H.-B. (1993). The effects of emotional pictures in television news. Communication Research, 20, 105-124.
12.
Brosius, H.-B., & Bathelt, A. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48-78.
13.
Cohl, H. A. (1997). Are we scaring ourselves to death? How pessimism, paranoia, and a misguided media are leading us toward disaster. New York: St. Martin's.
14.
Crossen, C. (1994). Tainted truth: The manipulation of fact in America. New York: Simon & Schuster.
15.
Davis, S., & Mares, M.-L. (1998). Effects of talk show viewing on adolescents. Journal of Communication, 48(3), 69-86.
16.
Demers, D. P., & Nichols, S. (1987). Precision journalism: A practical guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Dunwoody, S. (1999). Scientists, journalists, and the meaning of uncertainty. In S. M. Friendman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 59-79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
Flynn, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risk. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.
19.
Furedi, F. (1997). The culture of fear: Risk taking and the morality of low expectation. London: Cassell.
20.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 6, 223-230.
21.
Gibson, R., & Zillmann, D. (1994). Exaggerated versus representative exemplification in news reports. Communication Research, 21, 603-624.
22.
Glassner, B. (1999). Culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. New York: Basic Books.
23.
Griffin, R. J. (1999). Using systematic thinking to choose and evaluate evidence. In M. Friendman, S. Dunwoody, & C. L. Rogers (Eds.), Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science (pp. 225-248). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Hadden, S. G. (1989). A citizen's right to know: Risk communication and public policy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
25.
Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Hewes, D. E. (1995). Cognitive processing of problematic messages: Reinterpreting to `unbias' texts. In D. E. Hewes (Ed.), The cognitive bases of interpersonal communication (pp. 113-138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Hewes, D. E., & Graham, M. (1989). Second-guessing. In J. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 12 (pp. 213-248). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
28.
Hirsch, P. (1980). The “scary world” of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.'s findings on cultivation analysis. Communication Research, 7, 403-456.
29.
Hirsch, P. (1981). On not learning from one's own mistakes: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.'s findings on cultivation analysis, part II. Communication Research, 8, 3-37.
30.
Hogarth, R. M. (1980). Judgement and choice: The psychology of decision. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
31.
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 139-155.
32.
Jackson, S. A. (1992). Message effects research: Principles of design and analysis. New York: Guilford.
33.
Kanouse, D. E., & Hanson, L. R. (1972). Negativity in evaluations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1-16). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
34.
Kellermann, K. (1984). The negativity effect and its implications for initial interaction. Communication Monographs, 51, 37-55.
35.
Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
Koehler, J. J. (1996). The base rate fallacy reconsidered: Descriptive, normative, and methodological challenges. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19, 1-53.
37.
Mares, M.-L. (1996). The role of source confusions in television's cultivation of social reality judgments. Human Communication Research, 23, 278-297.
38.
McLeod, C. (1996). Anxiety and cognitive process. In I. G. Sarason, G. R. Pierce, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Cognitive interference: Theories, methods, and findings (pp. 47-76). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Meyer, P. (1979). Precision journalism: A reporter's introduction to social science methods (2nd ed.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
40.
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Two decades of cultivation research: An appraisal and meta-analysis. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.), Communication yearbook 20 (pp. 1-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1990). Cultivation analysis: Conceptualization and methodology. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media effects research (pp. 13-34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
42.
Nisbett, R. E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
43.
Paulos, J. A. (1995). A mathematician reads the newspaper. New York: Basic Books.
44.
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296-320.
46.
Science in the streets: Report of the Twentieth Century Fund task force on the communication of scientific risk (1984). New York: Priority Press.
47.
Shrum, L. J. (2001). Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research, 27, 94-120.
48.
Shrum, L. J., & O'Guinn, T. C. (1993). Process and effects in the construction of social reality: Construct accessibility as an explanatory variable. Communication Research, 20, 436-471.
49.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280-285.
50.
Vargas, B. (Producer). (1999, August 16). CNN & Company [Television broadcast]. Atlanta, GA: Cable News Network.
51.
Vonk, R. (1993). The negativity effect in trait ratings and in open-ended descriptions of persons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 269-278.
52.
Wegner, D. M., & Vallacher, R. R. (1977). Implicit psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.
53.
Wildavsky, A. (1979). No risk is the highest risk of all. American Scientist, 67, 32-37.
54.
Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
55.
Zillmann, D., & Brosius, H.-B. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
56.
Zillmann, D., Gibson, R., Ordman, V. J., & Aust, C. F. (1994). Effects of human-interest stories in broadcast news. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 38, 65-78.
57.
Zillmann, D., Perkins, J. W., & Sundar, S. S. (1992). Impression-formation effects of printed news varying in descriptive precision and exemplification. Medienpsychologie, 3, 168-185.
