An experiment investigated the impact of editorial framing on readers’ political cognitions and affect toward a different racial group. Participants read mock newspaper editorials endorsing Grutter v. Bollinger, a U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding affirmative action in higher education. The editorials were systematically manipulated to present different frames in four randomly assigned versions: remedial action, diversity, combined (both frames), and control (neither frame). Frame inductions did not significantly influence support for affirmative action. However, exposure to editorials presenting the diversity frame moderated the relation between Whites’ pretested interracial attitudes (modern racism, White guilt, and belief in White privilege) and support for affirmative action. Editorials presenting the diversity frame also induced White participants to score higher on a measure of pro-Black affect. Overall, the results suggest that frames can activate distinct social identities within the minds of readers, priming their applicability to the task at hand.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
2.
Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.
4.
Brewer, M. B. (1993). Social identity, distinctiveness, and in-group homogeneity. Social Cognition, 11, 150-164.
5.
Brewer, M. B. (1995). Managing diversity: The role of social identities. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing work place (pp. 47-68). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
6.
Brewer, M. B., & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver motivation. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 347-370). New York: Guilford.
7.
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281-302). Orlando, FL: Academic.
8.
Brown, R. J., & Turner, J. C. (1981). Interpersonal and intergroup behaviour. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behaviour (pp. 33-65). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
9.
Chang, W. C. (1996). Toward equal opportunities: Fairness, values, and affirmative action programs in the U.S.Journal of Social Issues, 52, 39-97.
10.
Clawson, R. A., Strine, H. C., IV, & Waltenburg, E. N. (2003). Framing Supreme Court decisions: The mainstream versus the Black press. Journal of Black Studies, 33, 784-800.
11.
Domke, D. (2001). Racial cues and political ideology: An examination of associative priming. Communication Research, 28, 772-801.
12.
Domke, D., McCoy, K., & Torres, M. (1999). News media, racial perceptions, and political cognition. Communication Research, 26, 570-607.
13.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Isen, A. M., & Lowrance, R. (1995). Group representations and intergroup bias: Positive affect, similarity and group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 856-865.
14.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
15.
Fine, T. S. (1992). The impact of issue framing on public opinion: Toward affirmative action programs. Social Science Journal, 29, 323-334.
16.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common in-group identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4, 1-26.
17.
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239-249.
18.
Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common in-group identity on reducing intergroup bias. Small Group Research, 25, 224-249.
19.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. G. Braungart & M. M. Braungart (Eds.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
20.
Gandy, O. H., Jr., Kopp, K., Hands, T., Frazer, K., & Phillips, D. (1997). Race and risk: Factors affecting the framing of stories about inequality, discrimination, and just plain bad luck. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 158-182.
21.
Garcia-Prieto, P., Bellard, E., & Schneider, S. C. (2003). Experiencing diversity, conflict, and emotions in teams. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 413-440.
22.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2325 (2003).
23.
Hollinger, D. A. (1998). Group preferences, cultural diversity, and social democracy: Notes toward a theory of affirmative action. In R. Post & M. Rogin (Eds.), Race and representation: Affirmative action (pp. 97-109). New York: Zone Books.
24.
Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1996). Superordinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; Is assimilation the answer?Psychological Science, 7, 40-45.
25.
Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117-129.
26.
James, E. H., Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., & Cohen, R. R. (2001). Prejudice matters: Understanding the reactions of Whites to affirmative action programs targeted to benefit Blacks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1120-1128.
27.
Jones, J. M. (1998). Psychological knowledge and the new American dilemma of race. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 641-662.
28.
Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.
29.
Kinder, D. R. (1998). Communication and opinion. Annual Review of PoliticalScience, 1, 167-197.
30.
Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The case of White opinion on affirmative action for Blacks. Social Cognition, 8, 73-103.
31.
Kraiger, K., & Ford, J. K. (1985). A meta-analysis of race effects in performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 56-65.
32.
Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource use in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044-1057.
33.
Kuklinski, J. H., Sniderman, P. M., Knight, K., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P. E., Lawrence, G. R., et al. (1997). Racial prejudice and attitudes toward affirmative action. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 402-419.
34.
Lawrence, C. R., III. (2001). Two views of the river: A critique of the liberal defense of affirmative action. Columbia Law Review, 101, 928-975.
35.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 91-125). Orlando, FL: Academic.
36.
McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom, 49, 10-12.
37.
Morley, D. D. (1988). Meta-analytic techniques: When generalizing to message populations is not possible. Human Communication Research, 15, 112-126.
38.
Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C. (1992). Intergroup bias as a function of salience, relevance and status: An integration. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122.
39.
Murrell, A. J., Dietz-Uhler, B. L., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Drout, C. (1994). Aversive racism and resistance to affirmative action: Perceptions of justice are not necessarily color blind. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 71-86.
40.
Oakes, P. J., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Is limited information processing capacity the cause of social stereotyping? In W. Strobe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 111-135). New York: John Wiley.
41.
Omi, M. A. (2001). The changing meaning of race. In N. J. Smelser, W. J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences (pp. 243-263). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
42.
Omi, M. A., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1990s. New York: Routledge.
43.
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers’ cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481-506.
44.
Quinn, K. A., Ross, E. M., & Esses, V. M. (2001). Attributions of responsibility and reactions to affirmative action: Affirmative action as help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 321-331.
45.
Richardson, J. D., & Lancendorfer, K. M. (2004). Framing affirmative action: The influence of race on newspaper editorial responses to the University of Michigan cases. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(4), 74-94.
46.
Sears, D. O., & Whitney, R. E. (1973). Political persuasion. In I. S. Pool, W. Schramm, F. W. Frey, N. Maccoby, & E. B. Parker (Eds.), Handbook of communication (pp. 253-289). Chicago: Rand McNally.
47.
Shelton, J. N. (2000). A reconceptualization of how we study issues of racial prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 374-390.
48.
Simon, B. (1993). On the asymmetry in the cognitive construal of in-group and out-group: A model of egocentric social categorization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 131-147.
49.
Sniderman, P. M., & Piazza, T. (1996). The scar of race. In J. Arthur & A. Shapiro (Eds.), Color, class, identity: The new politics of race (pp. 44-64). Boulder, CO: Westview.
50.
Steele, S. (1990). White guilt. American Scholar, 59, 497-506.
51.
Swim, J. K., & Miller, D. L. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 500-514.
52.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
53.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel, The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
54.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). New York: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
56.
Williams, D. R., Jackson, J. S., Brown, T. N., Forman, T. A., & Brown, K. (1999). Traditional and contemporary prejudice and urban Whites’ support for affirmative action and government help. Social Problems, 46, 503-516.
57.
Winant, H. (2000). Race and race theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 169-185.
