A growing amount of research is devoted to the question of which individual and contextual variables enhance, limit, or obliterate news framing effects. However, the fundamental question whether framing effects vary depending on the issue at stake has not been addressed. Based on two experimental studies (total N = 1,821), this article investigates the extent to which framing effects differ in magnitude as well as process, depending on how important an issue is. The studies show that a high-importance issue yields no effects and a low-importance issue large effects. This moderating function of issue importance operates both at the contextual and at the individual levels. The implications for future framing effects research are discussed.
Althaus, S., & Tewksbury, D. (2002). Agenda setting and the "new" news: Patterns of issue importance among readers of the paper and online versions of the New York Times. Communication Research, 29, 180-207.
2.
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.
3.
Baumgartner, F.R., & Jones, B.D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. Journal of Politics, 53, 1044-1077.
4.
Berinsky, A.J., & Kinder, D.R. (2006). Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics, 86, 640-656.
5.
Bizer, G.Y., & Krosnick, J.A. (2001). Exploring the structure of strength-related attitude features: The relation between attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 566-586.
6.
Boninger, D.S., Krosnick, J.A., Berent, M.K., & Fabrigar, L.R. (1995). The causes and consequences of attitude importance. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 159-190). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J.N. (2007a). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies, American Political Science Review , 101, 637-655.
8.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J.N. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
9.
Crano, W.D. (1995). Attitude strength and vested interest. In R. Petty & J. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 131-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
de Vreese, C.H. (2002). Framing Europe: Television news and European integration . Amsterdam: Aksant Academic.
11.
de Vreese, C.H. (2004a). Public support for the EU enlargement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
12.
de Vreese, C. H (2004b). The effects of frames in political television news on audience perceptions of routine political news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 36-52.
13.
Druckman, J.N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: who can frame ? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
14.
Druckman, J.N., & Nelson, K.R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science , 47, 729-745.
15.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
16.
Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm . Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
17.
Fournier, P., Blais, A., Nadeau, R., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2003). Issue importance and performance voting. Political Behavior, 25, 51-67.
18.
Gamson, W.A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
19.
Haider-Markel, D.P., & Joslyn, M.R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics , 63, 520-543.
20.
Hartman, T.K., & Weber C. R. (2006). Moderated framing: Source cues, individual differences & counterframing. Paper prepared for the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Philadelphia.
21.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
22.
Jacks, J.Z., & Devine, P.G. (2000). Attitude importance, forewarning of message content, and resistance to persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 22, 19-29.
23.
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.
24.
Kiousis, S. (2005). Compelling arguments and attitude strength: Exploring the impact of second-level agenda-setting on public opinion of presidential candidate images. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics , 10, 3-27.
25.
Krosnick, J.A. (1988). Attitude importance and attitude-change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 240-255.
26.
Krosnick, J.A. (1989). Attitude importance and attitude accessibility . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 297-308.
27.
Krosnick, J.A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior , 12, 59-92.
28.
Krosnick, J.A., Boninger, D.S., Chaung, Y.C., Berent, M.K., & Carnot, C.G. (1993). Attitude strength: One construct or many related constructs? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1132-1151.
29.
Krosnick, J.A., & Brannon, L.A. (1993). The impact of the Gulf War on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Multidimensional effects of political involvement . American Political Science Review, 87, 963-975.
30.
Krosnick, J.A., & Petty, R.E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31.
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C.C. (2002). Content analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Human Communication Research, 28, 587-604.
32.
MacKinnon, D.P., Fairchild, A.J., & Fritz, M.S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593-614.
33.
MacKinnon, D.P., Warsi, G., & Dwyer, J.H. (1995). A simulation study of mediated effect measures . Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 41-62.
34.
Miller, J.M., & Peterson, D.A.M. (2004). Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. The Journal of Politics , 66, 847-867.
35.
Nelson, T.E., Oxley, Z.M., & Clawson, R.A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221-246.
36.
Neuman, W.R., Just, M.R., & Crigler, A.N. (1992). Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
37.
Pelham, B.W. (1991). On confidence and consequence: The certainty and importance of selfknowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 518-530.
38.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown.
39.
Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J.N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 179-212.
40.
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.
41.
RePass, D.E. (1971). Issue salience and party choice. American Political Science Review, 65, 389-400.
42.
Semetko, H.A., & Valkenburg, P.M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50, 93-109.
43.
Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297-316.
44.
Schuck, A.R.T., & de Vreese, C.H. (2006). Framing the EU enlargement: News media content and effects. European Journal of Communication , 21, 5-32.
45.
Shah, D., Kwak, N., Schmierbach, M., & Zubric, J. (2004). The interplay of news frames on cognitive complexity . Human Communication Research, 30, 102-120.
46.
Shen, F.Y., & Edwards, H.H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55, 795-809.
47.
Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual process model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology , 29, 1-28.
48.
Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C.H. (2008). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. Manuscript under review.
49.
Sniderman, P.M., & Theriault, S.M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion (pp. 133-165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
50.
Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
51.
Visser, P.S., Krosnick, J.A., & Simmons, J.P. (2003). Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 118-141.
52.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579-616.
54.
Zuwerink, J.R., & Devine, P.G. (1996). Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It's not just the thought that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 931-944.
