A news report on carjacking, presented in magazine format, was manipulated to create versions differing in exemplar distortion (minimally, mildly, substantially, and extremely) and precision of base rate information (imprecise, precise). Time of assessment (immediate, delayed) was varied as well. Readers evaluated carjacking as a national issue, as likely to worsen, as a local danger, and as a personal threat. They also estimated the proportion of carjacking victims suffering injury. The readers eventually rated aspects of the news report. Readers of news featuring extreme exemplar distortion considered carjacking to be a more serious national problem than did readers of news featuring minimally, mildly, or substantially distorted exemplars. This effect was uniform for precision of base rate information and was stable over time. Readers presented with exemplars of people killed during carjackings grossly overestimated the incidence of such an outcome. Additionally, they found the report more upsetting than did readers presented with less extreme exemplars. There were no significant differences, however, in evaluations of newsworthiness, importance, or accuracy of the various versions of the report.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abel, E.
(1984). Thirty-five years of social responsibility theory. In R. Schmuhl (Ed.), The responsibilities of journalism (pp. 86-92). South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
2.
Bar-Hillel, M.
, & Fischoff, B. (1981). When do baserates affect predictions?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 671-680.
3.
Berns, W.
(1974). Constitution and a responsible press. In H. Clor (Ed.), The mass media and modern democracy (pp. 113-135). Chicago: Rand McNally.
4.
Bogart, L.
(1980). Television news as entertainment. In P. H. Tannenbaum (Ed.), The entertainment functions of television (pp. 209-249). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Bower, G. H.
, & Cohen, P. R. (1982). Emotional influences in memory and thinking: Data and theory. In M. S. Clark & T. S. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The seventeenth annual Carnegie symposium on motivation (pp. 291-331). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Brosius, H-B.
, & Bathelt, A. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21, 48-78.
7.
Brosius, H-B.
, Breinker, C., & Esser, F. (1991). Der “Immermehrismus”: Journalistisches Stilmittel oder Realitäsverzerrung?Publizistik, 36(4), 407-427.
8.
Brosius, H-B.
, & Kayser, S. (1991). Der Einfluβ von emotionalen Darstellungen im Fernsehen auf Informationsaufnahme und Urteilsbildung. Medienpsychologie, 3, 236-253.
9.
Brosius, H-B.
, & Mundorf, N. (1990). Eins und eins ist ungleich zwei: Differentielle Aufmerksamkeit, Lebhaftigkeit von Information und Medienwirkung. Publizistik, 35, 398-407.
10.
Gibson, R.
, & Zillmann, D. (1994). The impact of quotation in news reports on issue perception. Journalism Quarterly, 70, 793-800.
11.
Gross, G.
(Ed.) (1966). The responsiblity of the press. New York: Fleet.
12.
Gunter, B.
(1987). Poor reception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
Haskins, J. B.
(1981). The trouble with bad news. Newspaper Research Journal, 2(2), 3-16.
14.
Iyengar, S.
(1990). The accessibility bias in politics: Television news and public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 1-15.
15.
Iyengar, S.
(1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Iyengar, S.
, & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
Johnson, E. J.
, & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 20-31.
18.
Kahneman, D.
, Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Kahneman, D.
, & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.
20.
Kennamer, J. D.
(1988). News values and the vividness of information. Written Communication, 5, 108-123.
21.
Linsky, M.
(1986). Practicing responsible journalism: Press impact. In D. Elliott (Ed.), Responsible journalism (pp. 133-150). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
22.
Manis, M.
, Dovalina, I., Avis, N. E., & Cardoze, S. (1980). Baserates can affect individual predictions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 63-78.
23.
Merrill, J. C.
(1986). Three theories of press responsibility and the advantages of pluralistic individualism. In D. Elliott (Ed.), Responsible journalism (pp. 47-59). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
Meyer, P.
(1991). The new precision journalism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
25.
Newhagen, J. E.
, & Reeves, B. (1992). The evening's bad news: Effects of compelling negative television news images on memory. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 25-41.
26.
Nisbett, R. E.
, & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.
Paivio, A.
(1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
28.
Perloff, L. S.
(1983). Perceptions of vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 41-61.
29.
Perloff, L. S.
, & Fetzer, B. K. (1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 502-510.
30.
Reyes, R. M.
, Thompson, W. L., & Bower, G. H. (1980). Judgmental biases resulting from differing availabilities of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 2-12.
31.
Robinson, J. P.
, & Levy, M. (1985). The main source. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
Ross, L.
, Amabile, T. M., & Steinmetz, J. L. (1977). Social roles, social control, and biases in social-perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 485-494.
33.
Rothbart, M.
, Fulero, S., Jensen, C., Howard, J., & Birrell, P. (1978). From individual to group impressions: Availability heuristics in stereotype formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 237-255.
34.
Sanbonmatsu, D. M.
, & Fazio, R. H. (1991). Construct accessibility: Determinants, consequences, and implications for the media. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen: Reception and reaction processes (pp. 45-62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Sherman, S. J.
, & Corty, E. (1984). Cognitive heuristics. In R. S. Wyer and T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 189-286). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
36.
Tversky, A.
, & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.
37.
Tversky, A.
, & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.
38.
Weinstein, N. D.
(1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 800-820.
39.
Weinstein, N. D.
(1984). Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3, 431-457.
40.
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(1), 65-78.
41.
Zillmann, D.
, Gibson, R., Sundar, S. S., & Perkins, J. W. (1994). Effects of exemplification in magazine journalism on the perception of social issues. Paper presented at the 1994 Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication national conference, Altanta, GA, Aug. 10-13.
42.
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.
