This study focused on the reasoning process through which people decided whether to support President Reagan during the Iran-Contra affair, and the role of the media in that reasoning process. Content analyses of network news showed that the media framed the Iran-Contra affair, with a high level of salience, as a valence issue (the Reagan administration's complicity in the secret dealing) rather than a position issue (the affair's international policy dimension). Path analyses of the national survey data supported the hypothesized differences in the reasoning processes based on the levels of political sophistication: Highly sophisticated people demonstrated a higher level of complexity and consistency in their reasoning process, considering more factors than less sophisticated people. The data also supported the hypothesized framing effects of the media.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Becker, L. B.
, Cobbey, R. E., & Sobowale, I. A. (1978). Public support for the press. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 421-430.
2.
Brody, R. A.
(1991). Assessing the president. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
Brody, R. A.
, & Page, B. I. (1975). The impact of events on presidential popularity: The Johnson and Nixon administrations. In A. Wildavsky (Ed.), Perspectives on the presidency (pp. 136-148). Boston: Little, Brown.
4.
Ceaser, J. W.
(1988). The Reagan presidency and American public opinion. In C. O. Jones (Ed.), The Reagan legacy: Promise and performance (pp. 172-210). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers, Inc.
5.
Entman, R.
(1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41, 6-27.
6.
Fishman, M.
(1982). News and nonevents: Making the visible invisible. In J. S. Ettema & D. C. Whitney (Eds.), Individuals in mass media organizations (pp. 219-240). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
7.
Fiske, S. T.
, & Kinder, D. R. (1981). Involvement, expertise, and schema use: Evidence from political cognition. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 171-190). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Fredin, E. S.
, & Kosicki, G. M. (1989). Cognitions and attitudes about community: Compensating for media images. Journalism Quarterly, 571-578.
9.
Gamson, W. A.
, & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37.
10.
Gitlin, T.
(1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.
11.
Goffman, E.
(1986). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeast University Press.
12.
Haight, T. R.
, & Brody, R. A. (1977). The mass media and presidential popularity: Presidential broadcasting and news in the Nixon administration. Communication Research, 4, 41-60.
13.
Hamill, R.
, & Lodge, M. (1986). Cognitive consequences of political sophistication. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition (pp. 69-94). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Iyengar, S.
(1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12, 18-41.
15.
Iyengar, S.
(1991). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
16.
Iyengar, S.
, & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
17.
Kinder, D. R.
, & Fiske, S. T. (1986). Presidents in the public mind. In O. G. Hermann (Ed.), Political psychology (pp. 193-218). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
Krosnick, J. A.
, & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 497-512.
19.
Lang, G. E.
, & Lang, K. (1983). The battle for public opinion: The president, the press, and the polls during Watergate. New York: Columbia University Press.
20.
Lau, R. R.
, & Sears, D. O. (1986). Social cognition and political cognition: The past, the present, and the future. In R. R. Lau & D. O. Sears (Eds.), Political cognition (pp. 347-394). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Neuman, R. W.
(1986). The paradox of mass politics: Knowledge and opinion in the American electorate. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Ostrom, C. W.
, & Simon, D. M. (1989). The man in the Teflon suit: The environmental connection, political drama, and popular support in the Reagan presidency. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53, 353-387.
23.
Ottati, V. C.
, & Wyer, R. S. Jr. (1990). The cognitive mediators of political choice: Toward a comprehensive model of political information processing. In J. A. Freejhon & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and Democratic Processes (pp. 186-218). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
24.
Pan, Z.
, & Kosicki, G. M. (1992). Whites' support of racial equality policies: Reasoning chains and media influences. Paper prepared for delivery at the annual conference of the Midwest Association of Public Opinion Research, Chicago, November 1992.
25.
Sniderman, P.
, Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Stokes, D. E.
(1966). Spatial models of party competition. In A. Campbell, P. Converse, W. Miller, & D. Stokes (Eds.), Elections and the political order (pp. 161-179). New York: Wiley.
27.
Zaller, J. R.
(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
