Operating from a guard-dog perspective of the media, this study investigates whether “social change” or “status quo”news frames affected individuals’ risk perceptions, using an experimental design. Participants who read a news story that used the social change frame reported the highest level of risk awareness ( F = 34.88, p = .00), indicating that the way the media frame a story about environmental issues has the potential to influence the audience’s perception of risk.
Altschull, J. H.1984. Agents of power: The role of the news media in human affairs. New York: Longman.
2.
American Lung Association. 2003. State of the air: 2003. Washington, DC: American Lung Association. http://www.stateoftheair.org.
3.
Bandura, A.1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review84:191-215.
4.
Bryant, J., and S. Thompson. 2002. Fundamentals of media effects. New York: McGraw-Hill.
5.
Coleman, C. L.1993. The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research20 (4): 611-628.
6.
Corbett, J. B., and J. L. Durfee. 2004. Testing public (un)certainty of science: Media representations of global warming. Science Communication26:129-151.
7.
Culbertson, H. M., and G. H. Stempel. 1985. “Media malaise”: Explaining personal optimism and societal pessimism about health care. Journal of Communication35:180-190.
8.
Davison, W. P.1983. The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly47:1-15.
9.
Davison, W. P.1996. The third-person effect revisited. International Journal of Public Opinion Research8:113-119.
10.
Donohue, G. A., P. J. Tichenor, and C. N. Olien. 1995. A guard dog perspective on the role of media. Journal of Communication45 (2): 115-132.
11.
Dunwoody, S., and K. Neuwirth. 1991. Coming to terms with the impact of communication on scientific and technological risk judgments. In Risky business: Communicating issues of science, risk and public policy, edited by L. Wilkins and P. Patterson, 11-30. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
12.
Entman, R.1993. Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43 (4): 51-58.
13.
Fischer, G. W., M. G. Morgan, B. Fischhoff, I. Nair, and L. B. Lave. 1991. What risks are people concerned about?Risk Analysis11:303-314.
14.
Gamson, W.1989. News as framing. American Behavioral Scientist33 (2): 157-161.
15.
Gamson, W., and A. Modigliani. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology95:1-37.
16.
Ghanem, S.1997. Filling in the tapestry: The second level of agenda setting. In Communicating and democracy: Exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda setting theory, edited by M. McCombs, D. L. Shaw, and D. Weaver, 3-14. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
Gibson, R., and D. Zillmann. 1994. Exaggerated versus representative exemplification in news reports: Perception of issues and personal consequences. Communication Research21:64-91.
18.
Gitlin, T.1980. The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19.
Goffman, E.1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
20.
Grabe, M. E., A. Lang, S. Zhou, and P. D. Bolls. 2000. Cognitive access to negatively arousing news: An experimental investigation of the knowledge gap. Communication Research27:3-26.
21.
Gregory, R.1989.Improving risk communications: Questions of content and intent. In Prospects and problems in risk communication, edited by W. Leiss, 98-132. Waterloo, Canada: University of Waterloo Press.
22.
Gregory, R., and R. Mendelsohn. 1993.Perceivedrisk, dread, and benefits. Risk Analysis13:259-264.
23.
Griffin, R. J., S. Dunwoody, T. Dybro, and F. Zabala. 1994.The relationship of communication to risk perceptions and preventative behavior related to lead in drinking water. Paper presented to the Science Communication Interest Group, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, at the 1994 annual convention, Atlanta, GA.
24.
Harris, R. J.1994. A cognitive psychology of mass communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25.
Herman, E. S., and N. Chomsky. 1988. Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. New York: Pantheon.
26.
Hertog, J., and D. McLeod. 1995. Anarchists wreak havoc in downtown Minneapolis: A multilevel study of media coverage of radical protest. Journalism Monographs151:4-52.
27.
Hohenemser, C., R. W. Kates, and P. Slovic. 1983. The nature of technological hazard. Science220:376-384.
28.
Hornig, S.1990. Science stories: Risk, power and perceived emphasis. Journalism Quarterly67 (4): 767-776.
29.
Iyengar, S.1991. Is anyone responsible?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Kepplinger, H., and G. Daschmann. 1997. Today’s news—Tomorrow’s context: A dynamic model of news processing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media41:548-565.
31.
Klaidman, S.1991. Health in the headlines: The stories behind the stories. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Lang, G. E., and K. Lang. 1984. Politics and television re-viewed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
33.
Lasorsa, D. L.1992. How media affect policymakers: The third-person effect. In Public opinion, the press and public policy, edited by J. D. Kennamer, 163-175. New York: Praeger.
34.
Litt, M. D.1988. Cognitive mediators of stressful experience: Self-efficacy and perceived control. Cognitive Theory and Research12:241-260.
35.
Luhmann, N.2000. The reality of mass media (K. Cross, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
36.
McLeod, D. M., and B. H. Detenber. 1999. Framing effects of television news coverage of social protest. Journal of Communication49 (3): 3-23.
37.
McLeod, D. M., and J. K. Hertog.1998.Social controland the mass media’s role in the regulation of protest groups: The communicative acts perspective. In Mass media, social control and social change, edited by D. Dembers and K. Viswanath, 305-330. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
38.
Morley, D.1976. Industrial conflict and the mass media. Sociological Review24:245-268.
39.
Murray, D., J. Schwartz, and S. R. Lichter. 2001. It ain’t necessarily so: How media make and unmake the scientific picture of reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
40.
Paletz, D. L., and R. M. Entman. 1981. Media power and politics. New York: Free Press.
41.
Pan, Z., and G. Kosicki. 1993. Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication10:55-75.
42.
Perloff, R. M.1993. Third-person effect research 1983-1992: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Public Opinion Research5:167-184.
43.
Perloff, R. M.1996. Perceptions and conceptions of political media impact: The third-person effect and beyond. In The psychology of political communication, edited by A. N. Crigler, 177-191. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
44.
Pilisuk, M., and C. Acredolo. 1988. Fear of technological hazards: One concern or many?Social Behavior3:17-24.
45.
Price, V., L. N. Huang, and D. Tewksbury. 1997. Third-person effects of news coverage: Orientations toward media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly74:525-540.
46.
Price, V., and D. Tewksbury. 1997. News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In Progress in communication sciences, edited by G. Barnett and F. J. Boster, 173-212. Greenwich, CT: Albex.
47.
Price, V., D. Tewksbury, and E. Powers. 1997. Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers’ cognitive responses. Communication Research24:481-506.
48.
Reese, S.2001. Framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understandings of the social world, edited by S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, and A. E. Grant, 7-31. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
49.
Robinson, J. P.1986. Long-term information and media use. In The main source, edited by J. P. Robinson and M. Levy, 57-85. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
50.
Scheufele, D. A.1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication49 (1): 103-122.
51.
Shoemaker, P. J., and S. D. Reese. 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. New York: Longman.
52.
Singer, E. T., and P. M. Endreny. 1993. Reporting risk: How the mass media portray accidents, diseases, disasters and other hazards. New York: Russell Sage.
53.
Stamm, K. R., F. Clark, and P. R. Eblancas.2000.Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science9:219-237.
54.
Swenson, J. 1990. News coverage of the abortion issue: Framing changes in the 1980s. Paper presented to the Committee on the Status of Women, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Minneapolis, MN.
55.
Tankard, J., L. Hendrickson, J. Silberman, K. Bliss, and S. Ghanem. 1991. Media frames: Approaches to conceptualization and measurement. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston.
56.
Tichenor, P., G. Donohue, and C. Olien. 1970.Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly34:159-170.
57.
Tuchman, G.1978. Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
58.
Weinstein, N. D.1980. Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39:806-820.
59.
Weinstein, N. D.1987. Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems: Conclusions from a community-wide sample. Journal of Behavioral Medicine10:481-498.
60.
Wilkins, L., and P. Patterson. 1987. Risk analysis and the construction of news. Journal of Communication37:80-92.
