Motivated reasoning in response to disconfirming science information presents a challenging barrier to science communication. This article presents a novel approach to emphasis framing, in which functionally equivalent information is framed using ideologically consistent values and tailored to the audiences. In contrast to traditional framing approaches, science information is held constant across frames and only interpretations of the information are varied. Results from an experiment provide initial support for this ideology-based framing approach. Persuasive effects are stronger for an ideologically congruent frame than for an incongruent frame, and no boomerang effects were observed. We discuss implications and directions for future research.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
2.
AnS. K.GowerK. K. (2009). How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage. Public Relations Review, 35, 107-112. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.010
3.
ArceneauxK.JohnsonM. (2013). Changing minds or changing channels? Media effects in an era of expanded choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BailC. A.ArgyleL. P.BrownT. W.BumpusJ. P.ChenH.HunzakerM. F.. . . VolfovskyA. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115, 9216-9221. doi:10.31235/osf.io/4ygux
5.
BakshyE.MessingS.AdamicL. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook. Science, 348, 1130-1132. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1160
6.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65, 745-769. doi:10.1111/jcom.12171
7.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N.CookF. L. (2014). The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235-262. doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0
8.
BorahP. (2011). Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61, 246-263. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x
9.
BrewerP. R.GrossK. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26, 929-948. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00451.x
10.
ByrneS.HartP. S. (2009). The boomerang effect a synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. Annals of the International Communication Association, 33, 3-37. doi:10.1080/23808985.2009.11679083
11.
CampbellT. H.KayA. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 809-824. doi:10.1037/a0037963
12.
De VreeseC. H.PeterJ.SemetkoH. A. (2001). Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication, 18, 107-122. doi:10.1080/105846001750322934
13.
DetenberB. H.HoS. S.OngA. H.LimN. W. B. (2018). Complementary versus competitive framing effects in the context of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Science Communication, 40, 173-198. doi:10.1177/1075547018758075
14.
DixonG.HmielowskiJ.MaY. (2017). Improving climate change acceptance among us conservatives through value-based message targeting. Science Communication, 39, 520-534. doi:10.1177/1075547017715473
15.
DruckmanJ. N.BolsenT. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61, 659-688. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x
16.
FieldingK. S.HornseyM. J. (2016). A social identity analysis of climate change and environmental attitudes and behaviors: Insights and opportunities. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 121. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00121
17.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
18.
FishbeinM.YzerM. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13, 164-183. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00287.x
19.
FlaxmanS.GoelS.RaoJ. M. (2016). Filter bubbles, echo chambers, and online news consumption. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 298-320. doi:10.1093/poq/nfw006
GamsonW. A.ModiglianiA. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1-37. doi:10.1086/229213
22.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
24.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701-723. doi:10.1177/0093650211416646
25.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
26.
HensherD.ShoreN.TrainK. (2005). Households’ willingness to pay for water service attributes. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32, 509-531.
27.
HoS. S.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20, 171-192. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edn017
28.
JacquetJ.DietrichM.JostJ. T. (2014). The ideological divide and climate change opinion: “Top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1458. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01458
29.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407-424. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2182588
30.
KimY. (2015). Does disagreement mitigate polarization? How selective exposure and disagreement affect political polarization. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92, 915-937. doi:10.1177/1077699015596328
31.
KreuterM. W.WrayR. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, S227-S232. doi:10.5993/ajhb.27.1.s3.6
32.
KundaZ. (1987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636-647. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.4.636
33.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
34.
LeeperT. J. (2014). The informational basis for mass polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78, 27-46. doi:10.1093/poq/nft045
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098
37.
MasonL. (2018). Ideologues without issues: The polarizing consequences of ideological identities. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 280-301. doi:10.1093/poq/nfy005
38.
MeierK. J.MorganD. R. (1982). Citizen compliance with public policy: The national maximum speed law. Western Political Quarterly, 35, 258-273. doi:10.2307/448019
39.
MutzD. (2008). How the mass media divide us. In NivolaP.BradyD. (Eds.), Red and blue nation? (pp. 223-262). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
40.
MyersT. A.NisbetM. C.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113, 1105-1112. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6
41.
NelsonT. E.OxleyZ. M.ClawsonR. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221-246. doi:10.1023/A:1024834831093
42.
NisbetE. C.CooperK. E.GarrettR. K. (2015). The partisan brain: How dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis)trust science. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 36-66. doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474
43.
SchemerC.WirthW.MatthesJ. (2012). Value resonance and value framing effects on voting intentions in direct-democratic campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 334-352. doi:10.1177/0002764211426329
44.
ScheufeleD. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x
45.
ScheufeleD. A.IyengarS. (2017). The state of framing research: A call for new directions. In KenskiK.JamiesonK. H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication theories (pp. 619-632). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
46.
ShahD. V.DomkeD.WackmanD. B. (1996). “To thine own self be true”: Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509-560. doi:10.1177/009365096023005001
47.
ShenF.EdwardsH. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55, 795-809. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03023.x
48.
SlothuusR.De VreeseC. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. Journal of Politics, 72, 630-645. doi:10.1017/s002238161000006x
49.
StroudN. J. (2011). Niche news: The politics of news choice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
50.
TaberC. S.CannD.KucsovaS. (2009). The motivated processing of political arguments. Political Behavior, 31, 137-155. doi:10.1007/s11109-008-9075-8
51.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
WebsterJ. G. (2014). The marketplace of attention: How audiences take shape in a digital age. Cambridge: MIT Press.
54.
WeeksB. E.KsiazekT. B.HolbertR. L. (2016). Partisan enclaves or shared media experiences? A network approach to understanding citizens’ political news environments. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 60, 248-268. doi:10.1080/08838151.2016.1164170
55.
WeillerC.NeelyA. (2014). Using electric vehicles for energy services: Industry perspectives. Energy, 77, 194-200.
56.
WojcieszakM. (2011). Deliberation and attitude polarization. Journal of Communication, 61, 596-617. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01568.x
57.
WolskoC.AriceagaH.SeidenJ. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7-19. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.005
58.
ZhouJ. (2016). Boomerangs versus javelins: how polarization constrains communication on climate change. Environmental Politics, 25, 788-811. doi:10.1080/09644016.2016.1166602
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
