The shift in reliance from broadcast to online news sources has called into question the continued relevance and applicability of conventional frame building practices and frame setting processes in the new media environment. Findings from a 2 (frame direction: same vs different) × 2 (frame emphasis: environment vs health) × 2 (popularity cues: high vs low) between-subjects experiment (N = 326) showed that user comments serve an egalitarian function by enabling laypeople to participate in the construction and dissemination of frames for a novel risk issue, cultured meat. Interestingly, the congruence between elite and lay perspectives was found to be more influential than the specific arguments put forth by different sources in influencing attitudes and behavioral intentions. Issue importance moderated the relationship between frame direction and framing outcomes while perceived source credibility mediated it. Suggestions to safeguard the democratic process and improve online science communication are provided.
ArugueteNCalvoE (2018) Time to# protest: selective exposure, cascading activation, and framing in social media. Journal of Communication68(3): 480–502.
BolsenTPalmR (2022) Politicization and COVID-19 vaccine resistance in the US. Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science188(1): 81.
4.
BrinolPPettyRE (2009) Source factors in persuasion: a self-validation approach. European Review of Social Psychology20: 49–96.
5.
BrossardDNisbetMC (2007) Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: understanding US opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19: 24–52.
6.
BrossardDScheufeleDA (2013) Science, new media, and the public. Science339(6115): 40–41.
7.
ChangC (2011) Opinions from others like you: the role of perceived source similarity. Media Psychology14(4): 415–441.
8.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication57: 99–118.
9.
ColemanCL (1993) The influence of mass media and interpersonal communication on societal and personal risk judgments. Communication Research20(4): 611–628.
10.
ConwayBAKenskiKWangD (2015) The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(4): 363–380.
11.
DaiYVan Der HeideBMasonAJ, et al. (2019) The wisdom of the crowd versus the wisdom in the crowd: testing the effects of aggregate user representation, valence, and argument strength on attitude formation in online reviews. International Journal of Communication13: 24.
12.
DetenberBHHoSSOngAH, et al. (2018) Complementary versus competitive framing effects in the context of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Science Communication40(2): 173–198.
13.
DruckmanJN (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior23(3): 225–256.
14.
DudoABrossardDShanahanJ, et al. (2011) Science on television in the 21st century: recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research38(6): 754–777.
15.
EntmanRM (1993) Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43(4): 51–58.
16.
HocquetteJF (2016) Is in vitro meat the solution for the future?Meat Science120: 167–176.
17.
JangSMGengTLiJYQ, et al. (2018) A computational approach for examining the roots and spreading patterns of fake news: evolution tree analysis. Computers in Human Behavior84: 103–113.
18.
KimJW (2018) They liked and shared: effects of social media virality metrics on perceptions of message influence and behavioral intentions. Computers in Human Behavior84: 153–161.
19.
Knobloch-WesterwickSSargeMA (2015) Impacts of exemplification and efficacy as characteristics of an online weight-loss message on selective exposure and subsequent weight-loss behavior. Communication Research42(4): 547–568.
20.
KohringMMatthesJ (2007) Trust in news media: development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research34(2): 231–252.
21.
LarsonHJ (2018) The biggest pandemic risk? Viral misinformation. Nature562(7726): 309–310.
22.
LechelerSDe VreeseCSlothuusR (2009) Issue importance as a moderator of framing effects. Communication Research36(3): 400–425.
23.
LechelerSKeerMSchuckAR, et al. (2015) The effects of repetitive news framing on political opinions over time. Communication Monographs82(3): 339–358.
24.
LeeCJScheufeleDALewensteinBV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication27(2): 240–267.
25.
LeeEJJangYJ (2010) What do others’ reactions to news on internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research37(6): 825–846.
26.
LeongADHoSS (2021) Perceiving online public opinion: the impact of Facebook opinion cues, opinion climate congruency, and source credibility on speaking out. New Media & Society23(9): 2495–2515.
27.
LoWHLamBSYCheungMMF (2019) The dynamics of political elections: a big data analysis of intermedia framing between social media and news media. Social Science Computer Review39: 627–647.
28.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJ (2013) Credibility and trust of information in online environments: the use of cognitive heuristics. Journal of Pragmatics59: 210–220.
29.
NadarevicLReberRHelmeckeAJ, et al. (2020) Perceived truth of statements and simulated social media postings: an experimental investigation of source credibility, repeated exposure, and presentation format. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications5: 1–16.
30.
NelsonTEOxleyZMClawsonRA (1997) Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior19: 221–246.
31.
NeubaumGKrämerNC (2017) Opinion climates in social media: blending mass and interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research43(4): 464–476.
32.
NeumanWRGuggenheimLJangSM, et al. (2014) The dynamics of public attention: agenda-setting theory meets big data. Journal of Communication64: 193–214.
33.
NisbetMC (2009) Framing science: a new paradigm in public engagement. In: KahlorLAStoutP (eds) Understanding Science: New Agendas in Science Communication. New York: Routledge, pp. 40–87.
34.
OhanianR (1990) Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising19(3): 39–52.
35.
PangNHoSSZhangAM, et al. (2016) Can spiral of silence and civility predict click speech on Facebook?Computers in Human Behavior64: 898–905.
36.
ScheufeleDA (1999) Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication49: 103–122.
37.
ShanY (2016) How credible are online product reviews? The effects of self-generated and system-generated cues on source credibility evaluation. Computers in Human Behavior55: 633–641.
SpartzJTSuLYFGriffinR, et al. (2017) YouTube, social norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environmental Communication11: 1–16.
40.
StavrosituCDKimJ (2014) Social media metrics: third-person perceptions of health information. Computers in Human Behavior35: 61–67.
41.
TilmanDClarkM (2014) Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature515: 518–522.
42.
van der MeerTG (2018) Public frame building: the role of source usage in times of crisis. Communication Research45(6): 956–981.
43.
van EckCWMulderBCDewulfA (2020) Online climate change polarization: interactional framing analysis of climate change blog comments. Science Communication42(4): 454–480.
44.
WeismuellerJHarriganPWangS, et al. (2020) Influencer endorsements: how advertising disclosure and source credibility affect consumer purchase intention on social media. Australasian Marketing Journal28(4): 160–170.
45.
WhittlerTEDiMeoJ (1991) Viewers’ reactions to racial cues in advertising stimuli. Journal of Advertising Research31: 37–46.
46.
WilksMPhillipsCJFieldingK, et al. (2019) Testing potential psychological predictors of attitudes toward cultured meat. Appetite136: 137–145.
47.
WinterSBrücknerCKrämerNC (2015) They came, they liked, they commented: social influence on Facebook news channels. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking18(8): 431–436.
48.
WiseDBrewerPR (2010) Competing frames for a public health issue and their effects on public opinion. Mass Communication and Society13(4): 435–457.
49.
ZillmannDBrosiusHB (2012) Exemplification in Communication: The Influence of Case Reports on the Perception of Issues. London: Routledge.
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.
