Consumers increasingly use a second screen (computer, smartphone, and tablet) to virtually engage with each other through social networks as they watch television. This 2 × 3 experiment addresses a gap in framing research by testing the effects of institutional and social media as competing partisan frames during a presidential debate excerpt. Findings show peer-generated social media frames exerted stronger effects on subjects’ opinions of the candidates’ performance than institutional frames. Some subjects showed an apparent “backlash effect” when simultaneously exposed to social media and institutional frames that ran counter to their existing schemas.
AschS. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In GuetzkowH. (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men (pp. 177–190). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie.
2.
BondR.FarissC.JonesJ.KramerA.MarlowC.SettleJ.FowlerJ. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489, 295–298. doi:10.1038/nature11421
3.
CameronJ.GeidnerN. (2014). Something old, something new, something borrowed from something blue: Experiments on dual viewing TV and Twitter. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58, 400–419.
4.
ChaikenS. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In ZannaM. P.OlsenJ. M.HermansC. P. (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007a). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637–655.
6.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
7.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. (2007c). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99–118.
8.
ConoverM. D.GonçalvesB.FlamminiA.MenczerF. (2012). Partisan asymmetries in online political activity. EPJ Data Science, 1, 1.
9.
CrutchfieldR. S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10, 191–198.
10.
DahlbergL. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 4, 615–633.
11.
DruckmanJ. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?The Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.
EliasophN. (1998). Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
14.
EntmanR. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.
15.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1984). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16.
GearhartS.KangS. (2014). Social media in television news the effects of Twitter and Facebook comments on journalism. Electronic News, 8, 243–259.
17.
GitlinT. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
IyengarS.KinderD. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.
21.
LechelerS.de VreeseC. H. (2012). News framing and public opinion: A mediation analysis of framing effects on political attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89, 185–204.
22.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.EyalK.LemusD. R.McCannR. M. (2003). Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. Annals of the International Communication Association, 27, 293–335.
23.
MetzgerM. J.FlanaginA. J.MeddersR. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413–439.
NeeR. C. (2013). Social TV and the 2012 election: Exploring political outcomes of multiscreen media usages [Special issue]. Electronic News, 7, 171–188. doi:10.1177/1931243113515677
PapacharissiZ. (2009). The citizen is the message: Alternative modes of civic engagement. In PapacharissiZ. (Ed.), Journalism and citizenship: New agendas (pp. 29–43). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum/Taylor and Francis.
29.
PariserE. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin UK.
30.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
31.
PriceV.TewksburyD. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In BarnettG. A.BosterF. J. (Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (pp. 173–212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
ScheufeleD.TewksburyD. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20.
34.
ShirkyC. (2008). Here comes everybody. New York, NY: Penguin Press.
35.
SimonH. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.
36.
SlothuusR. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual process model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology, 29, 1–28.
37.
SmithA.BrennerJ. (2012). Twitter use 2012. Pew Internet & American Life Project, 4.
38.
TewksburyD.ScheufeleD. A. (2009). News framing theory and research. In OliverB. (Ed.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
WeaverD. H. (2007). Thoughts on agenda setting, framing, and priming. Journal of Communication, 57, 142–147.
40.
XuQ. (2013). Social recommendation, source credibility, and recency effects of news cues in a social bookmarking website. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 90, 757–775.
