The American youth-led movement for gun violence prevention (YMGVP) that emerged after the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, has received tremendous media attention. To assess the potential effect of this coverage on readers’ efficacy, we conduct a two-wave population-based survey experiment on members of Generation Z, the Millennial generation, and Generation X that frames the movement as a success or failure in terms of achieving its political goals. Results show that emphasis framing impacts readers’ perceptions of the movement’s likely success in line with the manipulation. Furthermore, framing the YMGVP as unsuccessful suppresses readers’ own external and collective efficacy regardless of generation. Subjects’ support for gun control moderates the effect of treatment, such that individuals low in support express a decline in internal and information efficacy when presented with the success framing. Thus, we extend the effects of news framing beyond attitudes toward the subjects of reporting to readers’ own perceptions of themselves as capable of political action.
AcockAlanClarkeHaroldMarianne C.Stewart.1985. “
A New Model for Old Measures: A Covariance Structure Analysis of Political Efficacy.” Journal of Politics47:1062–1084. doi:10.2307/2130807.
BanduraAlbert.1997. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control.
W. H. Freeman.
4.
BenfordRobert D.David A.Snow.2000. “
Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment.” Annual Review of Sociology26 (1): 611–39. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611.
5.
BockR. Darrell.1975. Multivariate Statistical Methods in Behavioral Research.
New York:
McGraw-Hill.
6.
BorahPorismita.2013. “
Interactions of News Frames and Incivility in the Political Blogosphere: Examining Perceptual Outcomes.” Political Communication30 (3): 456–73. doi:10.1080/10584609.2012.737426.
7.
CacciatoreMichaelScheufeleDietram A.ShantoIyengar.2016. “
The End of Framing as We Know It … and the Future of Media Effects.” Mass Communication and Society19:7–23. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811.
8.
ChanJoseph M.Chi-ChuanLee.1984. “
Journalistic ‘Paradigms’ of Civil Protests: A Case Study of Hong Kong.” In The News Media in National and International Conflict, ed. ArnoAndrewDissanayakeWimal, 183–202.
New York:
Westview Press.
9.
ChongDennisJames N.Druckman.2007. “
Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science10:103–26. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.
Delli CarpiniMichael X.2000. “
Gen.com: Youth, Civic Engagement, and the New Information Environment.” Political Communication17:341–49. doi:10.1080/10584600050178942.
DruckmanJames N.2001. “
The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior23 (3): 225–256.
14.
DruckmanJames N.2011. “
What’s It All About? Framing in Political Science.” In Perspectives on Framing, ed. KerenGideon, 279–301.
New York:
Psychology Press.
15.
EinwohnerRachel L.2002. “
Motivational Framing and Efficacy Maintenance: Animal Rights Activists’ Use of Four Fortifying Strategies.” The Sociological Quarterly43 (4): 509–26. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2002.tb00064.x.
16.
EntmanRobert.1993. “
Framing: Toward a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication43 (4): 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
17.
FinkelSteven E.1985. “
Reciprocal Effects of Participation and Political Efficacy: A Panel Analysis.” American Journal of Political Science29:891–913. doi:10.2307/2111186.
18.
FinkelSteven E.Edward N.Muller.1998. “
Rational Choice and the Dynamics of Collective Political Action: Evaluating Alternative Models with Panel Data.” American Political Science Review92:37–49. doi:10.2307/2585927.
GamsonWilliam A.AndreModigliani.1987. “
The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action.” In Research in Political Sociology. Vol. 3, ed. BraungartRichart, 137–177.
Greenwich:
JAI Press.
21.
GamsonWilliam A.GadiWolfsfeld.1993. “
Movements and Media as Interacting Systems.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science528 (1): 114–25. doi:10.1177/0002716293528001009.
HainmuellerJensJonathanMummoloYinqingXu.2019. “
How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice.” Political Analysis27 (2): 163–92. doi:10.1017/pan.2018.46.
24.
KaidLynda L.Mitchell S.McKinneyJohn C.Tedesco.2007. “
Political Information Efficacy and Young Voters.” American Behavioral Scientist50:1093–1111. doi:10.1177/0002764207300040.
25.
KiousisSpiro.2001. “
Public Trust or Mistrust? Perceptions of Media Credibility in the Information Age.” Mass Communication and Society4:381–403. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0404_4.
26.
LeeFrancis L. F.2005. “
Collective Efficacy, Support for Democratization, and Political Participation in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research18:297–317. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh105.
LiuJiaweiDietram A.Scheufele.2016. “
A Revisionist Perspective on Framing Effects.” In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, ed. ThompsonWilliam R., 1-27.
Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
29.
McLeodDouglas M.1995. “
Communicating Deviance: The Effects of Television News Coverage of Social Protest.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media39 (1): 4–19. doi:10.1080/08838159509364285.
30.
McLeodDouglas M.BenjaminDetenber.1999. “
Framing Effects of Television News Coverage of a Social Protest.” Journal of Communication49 (3): 3–23. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02802.x.
31.
McLeodDouglas M.James K.Hertog.1992. “
The Manufacture of ‘Public Opinion’ by Reporters: Informal Cues for Public Perceptions of Protest Groups.” Discourse & Society3:259–75. doi:10.1177/0957926592003003001.
32.
NiemiRichard G.Stephen C.CraigFrancoMattei.1991. “
Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study.” American Political Science Review85 (4): 1407–13. doi:10.2307/1963953.
33.
NoakesJohn A.HankJohnston.2005. “
Frames of Protest: A Road Map to a Perspective.” In Frames of Protest: Social Movements and the Framing Perspective, ed. JohnstonHankNoakesJohn A., 1–29.
Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield.
ScheufeleDietram A.DavidTewksbury.2007. “
Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models.” Journal of Communication57:9–20. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x.
37.
ShoemakerPamela J. 1982. “The perceived legitimacy of deviant political groups: Two experiments on media effects.” Communication Research 9(2): 249-86.
38.
SlothuusRune.2008. “
More Than Weighting Cognitive Importance: A Dual‐Process Model of Issue Framing Effects.” Political Psychology29 (1): 1–28. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00610.x.
39.
SnowDavid A.E. BurkeRochfordJr.Steven K.WordenRobert D.Benford.1986. “
Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review51:464–481. doi:10.2307/2095581.
40.
SuhDoowon.2001. “
How Do Political Opportunities Matter for Social Movements? Political Opportunity, Misframing, Pseudosuccess, and Pseudofailure.” The Sociological Quarterly42 (3): 437–60. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2001.tb02409.x.
41.
TarrowSidney.1994. Power in Movement: Collective Action, Social Movements and Politics.
New York:
Cambridge University Press.
42.
TuchmanGaye.1978. Making News.
New York:
Free Press.
43.
TverskyAmosDanielKahneman.1981. “
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science211 (4484): 453–58. doi:10.1126/science.7455683.
44.
ZallerJohn R.1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
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.
