Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Competitive Frames and Accuracy Motivations

Testing the Role of Ambivalence in Value Framing Effects

Published Online:March 16, 2018https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000237

Abstract

Abstract. To examine the psychological mechanisms involved in value framing effects, the present study extends previous research on competitive frames and tests the mediating role of ambivalence in value framing effects. The current research delves into the nuances of value framing effects and helps explain processes such as applicability. Two web-based experiments were conducted using value frames related to two different issues, civil liberties and gay rights. Findings from moderated-mediation models indicate that when individuals are exposed to competitive frames they feel ambivalent. Because of this ambivalence, participants were more willing to seek information and showed increased online information-seeking behavior. However, these findings are true only in cases of individuals who are motivated to process the information. Implications are discussed.

References

  • Borah, P. (2011a). Seeking more information and conversations: Influence of competitive frames and motivated processing. Communication Research, 38(3), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210376190 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Borah, P. (2011b). Conceptual issues in framing: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication, 61(2), 246–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Borah, P. (2014). Does it matter where you read the news stories? Interaction of incivility and news frames in the political blogosphere. Communication Research, 41(6), 809–827. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212449353 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Boyle, M. P., Schmierbach, M., Armstrong, C. L., Cho, J., McCluskey, M., McLeod, D. M. & Shah, D. V. (2006). Expressive responses to news stories about extremist groups: A framing experiment. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 271–288. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Brewer, P. (2002). Framing, value words, and citizens’ explanations of their issue opinions. Political Communication, 19, 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01957470290055510 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Brewer, P. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A framing-based account. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173–201. https://doi.org/10.1086/374397 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Brewer, P. R. & Gross, K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929–948. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bullock, J. G., Green, D. P. & Ha, S. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A. & Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know it… and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cappella, J. & Jamieson, K. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Chaiken, S., Liberman, A. & Eagly, A. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J. S. UlemanJ. A. BarghEds., Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York, NY: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Cho, H. & Lee, J. S. (2008). Collaborative information seeking in intercultural computer-mediated communication groups: Testing the influence of social context using social network analysis. Communication Research, 35(4), 548–573. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chong, D. & Druckman, J. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055407070554 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Chong, D. & Druckman, J. (2013). Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000837 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Druckman, J. (2001a). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Druckman, J. (2001b). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00100 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Druckman, J. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 671–686. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404041413 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Druckman, J. (2012). The politics of motivation. Critical Review, 24(2), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/08913811.2012.711022 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Erdelyi, M. H. (1974). A new look at the new look: Perceptual defence and vigilance. Psychological Review, 81, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035852 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making & unmaking of the new left. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Publications. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. HigginsA. W. KruglanskiEds., Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York, NY: Guilford. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Holbrook, A. L. & Krosnick, J. A. (2005). Meta-psychological versus operative measures of ambivalence: Differentiating the consequences of perceived intra-psychic conflict and real intra-psychic conflict. In S. C. CraigM. D. MartinezEds., Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 73–103). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D. & Yamamoto, T. (2010). Causal mediation analysis using R. In D. V. HrishikeshEd., Advances in social science research using R (pp. 129–154). New York, NY: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political behavior, 12(1), 19–40. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032590 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McGraw, K. M. & Bartels, B. (2005). Ambivalence toward American political institutions. In S. C. CraigM. D. MartinezEds., Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 106–126). New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • McGraw, K. M., Hasecke, E. & Conger, K. (2003). Ambivalence, uncertainty, and processes of candidate evaluation. Political Psychology, 24(3), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00335 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nelson, T., Oxley, Z. & Clawson, R. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221–246. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nelson, T. E. & Willey, E. A. (2001). Issue frames that strike a value balance: A political psychology perspective. In S. D. ReeseO. H. GandyA. E. GrantEds., Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 245–266). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Newby-Clark, I. R., McGregor, I. & Zanna, M. (2002). Thinking and caring about cognitive inconsistency: When and for whom does attitudinal ambivalence feel uncomfortable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 157–166. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Niederdeppe, J., Gollust, S. E. & Barry, C. L. (2014). Inoculation in competitive framing examining message effects on policy preferences. Public Opinion Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfu026 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Nordgren, L. F., van Harreveld, F. & van der Pligt, J. (2006). Ambivalence, discomfort, and motivated information processing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 252–258. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Olsen, S. O., Wilcox, J. & Olsson, U. (2005). Consequences of ambivalence on satisfaction and loyalty. Psychology & Marketing, 22(3), 247–269. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. (2005). Framing and the understanding of citizenship. In S. DunwoodyL. BackerD. McLeodG. KosickiEds., The evolution of key mass communication concepts (pp. 165–204). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Petty, R. E. & Krosnick, J. A. (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Price, V. & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. BarnettF. J. BosterEds., Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 173–212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Priester, J. R. & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/49.1.103 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Shah, D. V., Domke, D. & Wackman, D. B. (1996). “To Thine Own Self Be True” values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23(5), 509–560. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Simon, A. F. (2001). A unified method for analyzing media framing. In R. P. HartD. R. ShawEds., Communication in U.S. elections: New agendas (pp. 75–89). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sniderman, P. M. & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. SarisP. M. SnidermanEds., Studies in public opinion (pp. 133–165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Steenbergen, M. & Brewer, P. (2004). The not-so-ambivalent public: policy attitudes in the political culture of ambivalence. In W. E. SarisP. M. SnidermanEds., Studies in public opinion (pp. 93–129). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P. & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, 4, 361–386. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Zaller, J. & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579–616. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zhao, X. & Cai, X. (2008). The role of ambivalence in college nonsmokers’ information seeking and information processing. Communication Research, 35, 298–318. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar