SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

REFERENCES

  • Alvarez, R. M., & Brehm, J. (2002). Hard choices, easy answers: Values, information, and American public opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
  • Basinger, S. J., & Lavine, H. (2005). Ambivalence, information, and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 99, 169184.
  • Callaghan, K. (2005). Conclusion: Controversies and new directions. In K.Callaghan & F.Schnell (Eds.), Framing American politics (pp. 179189). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Callaghan, K., & Schnell, F. (2005). Introduction: Framing political issues in American politics. In K.Callaghan & F.Schnell (Eds.), Framing American politics (pp. 117). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103126.
  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637655.
  • Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E.Apter (ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206261). New York: Free Press.
  • Druckman, J. N. (2001a). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225255.
  • Druckman, J. N. (2001b). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 10411066.
  • Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671686.
  • Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729745.
  • Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 5158.
  • Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 416440.
  • Feldman, S., & Steenbergen, M. (2001). The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 658677.
  • Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2007). The logic of the survey experiment reexamined. Political Analysis, 15, 120.
  • Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137177.
  • Glynn, C. J., Herbst, S., O'Keefe, G. J., Shapiro, R. Y., & Lindeman, M. (2004). Public opinion. 2nd Ed. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Goul Andersen, J. (2003). Farligt farvand: Vælgernes holdninger til velfærdspolitik og skatter [Risky waters: Voter attitudes to welfare and taxation]. In J. G.Andersen & O.Borre (Eds.), Politisk forandring: Værdipolitik og nye skillelinjer ved folketingsvalget 2001 [Political change: Value politics and new cleavages at the Danish general election 2001] (pp. 293314). Aarhus: Systime.
  • Goul Andersen, J., & Clement, S. L. (2003). Engagerede og kompetente vælgere? [Involved and competent voters?] In J. G.Andersen & O.Borre (Eds.), Politisk forandring: Værdipolitik og nye skillelinjer ved folketingsvalget 2001 [Political change: Value politics and new cleavages at the Danish General Election 2001] (pp. 293314). Aarhus: Systime.
  • Hartman, T. K., & Weber, C. R. (2006). Moderated framing: Source cues, individual differences & counterframing. Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.
  • Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 750767.
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341350.
  • Kinder, D. R. (2003). Communication and politics in the age of information. In D. O.Sears, L.Huddy, & R.Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 357393). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kinder, D. R., & Nelson, T. E. (2005). Democratic debate and real opinions. In K.Callaghan & F.Schnell (Eds.), Framing American politics (pp. 103122). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Kinder, D. R., & Palfrey, T. R. (1993). On behalf of an experimental political science. In D. R.Kinder & T. R.Palfrey (Eds.), Experimental foundations of political science (pp. 139). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  • Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans' views of what is and what ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
  • Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 2355.
  • Lavine, H., Huff, J. W., Wagner, S. H., & Sweeney, D. (1998). The moderating influence of attitude strength on the susceptibility to context effects in attitude surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 359373.
  • Markus, G. B. (1979). Analyzing panel data. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, series no. 18-001. Beverly Hills: Sage.
  • McClosky, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295309.
  • Nelson, T. E. (2004). Policy goals, political rhetoric, and political attitudes. Journal of Politics, 66, 581605.
  • Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567583.
  • Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58, 10551078.
  • Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61, 10401067.
  • Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221246.
  • Nelson, T. E., & Willey, E. A. (2001). Issue frames that strike a value balance: A political psychology perspective. In S. D.Reese, O. H.Gandy, & A. E.Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 245266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (Eds.) (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T.Gilbert, S. T.Fiske, & G.Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, 4th ed. (pp. 323390). London: Oxford University Press.
  • Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A.Barnett & F. J.Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion, 13 (pp. 173212). Greenwich & London: Ablex Publishing.
  • Reese, S. D., Gandy Jr., O. H., & Grant, A. E. (Eds.) (2001). Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaums.
  • Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 165.
  • Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515530.
  • 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, 509560.
  • Shen, F., & Edwards, H. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55, 795809.
  • Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E.Saris & P. M.Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, non-attitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 133165). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Tankard, J. W. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S. D.Reese, O. H.Gandy, & A. E.Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Togeby, L. (2004). Man har et standpunkt . . . Om stabilitet og forandring i befolkningens holdninger [You have a standpoint about the stability and change in public opinion]. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
  • Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., & White, I. K. (2002). Cues that matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns. American Political Science Review, 96, 7590.
  • De Vreese, C. H. (2003). Framing Europe: Television news and European integration. Amsterdam: Aksant.
  • De Vreese, C. H. (2004). Public Support for the EU Enlargement. Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
  • Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579616.