Positive and Negative Discrete Emotions As Mediators of News Framing Effects

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
DOI 10.1515/commun-2013-0011
Communications 2013; 38(2): 189209
Sophie Lecheler, Andreas R. T. Schuck and

Claes H. de Vreese
Dealing with feelings: Positive and

negative discrete emotions as mediators of
news framing effects
Abstract: The underlying psychological processes that enable framing effects
are often described as cognitive. Yet, recent studies suggest that framing effects
may also be mediated by emotional response. The role of specific emotions in
mediating the framing effect process, however, has yet to be fully empirically
investigated. In an experimental survey design (n = 161), this study tests two
positive (enthusiasm and contentment) and two negative emotions (anger and
fear) as mediators of framing effects. Our results show that while anger and
enthusiasm mediate a framing effect, contentment and fear do not. These findings deepen our understanding of which discrete emotions are relevant when
studying mediated framing effects.
Keywords: framing effects, mediators, emotions, political opinions, experiments
Sophie Lecheler: e-mail: s.k.lecheler@uva.nl

Andreas R. T. Schuck: e-mail: a.r.t.schuck@uva.nl
Claes H. de Vreese: e-mail: c.h.devreese@uva.nl
1 Introduction
For many years, rational decision-making was seen as the basis of political
communication research, with the role of emotions downplayed. Over time,
however, scholars have come to acknowledge that emotions are a powerful and
relevant force within the political communication process (for an overview, see
Crigler and Just, 2012). This has also sparked interest in news framing effects
research; studies have shown that emotions are integral components of news
frames (e.g., Nabi, 2003) and that exposure to news framing can cause an individual to have specific emotional reactions (e.g., Druckman and McDermott,
2008; Gross and DAmbrosio, 2004). Research has also demonstrated that certain frame types, such as episodic or conflict frames, can cause stronger emo-
Brought to you by | provisional account

Unauthenticated | 145.18.112.205
Download Date | 9/5/13 5:53 AM
190
S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
tional response than others, for these frames describe events that are emotionally important to the individual (e.g., Aare, 2011; Gross and Brewer, 2007).
A next step in integrating the role of emotions into framing effects theory
is to examine whether emotional responses also function as mediators when it
comes to the effects of news frames on attitudes and opinions (e.g., Gross,
2008). While it is assumed that exposure to certain news frames will lead to
emotional reactions, which in turn influence how attitudes and opinions are
formed, this has few empirical foundations (Holm, 2012). Furthermore, the
psychological and political literature strongly suggests that not all emotional
reactions will have the same effects on political opinions (e.g., Lerner and Keltner, 2001), which warrants a test of different emotions as mediators of news
framing effects.
This study thus examines if a number of key discrete emotions mediate
framing effects on political opinions. Specifically, we contrast the effects of
several positive and negative emotions as mediators in our study. We expect
these emotions to be conceptually different and distinct in terms of their effects
on political opinions even if they share similar valence patterns (see, e.g.,
Holm, 2012; Nabi, 1999). With this study, we provide further building blocks for
the integration of emotions into a predominantly cognitive model of the psychology of news framing effects.
2 News framing effects theory

News frames are patterns of interpretation that are used to classify information
sensibly and process it efficiently. News framing stresses certain aspects of reality and pushes others into the background; it has a selective function. In this
way, it suggests certain attributes, judgments, and decisions (e.g., Scheufele,
2000; Entman, 1993). Framing effect studies typically employ either equivalency
or emphasis frames (Druckman, 2001). Equivalency frames refer to logically
alike content, which is presented or phrased differently (e.g., Kahneman and
Tversky, 1984). Emphasis frames are closer to real journalistic news coverage
and present qualitatively different yet potentially relevant considerations
(Chong and Druckman, 2007a, p. 114). Effect research has, moreover, worked
with alternative operationalizations of frames in the news, namely issue-specific and generic frames (Iyengar, 1991; Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000). Issuespecific frames pertain to a specific topic, while generic news frames are applicable to a wide range of topics. This wide application of generic frames makes
it easier to compare framing effects across issues, and generic frames have

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
Dealing with feelings
191
therefore been utilized in a variety of framing experiments (e.g., Lecheler and

de Vreese, 2011).
Additionally, it is important to note that news frames used in empirical
framing studies are often characterized by a specific valence (see e.g., Chong
and Druckman, 2007b; Druckman, 2004; Lecheler and de Vreese, 2011; Nelson,
Oxley, and Clawson, 1997). This valence alludes to one of the most fundamental
characteristics of political discourse, namely that elites attempt to affect support for, or rejection of, an issue by emphasizing the positive or negative aspects
of it which is then reflected in news media coverage. Valence frames are often
used in studies aimed at competitive framing effects, that is, in studies that test
how exposure to frames that hold opposing views of an issue influence opinion
formation (e.g., Chong and Druckman, 2007b; 2010; Sniderman and Theriault,
2004). However, although valence is also common in single-frame experiments
(e.g., Nelson et al., 1997), authors frequently do no explicitly label their frames
as being positive/negative. The importance of studying valence frames can be
connected to the capacity of such frames to affect opinion and support for an
issue (de Vreese and Boomgaarden, 2003), with neutral frames being more relevant only for issue interpretations (see also Bizer and Petty, 2005).
Given the conjectural existence of framing effects, one of the main goals of
current studies is to describe the psychological processes that underlie framing
effects. To date, most popular models of the psychology of framing effects specify several ways of cognitively processing frame information (e.g., Nelson et al.,
1997; Price, Tewksbury, and Powers, 1997). For instance, framing effects are
sometimes described as an accessibility effect (e.g., Iyengar, 1991), but can also
be seen as being the product of a multitude of cognitive processes. For example,
Chong and Druckman (2007a) argue that a consideration must first be available
to the individual, that is, stored in memory for use. Second, this consideration
must be accessible; its knowledge must also be ready for use. Third, depending on the context and motivation, a consideration may be consciously weighed
against other considerations as a person decides about the applicability of his/
her (accessible) interpretations. Along similar lines, another model combines
these three processes with a fourth-learning-in which a frame functions by adding new beliefs to an individuals belief content (e.g., Baden and Lecheler, 2012;
Slothuus, 2008).
These processes clearly do not represent a comprehensive model of the
psychological mechanisms that underlie framing effects and extant studies
contain references to a remaining direct effect in their intermediary models
(e.g., Lecheler and de Vreese, 2012). Interestingly, however, this effect often
remains underdiscussed; consequently, we do not know what these remnants
really represent. Given the rising importance emotionality plays in political

192
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
decision-making and behavior, we consider emotions as a potential alternative

or complementary explanation for how news framing effects come about
(Khne, 2012).
3 News framing effects and emotions

There are a number of studies that have empirically tested the influence of
emotions on the framing effect process (e.g., Aare, 2011; Druckman and McDermott, 2008; Gross and Brewer, 2007; Gross and DAmbrosio, 2004; Holm, 2012;
Nabi, 2003; Schuck and de Vreese, 2012). In this literature, emotions are usually
conceived of as internal mental states representing evaluative reactions to
events, agents, or objects that vary in intensity They are generally short-lived,
intense, and directed at some external stimuli (Nabi, 2002, pp. 289290). This
focus on emotional states thus excludes emotion as traits, which describe
longer-lasting characteristics related to personality (e.g., Crigler and Just, 2012).
An example of an emotional state is feeling angry as a result of a certain
personal event, whereas an emotional trait can describe someone who generally
feels more or less comfortable in emotional situations (e.g., Maio and Esses,
2001).
One of two theories is generally used when emotions are studied in framing
experiments: affective intelligence (Marcus, Neumann, and MacKuen, 2000) or
appraisal theory (e.g., Lazarus, 1991). In affective intelligence theory, Marcus
and colleagues explain habitual and novel political behavior on the basis of
two affective systems, the dispositional and the surveillance system. The dispositional system monitors habitual behavior, while the surveillance system takes
hold when a new and unknown situation is encountered. Together, these two
systems regulate decision-making processes, and even the most basic reaction
to a problem relies on affective processing. Appraisal theory suggests that the
development of an emotional state depends on individual and subjective evaluations of that event. Following this argument, cognitive appraisal of a specific
event precedes emotional response to a news frame (see, e.g., Gross, 2008;
Khne, 2012).
Although both theories differ substantially in their placement of emotions
in the framing effect processes, they both suggest that the traditional dichotomy
of cognitive versus emotional processing may not hold (Spezio and Adolphs,
2007) a proposition that informs many framing experiments as well as this
study (see, e.g., Gross, 2008). We assume also that in framing research, affective
processes play a decisive role when decisions are made after exposure to a
frame.

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
193
4 Emotions as mediators of framing effects

One important aspect in understanding the role of emotional response in framing is to test whether it mediates the effects news frames can have on political
opinions (see, e.g., Gross, 2008; Holm, 2012). As noted above, several studies
of emotions and framing effects use emotions as moderators of framing. This
means that these studies test whether previously induced emotional states (e.g.,
Druckman and McDermott, 2008; Witte and Allen, 2000) change the individuals susceptibility to a news frame. Along these lines, there are also studies
that investigate whether an emotional response convoked by a news frame moderates framing effects. For example, Aare (2011) shows that episodic frames
cause more intense emotional response, which in turn strengthens the effects
such frames have on policy support. Furthermore, this also suggests that emotional response could even mediate framing effects, a hypothesis tested by
Gross (2008), who showed that the effects of episodic framing on issue support
are mediated by the feeling of empathy.
While we can thus assume that emotions can be mediators of framing
effects (see Holm, 2012), we do not know how different emotions vary in this
role. The first step in understanding emotions as mediators is to determine
which emotions are relevant in our context. This is, however, not an easy undertaking. In the extensive psychological literature, there exists a multitude of
concepts and theories describing not only the antecedents and physiological
and psychological consequences of emotions (e.g., Izard, 1977; 2007; Schachter
and Singer, 1962; Scherer, 1984), but also different (and sometimes incompatible) lists of basic human emotions. Some studies draw on emotions, such as
anger, fear, or disgust, as discrete concepts with discrete effects (e.g., Keltner,
Ellsworth, and Edwards, 1993; Lazarus, 1991). Others emphasize that these emotions are not in fact distinct, but can be summarized into common dimensions,
such as valence (positive/negative) or involvement (low/high) (e.g., Lang, 1980;
Russell, 2003; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, and Tellegen, 1999). While most framing
researchers have made use of discrete emotions (e.g., Gross and Brewer, 2007),
they have organized these emotions along differing dimensions (see Holm,
2012).
Variation can be expected based on several of these dimensions and therefore between emotions as well. Given our focus on valence frames, emotional
valence is probably the first of these dimensions to consider. In the most general sense, one can then assume that positively framed news would lead to
positive emotional response, whereas negative frames result in negative emotions. This assumption is supported by empirical evidence in political communication research, which shows that discrete negative emotions like anxiety,

194
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
anger, fear, or threat affect political attitudes and behavior negatively (e.g.,
Huddy, Feldman, and Cassese, 2007; Valentino, Brader, Gorenendyk, Gregorowicz, and Hutchings, 2011). Moreover, explicitly positive emotions such as enthusiasm, hope, or contentment have been found to positively affect political attitudes and participation (e.g., Brader, 2005; 2006).
However, given the presence of other dimensions that structure emotions,
we can also assume that specific discrete emotions of similar valence could
have discrepant effects on political opinions and behavior (e.g., Lerner and
Keltner, 2001). This means that two frames that bear similar evaluative direction, but that differ in emotional appeal can have differential effects on political
opinions (e.g., Holm, 2012).
When it comes to negatively valenced emotions, two emotions stand out,
due partly because of the level of interest they receive in the literature, but also
because they showcase how emotions of similar valence can cause substantially
different effects: anger and fear. For instance, Lerner and Keltner (2001) find
differential effects of anger and fear on risk perceptions, with fearful individuals
displaying risk-averse behavior, whereas angry individuals reacted in risk-seeking manner to a decision problem (see also Huddy et al., 2007; Lerner et al.,
2003; Valentino et al., 2011). Findings of this kind assume that emotions, such
as anger and fear, differ substantially not only in intensity, but also in their
behavioral implications or action and processing tendency (see Dillard and
Peck, 2006). Existing research shows that while anger leads to confrontational
behavior, fear is connected with retreat and avoidance. This also suggests differential effect patterns when it comes to the mediating role of emotions in the
framing effect process, which is based on how a frame is processed. Previous
research suggests that message-induced anger leads to more attention and more
careful information processing (Turner, 2007). Nabi argues (1999, p. 303) that
angry people may be more, not less, careful processors, relying on both arguments and heuristics to make judgments. Message-induced fear, however, is
assumed to lead to a low willingness to process information (Nabi, 1999).
In terms of positive valence, less is known regarding dissimilar effect patterns between emotions of similar valence. However, our assumptions regarding
the difference between anger and fear hold true for another pair of discrete
emotions: enthusiasm and contentment. The effect patterns for this pair of emotions mirrors that which was described above for anger and fear: While enthusiasm is related to mobilizing action tendencies and deep information-processing
(Valentino et al., 2011), contentment supports immobility and the failure to process a message (Dillard and Peck, 2006).
We choose these two sets of emotions for our study not only because they
have been the subject of study in political communication, but also because

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
195
they suggest differential effect patterns as mediators of news framing effects:

enthusiasm, contentment, anger, and fear. More importantly, we argue that
while all these emotions have the potential to be affected by positive or negative
news framing, only anger and enthusiasm moderate the framing effect, and
therefore induce opinion change. Given the research cited above, this implies
that we assume that the effects of these emotions on political opinions are
based on the information-processing style these emotions invoke. We formulate
two sets of hypotheses, organized along valence as the overarching classification scheme:
H1a: News frames affect emotions, so that positive news frames result in increased positive emotions.
H1b: Enthusiasm mediates the effect of positive news framing on political opinion,
whereas contentment does not.
H2a: News frames affect emotions, so that negative news frames result in increased negative emotions.
H2b: Anger mediates the effect of negative news framing on political opinion, whereas
fear does not.
5 Method
To investigate the underlying psychological processes of framing effects on
opinion, we conducted an online experiment among a sample of Dutch University students. As a research subject, we chose the issue of the enlargement of
the European Union (EU). Specifically, we tested news framing effects on support for the economic development of the EUs two newest members, Bulgaria
and Romania. Unlike previous EU enlargements, the entry of Bulgaria and
Romania into the EU in January 2007 received relatively little media attention.
This made our experimental design easier to put into practice, because real-life
pre-treatment exposure to one of our frames was less likely (e.g., Chong and
Druckman, 2010).
5.1 General design

In a single-factor, post-test only, between-subjects experimental design, we randomly assigned participants to one of two conditions.1 For each condition, we
1 In the following, we report results based on two conditions (positive/negative emotions).
In our original design, however, we operationalized four conditions with one emotion each
(enthusiasm, contentment, anger, fear). We collapsed enthusiasm/contentment and anger/fear

196
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
chose two emotions relevant in the context of politics. We based this choice on
Lazarus (1991) and Dillard and Peck (2006), arguing that while there are discrete
emotions, these can be organized along common dimensions, such as valence
(positive/negative). We thus manipulated two mediators per condition, resulting
in the following two emotion-pairs participants could be exposed to: contentment/enthusiasm and fear/anger. These conditions represented alternative
valence versions of a generic news frame, the economic consequences frame
(see, e.g., Lecheler and de Vreese, 2011). The use of alternative versions of one
generic frame ensures commensurability of the effects across conditions. External validity in our study is high, as both the positive and negative version of
the economic consequences news frame are to be found in real political news
coverage on EU integration and enlargement (e.g., Neuman, Just, and Crigler,
1992; Schuck and de Vreese, 2006; Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000). Affective
mediator variables were measured in the post-test by using verbal self-report
items. The dependent variable was opinion as issue-specific policy support.
5.2 Sample
We recruited a total of 161 Dutch University students (74 % female,2 between
the ages of 17 and 34 [M = 21.63, SD = 8.39]) from a student database.3
5.3 Procedure
In the experimental procedure, participants were exposed to one news article
containing either of the two economic consequences frames (positive or negative). Then, all participants received the online post-test questionnaire, containing a manipulation check (see below) and the mediator and dependent
in our analysis, because we could not find significant differences between these groups, and
because we can theoretically justify organizing these conditions along the positive/negative
dimension. This is not problematic for our research objective, since our analysis aims at showing how emotions affect our dependent variable of opinion, and not how emotions are affected
by the specific stimulus.
2 Females comprise the majority of our sample. Because there could be differences between
men and women in processing emotional stimuli, we analyzed our data for women and men
separately. This analysis did not provide substantially different result patterns. We also entered
gender as a control variable into our analysis.
3 Druckman notes that the behaviour of student participants does not significantly differ
from the behaviour of non-student participants (2001, p. 1046) and that there is reason to
assume the generalizability of such a sample.

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
197
variables. A between condition randomization check on age, gender, and occupation performed at the outset of the analysis revealed successful randomization with no between-group differences for the sample.
5.4 Stimulus material

The stimulus material consisted of one news article per treatment condition
(see the appendix for sample stimulus). In designing the news articles, we followed the example of Lecheler and de Vreese (2011): Each news article contained one version of an economic consequences frame, varied by valence. This
focus on positive/negative valence enabled the chosen emotions to be embedded in the frames (enthusiasm/contentment, anger/fear). Specifically, we operationalized the four emotions within the news frames by integrating valenced
evaluations that were likely to cause the specific emotions we wanted to manipulate (see, e.g., Gross, 2008). Whenever the frame offered a valenced evaluation, a number of emotional dimensions related to the chosen emotion was
named (e.g., enthusiasm = thrilling or exciting; anger = unacceptable or
offensive).
We manipulated an article about investment in the Bulgarian and Romanian markets after the countries accession in 2007 (see Lecheler and de Vreese,
2011). Given the design of the study, it was better to use constructed rather than
published news articles, as the use of real news coverage would have reduced
the commensurability between conditions. We made sure to choose an issue
that can logically be presented in terms of economic consequences as well as
in an emotional way, which is the case for EU enlargement (e.g., de Vreese,
Peter, and Semetko, 2001; Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000). We undertook significant effort to adjust the news articles to the common layout and editorial
style of Dutch news articles. Following the example of other studies, we kept
the basic core information within each news article identical, while some sections in the story pointed out alternative economic consequences (e.g., Price et
al., 1997).
5.5 Manipulation checks

A manipulation check question asked respondents if the article they had just
read was either more negative or more positive in tone in terms of the role of
Bulgaria and Romania in the EU (1 = very negative to 7 = very positive) and
revealed successful manipulation. Respondents in the positive condition rated

198
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
the stimulus article more positively (M = 5.00, SD = 1.50) compared to respondents in the negative condition (M = 2.48, SD = .94) (F (3,120) = 38.82, p < .001).4
5.6 Measures
5.6.1 Emotions
We measured four mediator variables, corresponding with our stimulus manipulation: enthusiasm/contentment and anger/fear. Using a seven-point scale (1 =
strongly agree to 7 = strongly disagree), we measured the extent to which an
individual felt the specific emotion in reference to the study issue (When thinking about the agreement between the EU and Bulgaria and Romania, I feel
enthusiastic/content/afraid/angry) (enthusiasm: M = 3.20, SD = 1.29; contentment: M = 3.46, SD = 1.30; anger: M = 2.85, SD = 1.43; fear: M = 3.48, SD = 1.51).
5.6.2 Opinion
Following previous studies, the dependent variable issue-specific policy attitude was operationalized as perception of economic benefits of Bulgaria and
Romania within the EU market. It was measured with one item on a sevenpoint scale, with higher scores indicating greater support for the issue (M =
3.55, SD = 1.26) (To what extent do you support the idea that an agreement for
economic cooperation between the EU and Bulgaria and Romania will be profitable for investors?) (e.g., Druckman and Nelson, 2003; Nelson and Oxley,
1997).
6 Results
In our analysis we tested the effect of positive and negative news framing on
political opinions and the mediating role of different discrete emotions. Our
4 A randomization check revealed successful randomization with no between-group differences with regard to relevant socio-demographic characteristics such as gender, 2 (3) = .85, p >
.05, age, F (3, 119) = .24, p>.05, income, F (3, 110) = .82, p > .05, and education, F (3, 118) = 2.62,
p > .05. The random selection of subjects means that there are no initial differences between
the different groups and that between-group differences detected later on as part of the posttest constitute evidence that subjects responded differently to the respective experimental
intervention.

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
199
Figure 1: Multiple mediation model for the indirect effect of positive/negative news framing
on opinion via the mediators anger, fear, contentment, and enthusiasm.
Multiple mediation model in which c is the direct effect of the independent variable X (positive vs. negative news framing) on the dependent variable Y (opinion) or the effect of the
independent variable on the dependent variable when the mediator variables are controlled
for. The specific indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable via
the mediators M1 (enthusiasm), M2 (contentment), M3 (fear), and M4 (anger) is quantified as
a1 b1, a2, b2, etc. The total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is
the sum of the direct effect and the specific indirect effects (see Preacher and Hayes, 2008).
main assumption was that positive and negative news framing contributes to
more positive and negative emotional responses, which, in line with the valence
of the respective frame, are expected to affect subsequent opinions regarding
the issue at stake and. We therefore test enthusiasm, contentment, anger, and
fear as mediators for the effect of positive and negative news framing on opinion
(Figure 1).
Early accounts of mediation analyses have been largely based on the
causal-steps approach introduced by Baron and Kenny (1986). According to
this approach, mediation occurs under the condition that (1) there is a significant main effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable when
the presumed mediating variable is not controlled for; (2) the independent variable has a significant effect on the mediator variable(s) (path a1a4 in Figure 1
above); and (3) the mediator variable(s) has a significant effect on the dependent variable (path b1b4 in Figure 1 above) while the effect of the independent

200
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
variable on the dependent variable is simultaneously controlled for and

decreases compared to the direct main effect (path c in Figure 1 above).
However, more recent research has pointed to the shortcomings of the
causal-steps approach (Hayes, 2009) as lacking in power and suffering from
high Type II error rates (e.g., MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and
Sheets, 2002; MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams, 2004). In line with recent
calls for more formal tests of the significance of specific indirect effects in mediation analyses, we apply the method introduced by Preacher and Hayes (2004;
2008).5 These authors recommend the use of bootstrapping techniques when
formally assessing mediation as the most powerful method to obtain confidence
limits for specific indirect effects (see also Shrout and Bolger, 2002; Williams
and MacKinnon, 2008).6 Bootstrapping is a nonparametric re-sampling procedure and an estimation strategy that improves power of a model, as it accurately gauges the empirical sampling distribution of the test statistic (see MacKinnon et al., 2004; Preacher and Hayes, 2004; Shrout and Bolger, 2002).7
Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) recommend bootstrap confidence intervals
as the most powerful method to assess the significance of indirect effects.
Applying this method, we can generate 95 % bias-corrected accelerated confidence intervals (95 % bca CI) on the basis of 5,000 bootstrap samples for specific indirect effects, testing for multiple mediators simultaneously (Preacher
and Hayes, 2008). If this interval does not include zero, the indirect effect significantly differs from zero. Applying this method to our study context, we formally assessed if the effect of positive and negative news framing on opinion
was mediated by different positive (contentment/enthusiasm) and negative
(anger/ fear) discrete emotions. We used Preacher and Hayes (2008) INDIRECT
Macro in SPSS to conduct the analysis.
Our analysis shows a significant main effect of positive news framing
(vs. negative framing) on opinion in the expected direction (b = .92, SE = .21,
p < .001). Thus, positive news framing did contribute to higher levels of support
for the political issue at stake. In a next step, we investigated if positive and
5 The same authors have also warned of the routine use of the most commonly applied formal
mediation test, the Sobel test or product-of-coefficients approach (Sobel, 1982; 1986), since this
test is only suitable for large sample sizes. For smaller samples the assumption of multivariate
normality, upon which the Sobel test is based, is usually violated that is, the assumption
that the sampling distribution of the total and specific indirect effects is normal.
6 Bootstrapping implies that each indirect effect is estimated multiple times by repeatedly
sampling cases with replacement from the data and estimating the model in each resample.
7 Given the limitations associated with standard normal-theory tests of indirect effects that
we referred to earlier (i.e., assuming normality of the sampling distribution of the conditional
indirect effect).

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
201
negative discrete emotions in response to both news frames mediated this

effect. We did not combine different positive or negative emotions in our analysis, but tested these separately as to their mediating function. Results showed
significant indirect effects of positive and negative news framing on opinion via
the mediators enthusiasm (b = .31, SE = .12) (95 % bca CI: .126; .672) and anger
(b = .12, SE = .12) (95 % bca CI: .017; .342) in the expected direction. Positive
news framing had a positive effect on enthusiasm (b = .83, SE = .22, p < .001),
which in turn contributed to higher levels of support regarding the political
issue at stake (b = .37, SE = .11, p < .01). At the same time, there was a negative
effect on anger (b = .67, SE = .26, p < .05), which contributed to a more negative
opinion (b = .19, SE = .08, p < . 05). Contentment (b = .89, SE = .22, p < .001)
and fear (b = .88, SE = .26, p < .01) were also both affected by the news framing
in the expected direction; however, neither contentment (b = .15, SE = .12,
p > .05) nor fear (b = .02, SE = .07, p > .05) had a significant impact on opinion.
The explained variance of the full mediation model (R = .44) significantly
increased compared to the direct effects model ((R = .12), F (4, 121) = 18.38,
p < .001). Accordingly, compared to the total effect (b = .92, SE = .21, p < .001),
the direct effect of the news frames on opinion, controlling for discrete emotions, is considerably lower; itdid however remain significant (b = .38, SE = .19,
p < .05).8
Our analyses thus provide support for both sets of research hypotheses.
Positive and negative news framing does affect emotional responses, which, in
turn, contribute to higher or lower levels of support regarding current political
issues (H1a and H2a). More specifically, and in response to H1b and H2b, while
we can confirm that while positive and negative news framing does affect all
four discrete emotions under investigation, only two of them anger and enthusiasm were shown to also affect subsequent opinions, the other two fear
and contentment did not.
7 Discussion
An increasing number of scholars have been integrating emotions into the study
of news framing effects (e.g., Aare, 2011; Gross, 2008; Gross and Brewer, 2007;
8 Preacher and Hayes (e.g., 2004) state that mediation analysis does not depend on full mediation (i.e., the vanishing of the direct effect once mediators are entered into the analysis), but
on whether there is indeed a significant indirect effect. This way of understanding mediation
analysis has been adapted in the literature (see Hayes, Preacher, and Myers, 2011 for an overview), and Baron and Kennys condition of full mediation has been criticized in numerous
studies by Hayes and other researchers (e.g., MacKinnon, 2008; MacKinnon et al., 2002).

202
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
Gross and DAmbrosio, 2004; Holm, 2012). In this study, we follow this development and devised a straightforward test as to the role a number of key emotions
play in news framing effects theory. We integrated four emotions into a framing
experiment, testing how influential each of these emotions is in the framing
process. We find that (1) news frames caused emotional responses, which led
to higher or lower levels of support for a political issue. What is more, we show
that (2) only some emotions (in our case, anger and enthusiasm) significantly
mediated the framing effect, whereas others (contentment and fear) did not.
Our results illustrate that the same emotions that result in deep processing,
namely anger and enthusiasm, also actively change opinions, whereas nonmobilizing emotions, contentment and fear, do not affect opinions. We consider
this study an important step away from the cognitive bias in news framing
effects research.
In the most general sense, we showed that exposure to news frames that
bear emotional relevance will invoke emotional reactions. This brings our
research into accordance with other studies in this field (e.g., Aare, 2011;
Gross, 2008). However, we also empirically showed that such emotional reactions can also lead to opinion change (see Holm, 2012). Specifically, we could
show that only when participants felt angry or enthusiastic, did this emotional
response mediate framing effects on political opinions. While this finding does
add to our understanding of specific emotions within framing research, we also
want to argue that this effect pattern could be different for other frame types,
issues, or dependent variables. For example, in the case of knowledge gain as
an outcome of news framing, scholars may wish to study the impact of strong
positive emotions, such as passion, hopefulness or enthusiasm. Positive emotions have been neglected in the past, but might have a motivating impact (see
Holm, 2012). Along the same lines, different negative emotions are important
when researching the influence of news frames that deal with heavily politicized or controversial topics. By connecting specific emotions to particular
dependent variables, issues, events, frame types, or contexts, scholars can provide further building blocks for constructing a comprehensive model of the
psychology of framing effects.
Our findings regarding the differential effects of anger/enthusiasm versus
contentment/fear when it comes to effects on political opinions thus show how
important a systematic study of discrete emotional responses is in this context.
While we do believe that emotions can be classified according to a valence
model, our findings show that there are other relevant dimensions for understanding how news framing effects come about. Anger and enthusiasm can
both be classified as emotions high in arousal and low in avoidance-behavior
(e.g., Russel and Mehrabian, 1977; Valentino, Hutchings, Banks, and Davis,

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
203
2008; see Lerner and Keltner, 2001 for the similarities of anger and enthusiasm).
This means that they have potentially stronger effects on a dependent variable
such as opinion, which would correspond with with previous findings that
these emotions mobilize citizens to actively support or dismiss a proposal.
Along these lines, contentment, however, is a low arousal emotion (Dillard and
Peck, 2006), which does not support deep processing. Within the context of
framing research, this also indicates that while frame strength depends on
whether a frame causes emotional reactions (see, e.g., Aare, 2011), it is also
determined by which emotional response this frame triggers.
The findings in this study also contribute to answering the question of how
emotional responses as mediators of news framing effects interact with cognitive mediation processes. In a theoretical paper, Khne (2012) suggests that
exposure to a news frame leads to accessibility and applicability effects, which
results in a cognitive appraisal of the frame. This appraisal thereby causes emotional response, which then influences attitudes and behavior. This integrates
emotional response with existing models of the psychology of framing effects
(e.g., Nelson et al., 1997; Price et al., 1997; Slothuus, 2008), and suggests a serial
mediation of news framing on opinions and attitudes via cognitive and affective
processing. However, emotions might also be primary mediators of framing,
causing more thorough cognitive processing (e.g., Holm, 2012). Our study
observed the mediating function of emotions in isolation, that is, without
empirically comparing them to established models of cognitive framing effects
(e.g., the belief importance change model as suggested by Nelson et al., 1997).
Future research must combine both affective and cognitive approaches to the
psychology of framing effects. When tested simultaneously, scholars will be
able to show which process prevails in explaining the effects of news framing.
There are a number of limitations to our study. First, we employed a student
sample. Although we have reason to believe that basic psychological processes
of emotional response are universal and that our findings are therefore useful
in contributing to framing theory (Druckman, 2001), we suggest that future
studies attempt to work with representative samples. Second, we only exposed
participants to one framed news message pertaining to one issue in our experiment. While single exposure is common in framing experiments (e.g., Druckman and Nelson, 2003), we understand that further study is needed in order to
confirm our findings. Last, we did not take into account potentially moderating
variables of this (mediated) effect, such as the propensity to feel and experience
emotions (e.g., Maio and Esses, 2001), or prior beliefs and attitudes. Our study
has outlined the basic mechanisms of specific emotions; future studies must
provide deeper insights into these effects with the help of moderator analyses.

204
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
Bionotes
Dr. Sophie Lecheler is Assistant Professor of Political Communication at the
Amsterdam School of Communication Research and the Department of Communication Research, University of Amsterdam.
Dr. Andreas R. T. Schuck is Assistant Professor of Political Communication at
the Amsterdam School of Communication Research and the Department of
Communication Research, University of Amsterdam.
Prof. Dr. Claes H. de Vreese is Professor and Chair of Political Communication
at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research and the Department of
Communication Science, University of Amsterdam.
Appendix
Sample stimulus material (enthusiasm and anger [in parentheses] condition; translated from Dutch)
Investments in Bulgaria and Romania excite Dutch investors and the European Commission alike. (Quickly declining economic performance of Bulgaria and Romania unacceptable for Dutch investors. Much money is lost already.)
After only three years of membership to the
EU, members Bulgaria and Romania are
already sparking great interest from international as well as Dutch investors. With a new
agreement with the EU Regional Development Fund ahead, things are looking bright
in the East (causing outrage and heated discussion about their growingly obscure investment markets. Even with a new agreement
with the EU regional development fund
ahead, the situation is causing investors
much frustration).
On 1 January 2007, Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, bringing the membership
of the bloc from 25 to 27 member states. The
two countries applied to join the EU in the
early 1990s, along with eight other states of
Central and Eastern Europe.
Last week, the EUs Regional Fund,
which concentrates on economic development, presented a new cooperation agree-
ment between the two newcomers and other

countries such as Germany, the UK, and the
Netherlands. According to the agreement,
there is high demand for Bulgaria and Romania, which seem to have become exciting new
investment grounds for big and small Dutch
companies. (However, the agreement caused
anger amongst Dutch investors in the region,
mainly because the development of the two
countries has not been as promised by the
EU. On the contrary, many investors even consider it dangerous to the European economy
to have Bulgaria and Romania on the European investment map, with risky consequences for an already declining Dutch market.)
We could not wait to see the new agreement, because it makes it even easier for us
to invest where the critical growth today is!,
claims an excited Piet Janssen, President of
the Dutch products and services company
SOMC. Last month, Janssen announced the

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
opening of first offices in the two countries:

Eastern and Central Europe are thrilling new
markets; they are growing at an enormous
speed and are already an important playing
field for investors, says Janssen. What is
even more important is that we can invest all
extra revenue into our branches in the Netherlands, he adds. In fact, SOMC has recently
opened a new branch in the direct neighborhood of The Hague, which has created an
additional 500 jobs in the area. (The agreement and the EUs positive reaction to these
countries are offensive, says Piet Janssen,
President of Dutch products and services
company SOMC. Last month, Janssen announced the closing of all offices in the two
countries: Eastern and Central Europe are
growing markets; but there are too many difficulties and threats. Because of the money we
lost, we have to downsize our Dutch
branches. This means that our investment in
the new EU member states has actually cost
jobs back home instead of creating them
this is unacceptable, laments Janssen. SOMC
will most likely downsize its The Hague
branch, where dozens of jobs are at stake.)
Romania has averaged an annual economic growth rate of 5.8 % over the past five
years, making it one of Europes fastest growing economies. Bulgaria is not too far behind,
with growth seen at 5 % this year, and an
economy that is shifting toward the more
modern sectors of technology and tourism.
205
(Although Romania has averaged an annual

economic growth rate of 5.8 % over the past
five years, it is one of the poorest members of
the EU, with a GDP per capita only about a
third of the EU average. Bulgaria, with growth
seen at 5 % this year, is raising concerns
among critics about mass migration and the
states ability to implement reforms while
keeping state finances in order. Beyond that,
high levels of corruption in these countries
have previously caused international outrage.)
Bulgaria and Romania are new to the
EU, and they have come very far. Both countries present thrilling opportunities for big
and small European investors to establish
themselves in a fast-growing market, says
Olli Rehn, the EUs Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs. The EU, and all
its member states, will benefit greatly from
these two fresh economic forces on board,
Rehn exclaimed in Brussels. (Many observers
are certain that the two newcomers will drag
the European economy down with them.
Bulgaria and Romania still have a long way
to go in establishing themselves in a growing
market, asserts an insecure Olli Rehn, the
EUs Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs to this newspaper. Recent heated
debates in the European parliament show
that even the EU finds the development of its
two newest members unacceptable.)
References
Aare, L. 2011. Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic framing.
Political Communication, 28(2), 207226.
Baden, C., & Lecheler, S. 2012. Fleeting, fading, or far-reaching? A knowledge-based model
of the persistence of framing effects. Communication Theory, 22, 359382.
Baron, R. & Kenny, D. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.

206
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
Bizer, G. Y., & Petty, R. E. 2005. How we conceptualize our attitudes matters: The effects of
valence framing on the resistance of political attitudes. Political Psychology, 26,
553568.
Brader, T. 2005. Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters
by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 388405.
Brader, T. 2006. Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads
work. Chicago: CUP.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. 2007a. A theory of framing and opinion formation in
competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99118.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. 2007b. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10,
103126.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. 2010. Dynamic public opinion. American Political Science
Review, 104(4), 663680.
Crigler, A. N., & Just, M. R. 2012. Measuring affect, emotion and mood in political
communication. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of political
communication (pp. 211224). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
de Vreese, C. H. & Boomgaarden, H. 2003. Valenced news frames and public support for the
EU: Linking content analysis and experimental data. Communications: The European
Journal of Communication, 3, 261281.
de Vreese, C. H., Peter, J., & Semetko, H. A. 2001. Framing politics at the launch of the Euro:
A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication, 18,
107122.
Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. 2006. Persuasion and the structure of affect. Dual systems and
discrete emotions as complementary models. Human Communication Research, 27, 1,
3868.
Druckman, J. N. 2001. 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., & McDermott, R. 2008. Emotions and the framing of risky choice. Political
Behavior, 30, 297321.
Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. 2003. Framing and deliberation: How citizens conversations
limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729745.
Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43, 5158.
Gross, K. 2008. Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional
response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29, 169192.
Gross, K., & Brewer, P. R. 2007. Sore losers: News frames, policy debates, and emotions.
Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12, 122133.
Gross, K., & DAmbrosio, L. 2004. Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25,
129.
Hayes, A. 2009. Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408420.
Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. 2011. Mediation and the estimation of indirect
effects in political communication research. In E. P. Bucy & R. Lance Holbert (Eds),
Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical
techniques (p. 434465). New York: Routledge. Holm, E. M. 2012. Emotions as
mediators of framing effects. Arhaus: Politica.

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
207
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. 2007. On the distinct political effects of anxiety and
anger. In W. R. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, & A. N. Crigler (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics
of emotion in political thinking and behavior (pp. 202230). Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Iyengar, S. 1991. Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Izard, C. E. 1977. Human emotions. New York: Penguin.
Izard, C. E. 2007. Basic emotions, natural kinds, emotion schemas, and a new paradigm.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 260280.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1984. Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39,
341350.
Keltner, D., Ellsworth, P. C., & Edwards, K. 1993. Beyond simple pessimism: Effects of
sadness and anger on social perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
64, 740752.
Khne, R. 2012. Political news, emotions, and opinion formation: Toward a model of
emotional framing effects. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the
International Communication Association (ICA), May 2428 2012, Phoenix.
Lang, P. J. 1980. Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: Computer
applications. In J. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson, & T. A. Williams (Eds.), Technology in
mental health care delivery systems. Ablex: Norwood, NJ.
Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. 2011. Getting real: The duration of framing effects. Journal of
Communication, 61, 959983.
Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. 2012. News framing and public opinion: a mediation
analysis of framing effects on political attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 89(2), 185204.
Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B. 2003. Effects of fear and anger on
perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14,
144150.
Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. 2001. Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81, 146159.
MacKinnon, D. P. 2008. Introduction to Statistical Mediation Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G. & Sheets, V. 2002.
A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects.
Psychological Methods, 7, 83104.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M. & Williams, J. 2004. Confidence limits for the indirect
effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 39, 99128.
Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. 2001. The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivation
to approach or avoid emotions. Journal of Personality, 69, 583615.
Marcus, G. E. 2000. Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 221250.
Marcus, G. E. 2003. The psychology of emotions and politics. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy &
R. Jervies (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (pp. 182221). Oxford: OUP.
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. 2000. Affective intelligence and political
judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nabi, R. L. 1999. A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions
on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory, 9,
292320.

208
DE GRUYTER MOUTON
Nabi, R. L. 2002. Discrete emotions and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The
persuasion handbook. Developments in theory and practice (pp. 289308). Thousand
Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage.
Nabi, R. L. 2003. Exploring the framing effects of emotion. Communication Research, 30,
224247.
Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. 1997. Toward a psychology of framing effects.
Political Behaviour, 19(3), 221246.
Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. N. 1992. Common knowledge: News and the
construction of political meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments Computers, 36,
717731.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,
40, 879891.
Preacher, K., Rucker, D., & Hayes, A. 2007. Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses:
Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185227.
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. 1997. Switching trains of thought. Communication
Research, 24, 481506.
Russell, J. A. 2003. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. Psychological
Review, 110, 145172.
Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. 1977. Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal
of Research in Personality, 11, 273294.
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. 1962. Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of
emotional state. Psychological Review, 69, 379399.
Scherer, K. R. 1984. On the nature and function of emotion: A component process approach.
In K. R. Scherer & P. Ekman (Eds.), Approaches to emotion (pp. 293318). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Scheufele, D. A. 2000. Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at the
cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3(2),
297316.
Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. 2006: Between risk and opportunity: News framing and
its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of Communication,
21(1), 532.
Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. 2012. When good news is bad news: Explicating the
moderated mediation dynamics behind the reversed mobilization effect. Journal of
Communication, 62(1), 5777.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. 2000. Framing European politics: A content analysis of
press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50, 93109.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. 2002. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies:
New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422445.
Slothuus, R. 2008. More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual process model of issue
framing effects. Political Psychology, 29, 128.
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
(pp. 133165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

DE GRUYTER MOUTON
209
Sobel, M. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. In
S. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290312). San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Sobel, M. 1986. Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance
structure models. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1986 (pp. 159186).
Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Spezio, M. L., & Adolphs, R. 2007. Emotional processing and political judgment: Toward
integrating political psychology and decision neuro science. In W. R. Neuman,
G. E. Marcus, & A. N. Crigler (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political
thinking and behavior (pp. 7196). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Turner, M. M. 2007. Using emotion in risk communication: The anger activism model. Public
Relations Review, 33(2), 114119.
Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., Gorenendyk, E. W., Gregorowicz, K., & Hutchings, V. L. 2011.
Election nights alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The
Journal of Politics, 73, 156170.
Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. 2008. Is a worried citizen a
good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet.
Political Psychology, 29, 247273.
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. 1999. The two general activation systems of
affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 820838.
Williams, J. & MacKinnon, D. P. 2008. Resampling and distribution of the product methods
for testing indirect effects in complex models. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 2351.
Witte, K., & Allen, M. 2000. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public
health campaigns. Health Education & Behaviour, 27(5), 591615.


Positive and Negative Discrete Emotions As Mediators of News Framing Effects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Positive and Negative Discrete Emotions As Mediators of News Framing Effects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DE GRUYTER MOUTON

Communications 2013; 38(2): 189209

Sophie Lecheler, Andreas R. T. Schuck and

Dealing with feelings: Positive and

Sophie Lecheler: e-mail: s.k.lecheler@uva.nl

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

2 News framing effects theory

Brought to you by | provisional account

Dealing with feelings

therefore been utilized in a variety of framing experiments (e.g., Lecheler and

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

decision-making and behavior, we consider emotions as a potential alternative

3 News framing effects and emotions

Brought to you by | provisional account

Dealing with feelings

4 Emotions as mediators of framing effects

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

Brought to you by | provisional account

Dealing with feelings

they suggest differential effect patterns as mediators of news framing effects:

5.1 General design

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

Brought to you by | provisional account

Dealing with feelings

5.4 Stimulus material

5.5 Manipulation checks

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

Brought to you by | provisional account

Dealing with feelings

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

variable on the dependent variable is simultaneously controlled for and

Brought to you by | provisional account

Dealing with feelings

negative discrete emotions in response to both news frames mediated this

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

Brought to you by | provisional account

Dealing with feelings

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

ment between the two newcomers and other

Brought to you by | provisional account

opening of first offices in the two countries:

Dealing with feelings

(Although Romania has averaged an annual

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

Brought to you by | provisional account

Dealing with feelings

Brought to you by | provisional account

S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

Brought to you by | provisional account

Dealing with feelings

Brought to you by | provisional account

You might also like