Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-kfd6t Total loading time: 0.673 Render date: 2022-10-07T20:44:41.941Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 December 2010

DENNIS CHONG*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
JAMES N. DRUCKMAN*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Dennis Chong is John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Professor, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208 (dchong@northwestern.edu).
James N. Druckman is Payson S. Wild Professor, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208 (druckman@northwestern.edu).

Abstract

We develop an approach to studying public opinion that accounts for how people process competing messages received over the course of a political campaign or policy debate. Instead of focusing on the fixed impact of a message, we emphasize that a message can have variable effects depending on when it is received within a competitive context and how it is evaluated. We test hypotheses about the effect of information processing using data from two experiments that measure changes in public opinion in response to alternative sequences of information. As in past research, we find that competing messages received at the same time neutralize one another. However, when competing messages are separated by days or weeks, most individuals give disproportionate weight to the most recent communication because previous effects decay over time. There are exceptions, though, as people who engage in deliberate processing of information display attitude stability and give disproportionate weight to previous messages. These results show that people typically form significantly different opinions when they receive competing messages over time than when they receive the same messages simultaneously. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for understanding the power of communications in contemporary politics.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2004. “Musical Chairs.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Albertson, Bethany, and Lawrence, Adria. 2009. “After the Credits Roll.” American Politics Research 37: 275300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2007. “Assuming the Costs of War.” Journal of Politics 69 (4): 975–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Samuel J., and McDermott, Monika L.. 2007. “Measuring Opinions vs. Non-opinions.” The Forum 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizer, George Y., Krosnick, Jon A., Holbrook, Allyson L., Wheeler, S. Christian, Rucker, Derek D., and Petty, Richard E.. 2004. “The Impact of Personality on Cognitive, Behavioral, and Affective Political Processes.” Journal of Personality 72: 9951027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bizer, George. Y., Tormala, Zakary L., Rucker, Derek D., and Petty, Richard E.. 2006. “Memory-based Versus On-line Processing.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 646–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Paul R. 2003. “Values, Political Knowledge, and Public Opinion about Gay Rights.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 173201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briñol, Pablo, and Petty, Richard E.. 2005. “Individual Differences in Attitude Change.” In The Handbook of Attitudes and Attitude Change, eds. Albarracín, Dolores, Johnson, Blair T., and Zanna, Mark P.. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 575615.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 2000. Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007a. “A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments.” Journal of Communication 57 (1): 99118.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007b. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 637–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007c. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1): 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2010.“Identifying Frames in Political News.” In Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, eds. Bucy, Erik P. and Holbert, R. Lance. New York: Routledge, 238–67.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Wolinsky-Nahmias, Yael. 2005. “Green Fees.” In Ambivalence, Politics, and Public Policy, eds. Martinez, Michael D. and Craig, Stephen C.. New York: Palgrave, 103–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claibourn, Michele P. 2008. “Making a Connection.” Journal of Politics 70 (40): 1142–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party over Policy.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vreese, Claes H. 2004. “Primed by the Euro.” Scandinavian Political Studies 27 (1): 4565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001a. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23: 225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001b. “Using Credible Advice to Overcome Framing Effects.” Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 17: 6282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2010. “Competing Frames in a Political Campaign.” In Winning with Words, eds. Schaffner, Brian F. and Sellers, Patrick J.. New York: Routledge, 101–20.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Bolsen, Toby. N.d. “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies.” Journal of Communication. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Hennessy, Cari Lynn, Charles, Kristi St., and Weber, Jonathan. 2010. “Competing Rhetoric over Time.” Journal of Politics 72: 136–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Kuklinski, James H., and Sigelman, Lee. 2009. “The Unmet Potential of Interdisciplinary Research.” Political Behavior 31: 485510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur. 2000. “Preference Formation.” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Nelson, Kjersten R.. 2003. “Framing and Deliberation.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (October): 728–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., and Chaiken, Shelly. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.Google ScholarPubMed
Fazio, Russell H. 1995. “Attitudes as Object-evaluation Associations.” In Attitude Strength, eds. Petty, Richard E. and Krosnick, Jon A.. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 247–82.Google Scholar
Federico, Christopher M. 2004. “Predicting Attitude Extremity.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30: 1281–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Federico, Christopher M., and Schneider, Monica C.. 2007. “Political Expertise and the Use of Ideology.” Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (2): 221–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, Brian J., Kuklinski, James H., and Quirk, Paul J.. 2007. “The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined.” Political Analysis 15: 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan, Gimpel, James G., Green, Donald P., and Shaw, Daron R.. 2007. “The Influence of Television and Radio Advertising on Candidate Evaluations.” Yale University. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Goux, Darshan, Egan, Patrick J., and Citrin, Jack. 2008. “The War on Terror and Civil Liberties.” In Public Opinion and Constitutional Controversy, eds. Persily, Nathaniel, Citrin, Jack, and Egan, Patrick J.. New York: Oxford University Press, 310–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hänggli, Regula. 2010. Frame Building and Framing Effects in Direct-Democratic Campaigns. Ph.D. diss. Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
Hansen, Kasper M. 2007. “The Sophisticated Public: The Effect of Competing Frames on Public Opinion.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30 (3): 377–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastie, Reid, and Park, Bernadette. 1986. “The Relationship between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Judgment Task Is Memory-based or On-line.” Psychological Review 93: 258–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Dirk, De Houwer, Jan, and Eelen, Paul. 2001. “A Time Course Analysis of the Affective Priming Effect.” Cognition and Emotion 15: 143–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herzog, Alexander, and Tucker, Joshua A.. 2008. “The Dynamics of Dissent.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
HibbsDouglas A., Jr. Douglas A., Jr. 2008. “Implications of the ‘Bread and Peace’ Model for the 2008 Presidential Election.” Public Choice 137: 110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Seth J., Lo, James, Vavreck, Lynn, and Zaller, John. 2008. “The Duration of Advertising Effects in the 2000 Presidential Campaign.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News That Matters. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jarvis, W. Blair, and Petty, Richard E.. 1996. “The Need to Evaluate.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (1): 172–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1998. “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology. 4th ed., eds. Gilbert, Daniel T., Fiske, Susan T., and Lindzey, Gardner. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 778867.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Petty, Richard E.. 1995. “Attitude Strength.” In Attitude Strength, eds. Petty, Richard E. and Mahwah, Jon A. Krosnick., NJ: Erlbaum, 124.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Smith, Wendy A.. 1994. “Attitude Strength.” In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, ed. Ramachandran, V.S.. San Diego: Academic, 279–89.Google Scholar
Lecheler, Sophe, and de Vreese, Claes. 2010. “What a Difference a Day Made? The Effects of Repetitive and Competitive News Framing over Time.” University of Amsterdam. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel. 2009. “Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (4): 821–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Steenbergen, Marco R., with Brau, Shawn. 1995. “The Responsive Voter.” American Political Science Review 89: 309–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, Diane M., and Asuncion, Arlene G.. 1990. “On-line and Memory-based Modifications of Attitudes.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthes, Jörg. 2008. “Media Frames and Public Opinion.” Studies in Communication Sciences 8: 101–28.Google Scholar
Matthes, Jörg, and Schemer, C.. 2010. “Diachronic Framing Effects in Competitive Opinion Environments: The Moderating Role of Attitude Certainty.” Presented at the Annual Convention of the International Communication Association, Singapore.Google Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M. 2003. “Political Impressions.” In The Handbook of Political Psychology, eds. Sears, David O., Huddy, Leonie, and Jervis, Richard. New York: Oxford University Press, 394403.Google Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., and Dolan, Thomas M.. 2007. “Personifying the State.” Political Psychology 28 (3): 299327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., Lodge, Milton, and Stroh, Patrick. 1990. “On-line Processing in Candidate Evaluation.” Political Behavior 12: 4158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Joanne M., and Peterson, David A.M.. 2004. “Theoretical and Empirical Implications of Attitude Strength.” Journal of Politics 66: 847–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Dona-Gene, and Mondak, Jeffery J.. 2007. “The Dynamic Formation of Candidate Evaluation.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C., and Reeves, Byron. 2005. “The New Videomalaise.” American Political Science Review 99 (1): 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91 (3): 567–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottati, Victor, Edwards, John, and Krumdick, Nathaniel D.. 2005. “Attitude Theory and Research.” In The Handbook of Attitudes, eds. Albarracín, Dolores, Johnson, Blair T., and Zanna, Mark P.. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 707–42.Google Scholar
Shaw, Daron R. 1999. “A Study of Presidential Campaign Event Effects from 1952 to 1992.” Journal of Politics 61 (2): 387422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slothuus, Rune. 2010. “When Can Political Parties Lead Public Opinion? Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” Political Communication 27: 158–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Theriault, Sean M.. 2004. “The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing.” In Studies in Public Opinion, eds. Saris, Willem E. and Sniderman, Paul M.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 133–65.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50: 755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tewksbury, David, Jones, Jennifer, Peske, Matthew W., Raymond, Ashlea, and Vig, William. 2000. “The Interaction of News and Advocate Frames.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77 (4): 804–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tormala, Zakary L., and Petty, Richard E.. 2001. “On-line Versus Memory-based Processing.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (12): 1599–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Penny S., Bizer, George Y., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2006. “Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength-related Attitude Attributes.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38: 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Penny S., Krosnick, Jon A., and Simmons, Joseph P.. 2003. “Distinguishing the Cognitive and Behavioral Consequences of Attitude Importance and Certainty.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39: 118–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, B. Dan, and Vedlitz, Arnold. 2007. “Issue Definition, Information Processing, and the Politics of Global Warming.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 552–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Chong supplementary material

Appendices

Download Chong supplementary material(File)
File 127 KB
211
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *