Given that trust plays a key role in the communication of scientific information about the environment to the public, this study examines what explains trust in specific sources of such information. In doing so, it analyzes whether—and, if so, how—political ideology, support for environmental regulation, religiosity, trust in people, and trust in government predict trust in scientists, the Environmental Protection Agency, environmental organizations, news media, and science media. It also examines whether trust in scientists is associated with trust in the other sources in light of how each of the latter draws on the credibility of the former.
This study examines how frames invoking a core value shape the content and quantity of citizens' thoughts about a policy issue. An experimental study showed that exposure to a pro-school voucher equality frame increased the probability that participants would invoke equality in their open-ended survey responses. Exposure to an anti-school voucher equality frame produced the same effect, as did exposure to both frames. At the same time, participants who received either frame or both frames provided fewer open-ended responses. Thus, the frames appeared to focus participants' thoughts on one value while reducing the overall extent to which they thought about the issue. In broader terms, value framing may have implications for the nature and quality of public deliberation about policy issues-a point that scholars should keep in mind when considering how to define and study framing effects.
This study examines how political knowledge has shaped the effects of two values-egalitarianism and traditional morality-on American public opinion about gay rights and whether media framing accounts for the role that knowledge has played. An analysis of mass media coverage during the peak years of the debate over gay rights (1990-97) showed that the implications of moral traditionalism were virtually undisputed in this debate, whereas both sides laid claim to egalitarianism. Analysis of American National Election Studies survey data demonstrated that in 1992 and 1996 the impact of moral traditionalism on public opinion grew stronger as political knowledge increased, whereas the impact of egalitarianism did not vary across levels of knowledge. Thus, the results suggest that the extent to which political knowledge moderates a value's effect on opinion can depend on whether public debate provides an undisputed frame or competing frames for that value. One could, in turn, frame the implications of this finding for democratic politics in more than one way.
This study tests two explanations for the recent increase in support among the American public for gay rights policies. One possibility is that shifts in the aggregate levels of predispositions such as egalitarianism, moral traditionalism, feelings toward gays and lesbians, partisanship, and ideology produced changes in policy opinions. Another possibility is that shifts in the underlying structure of opinion-that is, shifts in the how citizens used these predispositions to think about the issue-produced changes in support for gay rights. An analysis of data from the 1992, 1996, and 2000 National Election Studies showed that both types of shifts explained why Americans became increasingly favorable toward gay rights policies over this span.
Political elites often present citizens with frames that define issues in terms of core values. This study tests two competing accounts of how citizens might process such frames. According to the "passive receiver" thesis, citizens process elite frames automatically, without engaging in critical thought. In contrast, the "thoughtful receiver" thesis holds that the impact of frames may depend on how favorably or unfavorably citizens respond to them. An experiment in value framing produced evidence more consistent with the thoughtful receiver thesis: The message that welfare reform is "tough love" influenced opinion only among those it did not anger, whereas the message that welfare reform is "cruel and inhumane" produced an effect only among those who judged it to be strong. More generally, these findings suggest that active processing of frames may limit the power of elite framing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.