Positive and Negative Discrete Emotions as Mediators of News Framing Effects

DE GRUYTER MOUTONDOI 10.1515/commun-2013-0011 Communications 2013; 38(2): 189209

Sophie Lecheler, Andreas R. T. Schuck andClaes H. de VreeseDealing with feelings: Positive andnegative discrete emotions as mediators ofnews framing effectsAbstract: The underlying psychological processes that enable framing effectsare often described as cognitive. Yet, recent studies suggest that framing effectsmay also be mediated by emotional response. The role of specific emotions inmediating the framing effect process, however, has yet to be fully empiricallyinvestigated. In an experimental survey design (n = 161), this study tests twopositive (enthusiasm and contentment) and two negative emotions (anger andfear) as mediators of framing effects. Our results show that while anger andenthusiasm mediate a framing effect, contentment and fear do not. These find-ings deepen our understanding of which discrete emotions are relevant whenstudying mediated framing effects.

Keywords: framing effects, mediators, emotions, political opinions, experiments

Sophie Lecheler: e-mail: [email protected] R. T. Schuck: e-mail: [email protected] H. de Vreese: e-mail: [email protected]

1 IntroductionFor many years, rational decision-making was seen as the basis of politicalcommunication research, with the role of emotions downplayed. Over time,however, scholars have come to acknowledge that emotions are a powerful andrelevant force within the political communication process (for an overview, seeCrigler and Just, 2012). This has also sparked interest in news framing effectsresearch; studies have shown that emotions are integral components of newsframes (e.g., Nabi, 2003) and that exposure to news framing can cause an indi-vidual to have specific emotional reactions (e.g., Druckman and McDermott,2008; Gross and DAmbrosio, 2004). Research has also demonstrated that cer-tain frame types, such as episodic or conflict frames, can cause stronger emo-

Brought to you by | provisional accountUnauthenticated | 145.18.112.205Download Date | 9/5/13 5:53 AM

DE GRUYTER MOUTON190 S. Lecheler, A. R. T. Schuck and C. H. de Vreese

tional response than others, for these frames describe events that are emotion-ally important to the individual (e.g., Aare, 2011; Gross and Brewer, 2007).

A next step in integrating the role of emotions into framing effects theoryis to examine whether emotional responses also function as mediators when itcomes 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 toemotional reactions, which in turn influence how attitudes and opinions areformed, this has few empirical foundations (Holm, 2012). Furthermore, thepsychological and political literature strongly suggests that not all emotionalreactions will have the same effects on political opinions (e.g., Lerner and Kelt-ner, 2001), which warrants a test of different emotions as mediators of newsframing effects.

This study thus examines if a number of key discrete emotions mediateframing effects on political opinions. Specifically, we contrast the effects ofseveral positive and negative emotions as mediators in our study. We expectthese emotions to be conceptually different and distinct in terms of their effectson political opinions even if they share similar valence patterns (see, e.g.,Holm, 2012; Nabi, 1999). With this study, we provide further building blocks forthe integration of emotions into a predominantly cognitive model of the psy-chology of news framing effects.

2 News framing effects theoryNews frames are patterns of interpretation that are used to classify informationsensibly and process it efficiently. News framing stresses certain aspects of real-ity and pushes others into the background; it has a selective function. In thisway, it suggests certain attributes, judgments, and decisions (e.g., Scheufele,2000; Entman, 1993). Framing effect studies typically employ either equivalencyor emphasis frames (Druckman, 2001). Equivalency frames refer to logicallyalike content, which is presented or phrased differently (e.g., Kahneman andTversky, 1984). Emphasis frames are closer to real journalistic news coverageand present qualitatively different yet potentially relevant considerations(Chong and Druckman, 2007a, p. 114). Effect research has, moreover, workedwith alternative operationalizations of frames in the news, namely issue-spe-cific and generic frames (Iyengar, 1991; Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000). Issue-specific frames pertain to a specific topic, while generic news frames are appli-cable to a wide range of topics. This wide application of generic frames makesit 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 andde Vreese, 2011).

Additionally, it is important to note that news frames used in empiricalframing studies are often characterized by a specific valence (see e.g., Chongand Druckman, 2007b; Druckman, 2004; Lecheler and de Vreese, 2011; Nelson,Oxley, and Clawson, 1997). This valence alludes to one of the most fundamentalcharacteristics of political discourse, namely that elites attempt to affect sup-port for, or rejection of, an issue by emphasizing the positive or negative aspectsof it which is then reflected in news media coverage. Valence frames are oftenused in studies aimed at competitive framing effects, that is, in studies that testhow exposure to frames that hold opposing views of an issue influence opinionformation (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 framesas being positive/negative. The importance of studying valence frames can beconnected to the capacity of such frames to affect opinion and support for anissue (de Vreese and Boomgaarden, 2003), with neutral frames being more rele-vant only for issue interpretations (see also Bizer and Petty, 2005).

Given the conjectural existence of framing effects, one of the main goals ofcurrent studies is to describe the psychological processes that underlie framingeffects. To date, most popular models of the psychology of framing effects spec-ify several ways of cognitively processing frame information (e.g., Nelson et al.,1997; Price, Tewksbury, and Powers, 1997). For instance, framing effects aresometimes described as an accessibility effect (e.g., Iyengar, 1991), but can alsobe seen as being the product of a multitude of cognitive processes. For example,Chong and Druckman (2007a) argue that a consideration must first be availableto the individual, that is, stored in memory for use. Second, this considerationmust be accessible; its knowledge must also be ready for use. Third, depend-ing on the context and motivation, a consideration may be consciously weighedagainst other considerations as a person decides about the applicability of his/her (accessible) interpretations. Along similar lines, another model combinesthese three processes with a fourth-learning-in which a frame functions by add-ing 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 thepsychological mechanisms that underlie framing effects and extant studiescontain references to a remaining direct effect in their intermediary models(e.g., Lecheler and de Vreese, 2012). Interestingly, however, this effect oftenremains underdiscussed; consequently, we do not know what these remnantsreally represent. Given the rising importance emotionality plays in political



decision-making and behavior, we consider emotions as a potential alternativeor complementary explanation for how news framing effects come about(Khne, 2012).

3 News framing effects and emotionsThere are a number of studies that have empirically tested the influence ofemotions on the framing effect process (e.g., Aare, 2011; Druckman and McDer-mott, 2008; Gross and Brewer, 2007; Gross and DAmbrosio, 2004; Holm, 2012;Nabi, 2003; Schuck and de Vreese, 2012). In this literature, emotions are usuallyconceived of as internal mental states representing evaluative reactions toevents, agents, or objects that vary in intensity They are generally short-lived,intense, and directed at some external stimuli (Nabi, 2002, pp. 289290). Thisfocus on emotional states thus excludes emotion as traits, which describelonger-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 certainpersonal event, whereas an emotional trait can describe someone who generallyfeels 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 framingexperiments: affective intelligence (Marcus, Neumann, and MacKuen, 2000) orappraisal theory (e.g., Lazarus, 1991). In affective intelligence theory, Marcusand colleagues explain habitual and novel political behavior on the basis oftwo affective systems, the dispositional and the surveillance system. The dispo-sitional system monitors habitual behavior, while the surveillance system takeshold when a new and unknown situation is encountered. Together, these twosystems regulate decision-making processes, and even the most basic reactionto a problem relies on affective processing. Appraisal theory suggests that thedevelopment of an emotional state depends on individual and subjective evalu-ations of that event. Following this argument, cognitive appraisal of a specificevent precedes emotional response to a news frame (see, e.g., Gross, 2008;Khne, 2012).

Although both theories differ substantially in their placement of emotionsin the framing effect processes, they both suggest that the traditional dichotomyof cognitive versus emotional processing may not hold (Spezio and Adolphs,2007) a proposition that informs many framing experiments as well as thisstudy (see, e.g., Gross, 2008). We assume also that in framing research, affectiveprocesses play a decisive role when decisions are made after exposure to aframe.



4 Emotions as mediators of framing effectsOne important aspect in understanding the role of emotional response in fram-ing is to test whether it mediates the effects news frames can have on politicalopinions (see, e.g., Gross, 2008; Holm, 2012). As noted above, several studiesof emotions and framing effects use emotions as moderators of framing. Thismeans that these studies test whether previously induced emotional states (e.g.,Druckman and McDermott, 2008; Witte and Allen, 2000) change the individ-uals susceptibility to a news frame. Along these lines, there are also studiesthat investigate whether an emotional response convoked by a news frame mod-erates framing effects. For example, Aare (2011) shows that episodic framescause more intense emotional response, which in turn strengthens the effectssuch frames have on policy support. Furthermore, this also suggests that emo-tional response could even mediate framing effects, a hypothesis tested byGross (2008), who showed that the effects of episodic framing on issue supportare mediated by the feeling of empathy.

While we can thus assume that emotions can be mediators of framingeffects (see Holm, 2012), we do not know how different emotions vary in thisrole. The first step in understanding emotions as mediators is to determinewhich emotions are relevant in our context. This is, however, not an easy under-taking. In the extensive psychological literature, there exists a multitude ofconcepts and theories describing not only the antecedents and physiologicaland psychological consequences of emotions (e.g., Izard, 1977; 2007; Schachterand Singer, 1962; Scherer, 1984), but also different (and sometimes incompati-ble) lists of basic human emotions. Some studies draw on emotions, such asanger, fear, or disgust, as discrete concepts with discrete effects (e.g., Keltner,Ellsworth, and Edwards, 1993; Lazarus, 1991). Others emphasize that these emo-tions 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 framingresearchers 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 there-fore between emotions as well. Given our focus on valence frames, emotionalvalence is probably the first of these dimensions to consider. In the most gen-eral sense, one can then assume that positively framed news would lead topositive emotional response, whereas negative frames result in negative emo-tions. This assumption is supported by empirical evidence in political commu-nication research, which shows that discrete negative emotions like anxiety,



anger, fear, or threat affect political attitudes and behavior negatively (e.g.,Huddy, Feldman, and Cassese, 2007; Valentino, Brader, Gorenendyk, Gregorow-icz, and Hutchings, 2011). Moreover, explicitly positive emotions such as enthu-siasm, hope, or contentment have been found to positively affect political atti-tudes 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 couldhave discrepant effects on political opinions and behavior (e.g., Lerner andKeltner, 2001). This means that two frames that bear similar evaluative direc-tion, but that differ in emotional appeal can have differential effects on politicalopinions (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 alsobecause they showcase how emotions of similar valence can cause substantiallydifferent effects: anger and fear. For instance, Lerner and Keltner (2001) finddifferential effects of anger and fear on risk perceptions, with fearful individualsdisplaying risk-averse behavior, whereas angry individuals reacted in risk-seek-ing 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, suchas anger and fear, differ substantially not only in intensity, but also in theirbehavioral implications or action and processing tendency (see Dillard andPeck, 2006). Existing research shows that while anger leads to confrontationalbehavior, fear is connected with retreat and avoidance. This also suggests differ-ential effect patterns when it comes to the mediating role of emotions in theframing effect process, which is based on how a frame is processed. Previousresearch suggests that message-induced anger leads to more attention and morecareful information processing (Turner, 2007). Nabi argues (1999, p. 303) thatangry people may be more, not less, careful processors, relying on both argu-ments and heuristics to make judgments. Message-induced fear, however, isassumed to lead to a low willingness to process information (Nabi, 1999).

In terms of positive valence, less is known regarding dissimilar effect pat-terns between emotions of similar valence. However, our assumptions regardingthe difference between anger and fear hold true for another pair of discreteemotions: enthusiasm and contentment. The effect patterns for this pair of emo-tions mirrors that which was described above for anger and fear: While enthusi-asm is related to mobilizing action tendencies and deep information-processing(Valentino et al., 2011), contentment supports immobility and the failure to pro-cess a message (Dillard and Peck, 2006).

We choose these two sets of emotions for our study not only because theyhave been the subject of study in political communication, but also because



they suggest differential effect patterns as mediators of news framing effects:enthusiasm, contentment, anger, and fear. More importantly, we argue thatwhile all these emotions have the potential to be affected by positive or negativenews framing, only anger and enthusiasm moderate the framing effect, andtherefore induce opinion change. Given the research cited above, this impliesthat we assume that the effects of these emotions on political opinions arebased on the information-processing style these emotions invoke. We formulatetwo sets of hypotheses, organized along valence as the overarching classifica-tion scheme:

H1a: News frames affect emotions, so that positive news frames result in increased posi-tive 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 nega-tive emotions.

H2b: Anger mediates the effect of negative news framing on political opinion, whereasfear does not.

5 MethodTo investigate the underlying psychological processes of framing effects onopinion, we conducted an online experiment among a sample of Dutch Univer-sity students. As a research subject, we chose the issue of the enlargement ofthe European Union (EU). Specifically, we tested news framing effects on sup-port for the economic development of the EUs two newest members, Bulgariaand Romania. Unlike previous EU enlargements, the entry of Bulgaria andRomania into the EU in January 2007 received relatively little media attention.This made our experimental design easier to put into practice, because real-lifepre-treatment exposure to one of our frames was less likely (e.g., Chong andDruckman, 2010).

5.1 General designIn a single-factor, post-test only, between-subjects experimental design, we ran-domly 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



chose two emotions relevant in the context of politics. We based this choice onLazarus (1991) and Dillard and Peck (2006), arguing that while there are discreteemotions, these can be organized along common dimensions, such as valence(positive/negative). We thus manipulated two mediators per condition, resultingin the following two emotion-pairs participants could be exposed to: content-ment/enthusiasm and fear/anger. These conditions represented alternativevalence versions of a generic news frame, the economic consequences frame(see, e.g., Lecheler and de Vreese, 2011). The use of alternative versions of onegeneric frame ensures commensurability of the effects across conditions. Exter-nal validity in our study is high, as both the positive and negative version ofthe economic consequences news frame are to be found in real political newscoverage on EU integration and enlargement (e.g., Neuman, Just, and Crigler,1992; Schuck and de Vreese, 2006; Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000). Affectivemediator variables were measured in the post-test by using verbal self-reportitems. The dependent variable was opinion as issue-specific policy support.

5.2 SampleWe recruited a total of 161 Dutch University students (74 % female,2 betweenthe ages of 17 and 34 [M = 21.63, SD = 8.39]) from a student database.3

5.3 ProcedureIn the experimental procedure, participants were exposed to one news articlecontaining either of the two economic consequences frames (positive or nega-tive). Then, all participants received the online post-test questionnaire, contain-ing a manipulation check (see below) and the mediator and dependent

in our analysis, because we could not find significant differences between these groups, andbecause we can theoretically justify organizing these conditions along the positive/negativedimension. This is not problematic for our research objective, since our analysis aims at show-ing how emotions affect our dependent variable of opinion, and not how emotions are affectedby the specific stimulus.2 Females comprise the majority of our sample. Because there could be differences betweenmen and women in processing emotional stimuli, we analyzed our data for women and menseparately. This analysis did not provide substantially different result patterns. We also enteredgender as a control variable into our analysis.3 Druckman notes that the behaviour of student participants does not significantly differfrom the behaviour of non-student participants (2001, p. 1046) and that there is reason toassume the generalizability of such a sample.



variables. A between condition randomization check on age, gender, and occu-pation performed at the outset of the analysis revealed successful randomiza-tion with no between-group differences for the sample.

5.4 Stimulus materialThe stimulus material consisted of one news article per treatment condition(see the appendix for sample stimulus). In designing the news articles, we fol-lowed the example of Lecheler and de Vreese (2011): Each news article con-tained one version of an economic consequences frame, varied by valence. Thisfocus on positive/negative valence enabled the chosen emotions to be embed-ded in the frames (enthusiasm/contentment, anger/fear). Specifically, we opera-tionalized the four emotions within the news frames by integrating valencedevaluations that were likely to cause the specific emotions we wanted to manip-ulate (see, e.g., Gross, 2008). Whenever the frame offered a valenced evalu-ation, a number of emotional dimensions related to the chosen emotion wasnamed (e.g., enthusiasm = thrilling or exciting; anger = unacceptable oroffensive).

We manipulated an article about investment in the Bulgarian and Roma-nian 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 thanpublished news articles, as the use of real news coverage would have reducedthe commensurability between conditions. We made sure to choose an issuethat can logically be presented in terms of economic consequences as well asin an emotional way, which is the case for EU enlargement (e.g., de Vreese,Peter, and Semetko, 2001; Semetko and Valkenburg, 2000). We undertook sig-nificant effort to adjust the news articles to the common layout and editorialstyle of Dutch news articles. Following the example of other studies, we keptthe basic core information within each news article identical, while some sec-tions in the story pointed out alternative economic consequences (e.g., Price etal., 1997).

5.5 Manipulation checksA manipulation check question asked respondents if the article they had justread was either more negative or more positive in tone in terms of the role ofBulgaria and Romania in the EU (1 = very negative to 7 = very positive) andrevealed successful manipulation. Respondents in the positive condition rated



the stimulus article more positively (M = 5.00, SD = 1.50) compared to respon-dents in the negative condition (M = 2.48, SD = .94) (F (3,120) = 38.82, p < .001).4

5.6 Measures5.6.1 Emotions

We measured four mediator variables, corresponding with our stimulus manip-ulation: enthusiasm/contentment and anger/fear. Using a seven-point scale (1 =strongly agree to 7 = strongly disagree), we measured the extent to which anindividual felt the specific emotion in reference to the study issue (When think-ing about the agreement between the EU and Bulgaria and Romania, I feelenthusiastic/content/afraid/angry) (enthusiasm: M = 3.20, SD = 1.29; content-ment: 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 atti-tude was operationalized as perception of economic benefits of Bulgaria andRomania within the EU market. It was measured with one item on a seven-point 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 foreconomic cooperation between the EU and Bulgaria and Romania will be profit-able for investors?) (e.g., Druckman and Nelson, 2003; Nelson and Oxley,1997).

6 ResultsIn our analysis we tested the effect of positive and negative news framing onpolitical opinions and the mediating role of different discrete emotions. Our

4 A randomization check revealed successful randomization with no between-group differen-ces 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 betweenthe different groups and that between-group differences detected later on as part of the post-test constitute evidence that subjects responded differently to the respective experimentalintervention.


HP PCHighlight


Figure 1: Multiple mediation model for the indirect effect of positive/negative news framingon opinion via the mediators anger, fear, contentment, and enthusiasm.Multiple mediation model in which c is the direct effect of the independent variable X (posi-tive vs. negative news framing) on the dependent variable Y (opinion) or the effect of theindependent variable on the dependent variable when the mediator variables are controlledfor. The specific indirect effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable viathe mediators M1 (enthusiasm), M2 (contentment), M3 (fear), and M4 (anger) is quantified asa1 b1, a2, b2, etc. The total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable isthe 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 tomore positive and negative emotional responses, which, in line with the valenceof the respective frame, are expected to affect subsequent opinions regardingthe issue at stake and. We therefore test enthusiasm, contentment, anger, andfear 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 thecausal-steps approach introduced by Baron and Kenny (1986). According tothis approach, mediation occurs under the condition that (1) there is a signifi-cant main effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable whenthe presumed mediating variable is not controlled for; (2) the independent vari-able has a significant effect on the mediator variable(s) (path a1a4 in Figure 1above); and (3) the mediator variable(s) has a significant effect on the depend-ent variable (path b1b4 in Figure 1 above) while the effect of the independent



variable on the dependent variable is simultaneously controlled for anddecreases compared to the direct main effect (path c in Figure 1 above).

However, more recent research has pointed to the shortcomings of thecausal-steps approach (Hayes, 2009) as lacking in power and suffering fromhigh Type II error rates (e.g., MacKinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, andSheets, 2002; MacKinnon, Lockwood, and Williams, 2004). In line with recentcalls for more formal tests of the significance of specific indirect effects in medi-ation analyses, we apply the method introduced by Preacher and Hayes (2004;2008).5 These authors recommend the use of bootstrapping techniques whenformally assessing mediation as the most powerful method to obtain confidencelimits for specific indirect effects (see also Shrout and Bolger, 2002; Williamsand MacKinnon, 2008).6 Bootstrapping is a nonparametric re-sampling proce-dure and an estimation strategy that improves power of a model, as it accu-rately gauges the empirical sampling distribution of the test statistic (see Mac-Kinnon et al., 2004; Preacher and Hayes, 2004; Shrout and Bolger, 2002).7Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007) recommend bootstrap confidence intervalsas the most powerful method to assess the significance of indirect effects.Applying this method, we can generate 95 % bias-corrected accelerated confi-dence intervals (95 % bca CI) on the basis of 5,000 bootstrap samples for spe-cific indirect effects, testing for multiple mediators simultaneously (Preacherand Hayes, 2008). If this interval does not include zero, the indirect effect sig-nificantly differs from zero. Applying this method to our study context, we for-mally assessed if the effect of positive and negative news framing on opinionwas mediated by different positive (contentment/enthusiasm) and negative(anger/ fear) discrete emotions. We used Preacher and Hayes (2008) INDIRECTMacro 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 supportfor 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 formalmediation test, the Sobel test or product-of-coefficients approach (Sobel, 1982; 1986), since thistest is only suitable for large sample sizes. For smaller samples the assumption of multivariatenormality, upon which the Sobel test is based, is usually violated that is, the assumptionthat the sampling distribution of the total and specific indirect effects is normal.6 Bootstrapping implies that each indirect effect is estimated multiple times by repeatedlysampling 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 thatwe referred to earlier (i.e., assuming normality of the sampling distribution of the conditionalindirect effect).



negative discrete emotions in response to both news frames mediated thiseffect. We did not combine different positive or negative emotions in our analy-sis, but tested these separately as to their mediating function. Results showedsignificant indirect effects of positive and negative news framing on opinion viathe 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. Positivenews framing had a positive effect on enthusiasm (b = .83, SE = .22, p < .001),which in turn contributed to higher levels of support regarding the politicalissue at stake (b = .37, SE = .11, p < .01). At the same time, there was a negativeeffect on anger (b = .67, SE = .26, p < .05), which contributed to a more negativeopinion (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 framingin 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) significantlyincreased 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 emo-tions, 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, inturn, contribute to higher or lower levels of support regarding current politicalissues (H1a and H2a). More specifically, and in response to H1b and H2b, whilewe can confirm that while positive and negative news framing does affect allfour discrete emotions under investigation, only two of them anger and enthu-siasm were shown to also affect subsequent opinions, the other two fearand contentment did not.

7 DiscussionAn increasing number of scholars have been integrating emotions into the studyof 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 medi-ation (i.e., the vanishing of the direct effect once mediators are entered into the analysis), buton whether there is indeed a significant indirect effect. This way of understanding mediationanalysis has been adapted in the literature (see Hayes, Preacher, and Myers, 2011 for an over-view), and Baron and Kennys condition of full mediation has been criticized in numerousstudies by Hayes and other researchers (e.g., MacKinnon, 2008; MacKinnon et al., 2002).



Gross and DAmbrosio, 2004; Holm, 2012). In this study, we follow this develop-ment and devised a straightforward test as to the role a number of key emotionsplay in news framing effects theory. We integrated four emotions into a framingexperiment, testing how influential each of these emotions is in the framingprocess. We find that (1) news frames caused emotional responses, which ledto higher or lower levels of support for a political issue. What is more, we showthat (2) only some emotions (in our case, anger and enthusiasm) significantlymediated 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 non-mobilizing emotions, contentment and fear, do not affect opinions. We considerthis study an important step away from the cognitive bias in news framingeffects research.

In the most general sense, we showed that exposure to news frames thatbear emotional relevance will invoke emotional reactions. This brings ourresearch into accordance with other studies in this field (e.g., Aare, 2011;Gross, 2008). However, we also empirically showed that such emotional reac-tions can also lead to opinion change (see Holm, 2012). Specifically, we couldshow that only when participants felt angry or enthusiastic, did this emotionalresponse mediate framing effects on political opinions. While this finding doesadd to our understanding of specific emotions within framing research, we alsowant 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 asan outcome of news framing, scholars may wish to study the impact of strongpositive emotions, such as passion, hopefulness or enthusiasm. Positive emo-tions have been neglected in the past, but might have a motivating impact (seeHolm, 2012). Along the same lines, different negative emotions are importantwhen researching the influence of news frames that deal with heavily politi-cized or controversial topics. By connecting specific emotions to particulardependent variables, issues, events, frame types, or contexts, scholars can pro-vide further building blocks for constructing a comprehensive model of thepsychology of framing effects.

Our findings regarding the differential effects of anger/enthusiasm versuscontentment/fear when it comes to effects on political opinions thus show howimportant a systematic study of discrete emotional responses is in this context.While we do believe that emotions can be classified according to a valencemodel, our findings show that there are other relevant dimensions for under-standing how news framing effects come about. Anger and enthusiasm canboth be classified as emotions high in arousal and low in avoidance-behavior(e.g., Russel and Mehrabian, 1977; Valentino, Hutchings, Banks, and Davis,



2008; see Lerner and Keltner, 2001 for the similarities of anger and enthusiasm).This means that they have potentially stronger effects on a dependent variablesuch as opinion, which would correspond with with previous findings thatthese emotions mobilize citizens to actively support or dismiss a proposal.Along these lines, contentment, however, is a low arousal emotion (Dillard andPeck, 2006), which does not support deep processing. Within the context offraming research, this also indicates that while frame strength depends onwhether a frame causes emotional reactions (see, e.g., Aare, 2011), it is alsodetermined by which emotional response this frame triggers.

The findings in this study also contribute to answering the question of howemotional responses as mediators of news framing effects interact with cogni-tive mediation processes. In a theoretical paper, Khne (2012) suggests thatexposure to a news frame leads to accessibility and applicability effects, whichresults in a cognitive appraisal of the frame. This appraisal thereby causes emo-tional response, which then influences attitudes and behavior. This integratesemotional 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 serialmediation of news framing on opinions and attitudes via cognitive and affectiveprocessing. However, emotions might also be primary mediators of framing,causing more thorough cognitive processing (e.g., Holm, 2012). Our studyobserved the mediating function of emotions in isolation, that is, withoutempirically 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 thepsychology of framing effects. When tested simultaneously, scholars will beable 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 studentsample. Although we have reason to believe that basic psychological processesof emotional response are universal and that our findings are therefore usefulin contributing to framing theory (Druckman, 2001), we suggest that futurestudies attempt to work with representative samples. Second, we only exposedparticipants to one framed news message pertaining to one issue in our experi-ment. While single exposure is common in framing experiments (e.g., Druck-man and Nelson, 2003), we understand that further study is needed in order toconfirm our findings. Last, we did not take into account potentially moderatingvariables of this (mediated) effect, such as the propensity to feel and experienceemotions (e.g., Maio and Esses, 2001), or prior beliefs and attitudes. Our studyhas outlined the basic mechanisms of specific emotions; future studies mustprovide deeper insights into these effects with the help of moderator analyses.



BionotesDr. Sophie Lecheler is Assistant Professor of Political Communication at theAmsterdam School of Communication Research and the Department of Commu-nication Research, University of Amsterdam.

Dr. Andreas R. T. Schuck is Assistant Professor of Political Communication atthe Amsterdam School of Communication Research and the Department ofCommunication Research, University of Amsterdam.

Prof. Dr. Claes H. de Vreese is Professor and Chair of Political Communicationat the Amsterdam School of Communication Research and the Department ofCommunication Science, University of Amsterdam.

AppendixSample stimulus material (enthusiasm and anger [in parentheses] condi-tion; translated from Dutch)Investments in Bulgaria and Romania excite Dutch investors and the European Commis-sion alike. (Quickly declining economic performance of Bulgaria and Romania unaccept-able for Dutch investors. Much money is lost already.)

After only three years of membership to theEU, members Bulgaria and Romania arealready sparking great interest from interna-tional as well as Dutch investors. With a newagreement with the EU Regional Develop-ment Fund ahead, things are looking brightin the East (causing outrage and heated dis-cussion about their growingly obscure invest-ment markets. Even with a new agreementwith the EU regional development fundahead, the situation is causing investorsmuch frustration).

On 1 January 2007, Bulgaria and Roma-nia joined the EU, bringing the membershipof the bloc from 25 to 27 member states. Thetwo countries applied to join the EU in theearly 1990s, along with eight other states ofCentral and Eastern Europe.

Last week, the EUs Regional Fund,which concentrates on economic develop-ment, presented a new cooperation agree-

ment between the two newcomers and othercountries such as Germany, the UK, and theNetherlands. According to the agreement,there is high demand for Bulgaria and Roma-nia, which seem to have become exciting newinvestment grounds for big and small Dutchcompanies. (However, the agreement causedanger amongst Dutch investors in the region,mainly because the development of the twocountries has not been as promised by theEU. On the contrary, many investors even con-sider it dangerous to the European economyto have Bulgaria and Romania on the Euro-pean investment map, with risky consequen-ces for an already declining Dutch market.)

We could not wait to see the new agree-ment, because it makes it even easier for usto invest where the critical growth today is!,claims an excited Piet Janssen, President ofthe Dutch products and services companySOMC. Last month, Janssen announced the



opening of first offices in the two countries:Eastern and Central Europe are thrilling newmarkets; they are growing at an enormousspeed and are already an important playingfield for investors, says Janssen. What iseven more important is that we can invest allextra revenue into our branches in the Neth-erlands, he adds. In fact, SOMC has recentlyopened a new branch in the direct neighbor-hood of The Hague, which has created anadditional 500 jobs in the area. (The agree-ment and the EUs positive reaction to thesecountries are offensive, says Piet Janssen,President of Dutch products and servicescompany SOMC. Last month, Janssen an-nounced the closing of all offices in the twocountries: Eastern and Central Europe aregrowing markets; but there are too many diffi-culties and threats. Because of the money welost, we have to downsize our Dutchbranches. This means that our investment inthe new EU member states has actually costjobs back home instead of creating them this is unacceptable, laments Janssen. SOMCwill most likely downsize its The Haguebranch, where dozens of jobs are at stake.)

Romania has averaged an annual eco-nomic growth rate of 5.8 % over the past fiveyears, making it one of Europes fastest grow-ing economies. Bulgaria is not too far behind,with growth seen at 5 % this year, and aneconomy that is shifting toward the moremodern sectors of technology and tourism.

ReferencesAare, 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 ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.

(Although Romania has averaged an annualeconomic growth rate of 5.8 % over the pastfive years, it is one of the poorest members ofthe EU, with a GDP per capita only about athird of the EU average. Bulgaria, with growthseen at 5 % this year, is raising concernsamong critics about mass migration and thestates ability to implement reforms whilekeeping state finances in order. Beyond that,high levels of corruption in these countrieshave previously caused international out-rage.)

Bulgaria and Romania are new to theEU, and they have come very far. Both coun-tries present thrilling opportunities for bigand small European investors to establishthemselves in a fast-growing market, saysOlli Rehn, the EUs Commissioner for Eco-nomic and Monetary Affairs. The EU, and allits member states, will benefit greatly fromthese two fresh economic forces on board,Rehn exclaimed in Brussels. (Many observersare certain that the two newcomers will dragthe European economy down with them.Bulgaria and Romania still have a long wayto go in establishing themselves in a growingmarket, asserts an insecure Olli Rehn, theEUs Commissioner for Economic and Mone-tary Affairs to this newspaper. Recent heateddebates in the European parliament showthat even the EU finds the development of itstwo newest members unacceptable.)



Bizer, G. Y., & Petty, R. E. 2005. How we conceptualize our attitudes matters: The effects ofvalence framing on the resistance of political attitudes. Political Psychology, 26,553568.

Brader, T. 2005. Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade votersby appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 388405.

Brader, T. 2006. Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political adswork. Chicago: CUP.

Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. 2007a. A theory of framing and opinion formation incompetitive 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 ScienceReview, 104(4), 663680.

Crigler, A. N., & Just, M. R. 2012. Measuring affect, emotion and mood in politicalcommunication. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammell (Eds.), The Sage handbook of politicalcommunication (pp. 211224). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

de Vreese, C. H. & Boomgaarden, H. 2003. Valenced news frames and public support for theEU: Linking content analysis and experimental data. Communications: The EuropeanJournal 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 anddiscrete 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. PoliticalBehavior, 30, 297321.

Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. 2003. Framing and deliberation: How citizens conversationslimit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729745.

Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal ofCommunication, 43, 5158.

Gross, K. 2008. Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotionalresponse, 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 newmillennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408420.

Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. 2011. Mediation and the estimation of indirecteffects in political communication research. In E. P. Bucy & R. Lance Holbert (Eds),Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analyticaltechniques (p. 434465). New York: Routledge. Holm, E. M. 2012. Emotions asmediators of framing effects. Arhaus: Politica.



Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. 2007. On the distinct political effects of anxiety andanger. In W. R. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, & A. N. Crigler (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamicsof emotion in political thinking and behavior (pp. 202230). Chicago: ChicagoUniversity 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 ofemotional framing effects. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of theInternational Communication Association (ICA), May 2428 2012, Phoenix.

Lang, P. J. 1980. Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: Computerapplications. In J. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson, & T. A. Williams (Eds.), Technology inmental 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 CommunicationQuarterly, 89(2), 185204.

Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B. 2003. Effects of fear and anger onperceived 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 SocialPsychology, 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 indirecteffect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate BehavioralResearch, 39, 99128.

Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. 2001. The need for affect: Individual differences in the motivationto 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.



Nabi, R. L. 2002. Discrete emotions and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), Thepersuasion handbook. Developments in theory and practice (pp. 289308). ThousandOaks, 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 theconstruction of political meaning. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. 2004. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects insimple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments Computers, 36,717731.

Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. 2008. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing andcomparing 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. CommunicationResearch, 24, 481506.

Russell, J. A. 2003. Core affect and the psychological construction of emotion. PsychologicalReview, 110, 145172.

Russell, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. 1977. Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journalof Research in Personality, 11, 273294.

Schachter, S., & Singer, J. 1962. Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants ofemotional 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 thecognitive 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 andits 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 themoderated mediation dynamics behind the reversed mobilization effect. Journal ofCommunication, 62(1), 5777.

Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. 2000. Framing European politics: A content analysis ofpress 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 issueframing effects. Political Psychology, 29, 128.

Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. 2004. The structure of political argument and the logicof issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in Public Opinion(pp. 133165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.



Sobel, M. 1982. Asymptotic intervals for indirect effects in structural equations models. InS. Leinhart (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1982 (pp. 290312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sobel, M. 1986. Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariancestructure 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: Towardintegrating political psychology and decision neuro science. In W. R. Neuman,G. E. Marcus, & A. N. Crigler (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in politicalthinking and behavior (pp. 7196). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Turner, M. M. 2007. Using emotion in risk communication: The anger activism model. PublicRelations 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. TheJournal of Politics, 73, 156170.

Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. 2008. Is a worried citizen agood 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 ofaffect: 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 methodsfor 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 publichealth campaigns. Health Education & Behaviour, 27(5), 591615.


Documents

Positive and Negative Discrete Emotions as Mediators of News Framing Effects