Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Division
Browse By Session Type
Search Tips
Personal Schedule
Sign In
While studies in the attitudinal media effects literature often focus on comparable empirical questions, they do not always coincide in their theoretical approach. In the present paper, we propose that this tension between empirical similarities and theoretical differences may have fueled recent debates about the meaning and investigation of media effects - in particular, framing, priming, cultivation, and persuasion effects. We argue that these types of controversies could be alleviated if researchers would always specify at what level of scientific analysis they define the attitudinal media effect under investigation, and we provide examples of how this specification could guide theory building and hypothesis testing.
Lennert Coenen, U of Leuven - School for Mass Communication Research
Jan Van den Bulck, University of Michigan