All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.

The Impact of Contradicting Media Messages on Political Perceptions: The Case of a Partisan Dispute in Korea over Lifting Ban on U.S. Beef Imports
Unformatted Document Text:  THE IMPACT OF CONFLICTING FRAMES 17 on April 29, 2008 and the issue was fiercely disputed during the summer. However, the survey for this research was conducted in November 2008. Given this, it is plausible that, during a few months before public perceptions were assessed, relevant frames were being built and delivered by political elites such as mass media, which in turn affected average citizens to have their own firm attitudes toward the beef issue. That is, what was measured by the survey was the end product of framing effects, not the processes in which opinion was being formulated by the influence of frames. However, considering the long-term and cumulative effects of media messages on public perceptions , it would be more plausible to hypothesize that conflicting frames neutralized each other’s effect rather than expect that the influence of media had ceased at a certain point in time. Also noteworthy in the analyses is that all of the tested models explained substantially large amounts of variance of the outcome variables (from 48% to 58% of total variance), indicating that the proposed models were very appropriate in estimating citizens’ political judgments at that time. Hierarchical regression analyses (results not shown) conducted to identify the contributions of each predictor to the models’ predictive power revealed two interesting findings: Most of the contributions were made by ideology and beef policy evaluation variable, and both beef policy evaluation and responsibility mediated the impact of ideology. With respect to the increase in the model’s predictive power, the addition of ideology to demographic variables increased R 2 by 13.7% and subsequent addition of beef policy evaluation led to the increase in R 2 by 25.5% in predicting presidential approval. For trust in government, the contributions of ideology and beef policy evaluation were 10% and 32.3%, respectively.

Authors: Lee, ByungGu.
first   previous   Page 17 of 24   next   last

background image
on April 29, 2008 and the issue was fiercely disputed during the summer. However, 
the survey for this research was conducted in November 2008. Given this, it is 
plausible that, during a few months before public perceptions were assessed, 
relevant frames were being built and delivered by political elites such as mass media, 
which in turn affected average citizens to have their own firm attitudes toward the 
beef issue. That is, what was measured by the survey was the end product of framing 
effects, not the processes in which opinion was being formulated by the influence of 
frames. However, considering the long-term and cumulative effects of media 
messages on public perceptions , it would be more plausible to hypothesize that 
conflicting frames neutralized each other’s effect rather than expect that the 
influence of media had ceased at a certain point in time. 
Also noteworthy in the analyses is that all of the tested models explained 
substantially large amounts of variance of the outcome variables (from 48% to 58% 
of total variance), indicating that the proposed models were very appropriate in 
estimating citizens’ political judgments at that time. Hierarchical regression analyses 
(results not shown) 
conducted to identify the contributions of each predictor to the 
models’ predictive power revealed two interesting findings: Most of the contributions 
were made by ideology and beef policy evaluation variable, and both beef policy 
evaluation and responsibility mediated the impact of ideology. With respect to the 
increase in the model’s predictive power, the addition of ideology to demographic 
variables increased R
 by 13.7% and subsequent addition of beef policy evaluation led to the 
increase in R
 by 25.5% in predicting presidential approval. For trust in government, the 
contributions of ideology and beef policy evaluation were 10% and 32.3%, respectively. 

Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 17 of 24   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.