FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4367607816> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4367607816 endingPage "29" @default.
• W4367607816 startingPage "1" @default.
• W4367607816 abstract "ABSTRACTThis study examined the mechanisms through which responsibility frames and stigmatizing headlines influence support for governmental policies to address the pandemic. Based on a factorial design experiment, we examined the effects of 2 responsibility frames (individual vs. societal responsibility) and 4 headline types (non-stigmatized vs. name-stigmatized vs. characteristic-stigmatized vs. both-stigmatized). The results showed that the individual responsibility frame increased individual attribution of responsibility for the cause and spread of COVID-19 whereas reducing societal attribution of responsibility, compared to the societal responsibility frame. The headline that detailed both the stigmatized characteristic and name increased individual attribution of responsibility compared to the non-stigmatized headline. Furthermore, the effects of frames and headline types on policy support were sequentially mediated by attribution of responsibility and emotions. Individual attribution of responsibility led to anger whereas societal attribution of responsibility led to sympathy. Subsequently, anger increased support for punitive policies while sympathy increased support for assistive policies. This study contributes to the literature on news framing of pandemics by integrating cognitive and emotional mechanisms in forming policy attitudes. Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Supplementary dataSupplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2023.2202657.Data availability statementThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, C. Lee, upon reasonable request.Notes1 The percentage of participants recruited from the areas mentioned in the news stories were as follows: Daejeon (3.3%), Jeju (0.2%), and Gangwon-do including Taebaek (2.5%).2 Across the eight conditions, there were no significant differences in participants’ gender, χ2 (7, 632) = .00, p = 1.00, age, F (7, 632) = 0.04, p = 1.00, education level, F (7, 632) = 0.94, p = .47, political orientation, F (7, 632) = 0.57, p = .78, and COVID-19 infection, F (7, 632) = 1.04, p = .41.3 A pretest (N = 200) was conducted in November 2020 prior to the main experiment to make sure there were no confounding factors, such as perceived message quality (Zhao et al., Citation2011), associated with our stimulus construction. One-way ANOVA results indicated that there was no significant difference across the eight conditions in measures including perceived message quality, Daejeon F (7, 192) = 0.75, p = .63, Jeju F (7, 192) = 0.95, p = .47, Taebaek F (7, 192) = 0.84, p = .56; perceived argument strength, Daejeon F (7, 192) = 1.37, p = .22, Jeju F (7, 192) = 1.38, p = .22, Taebaek F (7, 192) = 0.69, p = .68; perceived informativeness, Daejeon F(7, 192) = 0.42, p = .89, Jeju F (7, 192) = 0.66, p = .71, Taebaek F (7, 192) = 0.46, p = .86. Thus, no confounding issue was detected.4 The manipulation items on the responsibility frame were checked both in the pretest and the main experiment. The results were significant as intended in both times. In this manuscript, results from the main experiment were reported.5 Respectively for each stimulus, individual responsibility ratings in the individual versus societal frame conditions were: Daejeon M(SD)Ind = 4.00(0.71), M(SD)Soc = 3.58(0.91), t (638) = 5.90, p < .001; Jeju M(SD)Ind = 3.85(0.84), M(SD)Soc = 3.29(1.01), t (638) = 7.61, p < .001; Taebaek M(SD)Ind = 4.06(0.75), M(SD)Soc = 3.73(0.92), t (638) = 4.93, p < .001.6 Societal responsibility ratings were: Daejeon M(SD)Ind = 2.58(0.93), M(SD)Soc = 3.63(1.04), t (638) = −12.11, p < .001; Jeju M(SD)Ind = 2.28(1.04), M(SD)Soc = 3.28(1.03), t (638) = −12.23, p < .001; Taebaek M(SD)Ind = 2.36(1.09), M(SD)Soc = 3.38(1.01), t (638) = −12.24, p < .001.7 The manipulation check on the headline types was performed in the pretest and, because of its straightforwardness, was omitted in the main experiment. Statistical values reported here were from the pretest.8 Descriptive statistics in the four conditions were as follows: Daejeon M(SD)Non-stigmatized = 2.84(1.20), M(SD)Characteristic = 4.36(0.63), M(SD)Name = 3.42(1.18), M(SD)Both = 4.20(0.64), F(3, 196) = 27.52, p < .001; Jeju M(SD)Non-stigmatized = 3.02(1.23), M(SD)Characteristic = 3.89(0.89), M(SD)Name = 3.16(1.20), M(SD)Both = 4.10(0.74), F(3, 196) = 14.22, p < .001; Taebaek M(SD)Non-stigmatized = 3.44(1.05), M(SD)Characteristic = 3.96(0.98), M(SD)Name = 3.20(1.18), M(SD)Both = 4.26(0.63), F(3, 196) = 12.01, p < .001.9 Descriptive statistics of the rating on the given statement in the four conditions were as follows: Daejeon M(SD)Non-stigmatized = 2.14(0.96), M(SD)Characteristic = 2.58(1.37), M(SD)Name = 4.32(0.87), M(SD)Both = 4.38(0.73), F(3, 196) = 66.01, p < .001; Jeju M(SD)Non-stigmatized = 2.10(1.13), M(SD)Characteristic = 2.18(1.24), M(SD)Name = 4.22(0.88), M(SD)Both = 4.20(0.67), F(3, 196) = 70.58, p < .001; Taebaek M(SD)Non-stigmatized = 2.10(1.13), M(SD)Characteristic = 2.44(1.26), M(SD)Name = 4.12(0.92), M(SD)Both = 4.40(0.57), F(3, 196) = 66.01, p < .001.10 Latent variables included individual attribution of responsibility, societal attribution of responsibility, anger, sympathy, punitive policy support, and assistive policy support.11 When the bootstrapping technique is used in a multiple-mediation model using AMOS version 21, the results are presented only for total mediation, and not for each specific mediation. To verify a specific indirect effect in the multiple-mediation model, it is necessary to create a phantom variable that does not affect the model fit or estimates (Macho & Ledermann, Citation2011). Following this guideline, we set phantom variables on the independent variables to create a modified multiple-mediation model.12 For reference, we also report the indirect effects based on the model where the interaction term was included. Of the interaction terms, one showed a significant indirect path in all three contexts: frame by characteristic-stigmatized headline to punitive policy support. The path was mediated by greater individual attribution of responsibility and then by anger, leading to greater support for punitive policies (Daejeon bindirect = -.12, 95% CI[−0.31, −0.06]; Jeju bindirect = -.20, 95% CI[−0.30, −0.07], Taebaek bindirect = -.18, 95% CI [−0.33, −0.03]).13 Another indirect path from the individual responsibility frame to assistive policy support was found in Daejeon only, which was mediated through increasing individual responsibility attribution and then decreasing sympathy, leading to less policy support (bindirect = −.01, 95% CI [−0.03, −0.003]).14 In Jeju, the name-stigmatized headline also increased individual responsibility attribution, and then anger, which in turn led to greater support for punitive policies (bindirect = .05, 95% CI [0.004, 0.11]).15 Only in Daejeon, the both-stigmatized headline increased individual responsibility attribution, which in turn decreased sympathy and lowered support for assistive policies (bindirect = -.01, 95% CI [−0.02, −0.001]).Additional informationFundingThis work was supported by the Institute of Communication Research at Seoul National University, the Korea News Agency Commission, and the National Research Foundation of Korea [to IJ Lim: NRF-2021S1A5C2A02088387].Notes on contributorsIn-Jae LimIn-jae Lim (PhD, Sogang University, 2020) is a senior researcher in the Global Convergence Content Research Center at Sungkyunkwan University. Her research interests include digital journalism, environment communication, science communication, and health communication in mediated contexts.Minsun ShimMinsun Shim (PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 2008) is a professor in the Department of Media and Communication at Inha University. Her research interests include health and risk communication, and cognitive and affective processes in online communication and social media.Chul-Joo LeeChul-joo Lee (PhD, University of Pennsylvania, 2009) is a professor in the Department of Communication at Seoul National University. His research interests include interplay between communication behaviors and social environment, health communication in mediated and interpersonal contexts, social marketing, and science communication.Se-Hoon JeongSe-Hoon Jeong (PhD., University of Pennsylvania, 2008) is a full professor at the School of Media and Communication at Korea University. His research interests include persuasive, strategic and marketing communication.Hyojin LeeHyojin Lee (M.S, Seoul National University) is a graduate student in the Department of Communication at Seoul National University. Her research interests include health communication in mediated contexts, media effects, and media psychology." @default.
• W4367607816 created "2023-05-02" @default.
• W4367607816 creator A5011224257 @default.
• W4367607816 creator A5046801573 @default.
• W4367607816 creator A5049646232 @default.
• W4367607816 creator A5076336023 @default.
• W4367607816 creator A5077845674 @default.
• W4367607816 date "2023-05-30" @default.
• W4367607816 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W4367607816 title "The Effects of Responsibility Frames and Stigmatizing Headlines in News on Support for COVID-19 Policies in Korea" @default.
• W4367607816 cites W1830545699 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W1897822252 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W1973831105 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W1974584303 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W1984901792 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2001442493 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2002336791 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2005133873 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2017001799 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2052618511 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2071666535 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2073594025 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2075693168 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2083825606 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2089614744 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2091424938 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2093738325 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2103678167 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2120599646 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2122260836 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2125947353 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2128769622 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2148697571 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2158068576 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2160922356 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2170543806 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2365156632 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2725239996 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2745560108 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2793740058 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2806111584 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2946329280 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2967261278 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W2971008054 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3006969064 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3016902371 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3032733200 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3040884840 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3081026264 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3081168372 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3083487804 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3087118629 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3093707318 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3095866569 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3109745557 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3159995607 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3166713111 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W3197826216 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W4206051551 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W4213367093 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W4254652417 @default.
• W4367607816 cites W986839323 @default.
• W4367607816 doi "https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2023.2202657" @default.
• W4367607816 hasPublicationYear "2023" @default.
• W4367607816 type Work @default.
• W4367607816 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4367607816 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4367607816 hasAuthorship W4367607816A5011224257 @default.
• W4367607816 hasAuthorship W4367607816A5046801573 @default.
• W4367607816 hasAuthorship W4367607816A5049646232 @default.
• W4367607816 hasAuthorship W4367607816A5076336023 @default.
• W4367607816 hasAuthorship W4367607816A5077845674 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C116675565 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C159047783 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C3006700255 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C3007834351 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C3008058167 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C524204448 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C73484699 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C116675565 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C142724271 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C15744967 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C159047783 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C17744445 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C2779134260 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C3006700255 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C3007834351 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C3008058167 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C524204448 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C71924100 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C73484699 @default.
• W4367607816 hasConceptScore W4367607816C77805123 @default.

• next