The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies
Abstract
How do individuals form opinions about new technologies? What role does factual information play? We address these questions by incorporating 2 dynamics, typically ignored in extant work: information competition and over-time processes. We present results from experiments on 2 technologies: carbon-nanotubes and genetically modified foods. We find that factual information is of limited utility—it does not have a greater impact than other background factors (e.g., values), it adds little power to newly provided arguments/frames (e.g., compared to arguments lacking facts), and it is perceived in biased ways once individuals form clear initial opinions (e.g., motivated reasoning). Our results provide insight into how individuals form opinions over time, and bring together literatures on information, framing, and motivated reasoning.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Allum, N. C. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.285.5426.384 · Cited by 590
RetractedBaumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001) · Review of General Psychology · doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 · Cited by 7,678
Why Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.-A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 · Cited by 6,677
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x · Cited by 4,344
Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment
(2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098 · Cited by 2,192
The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence
Druckman, J. N. (2001) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1023/a:1015006907312 · Cited by 1,265
Self-citationA Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x · Cited by 1,159
Self-citationFraming Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies
CHONG, D., & DRUCKMAN, J. N. (2007) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055407070554 · Cited by 1,120
Self-citationHastie, R., & Park, B. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.93.3.258 · Cited by 1,108
Cited by
How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation
DRUCKMAN, J. N., PETERSON, E., & SLOTHUUS, R. (2013) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055412000500 · Cited by 1,569
Self-citationIdeology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Kahan, D. M. (2013) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500005271 · Cited by 1,302
Media and Political Polarization
Prior, M. (2013) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-100711-135242 · Cited by 1,125
The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0 · Cited by 891
Self-citationScience audiences, misinformation, and fake news
Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1805871115 · Cited by 878
Metadata
- Authors
- Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T.
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 61
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 659-688
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3122515792
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 37
- FWCI
- 8.65
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x
- The paper
- Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies. Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01562.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
