Attitude Change in Competitive Framing Environments? Open-/Closed-Mindedness, Framing Effects, and Climate Change: Framing and Open-Mindedness
Abstract
Framing scholarship on policy issues has primarily focused on how competitive message environments alter framing effects or how individual differences moderate the impact of frames. This study combines both of these focal areas by examining how individual open-/closed-mindedness moderates framing effects about climate change within competitive and noncompetitive framing contexts. Contrary to previous scholarship, our experimental study finds effects on attitudes in the competitive framing condition, but not the noncompetitive framing condition. The framing effects found in the competitive condition were contingent upon individual differences in open-/closed-mindedness. Analysis shows that individual open-/closed-mindedness influences framing effects in part by altering the effects of frame exposure on the perceived costs and benefits of government climate policies.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In reality, competing climate change frames exist together and in two-way communication contexts.
“whereas in reality, competing climate change frames exist together and in two-way communication contexts (Chong and Druckman 2007, Nisbet et al 2013).”
From Framing climate change for effective communication: a systematic map (2020) · cites this paper as Nisbet et al 2013
The “Framing and message competition” section describes competing climate-change frames circulating in real-world message environments. The “Implications” section says the study simulated exposure to competing frames in mass communication, such as news media and political discourse. Neither passage establishes the claim’s additional point that these frames exist in two-way communication contexts. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 137
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Garrett, R. K., Nisbet, E. C., & Lynch, E. (2011, November). Undermining the corrective effects of media-based political fact checking. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA.
- Authors
- Nisbet, E. C., Hart, P. S., Myers, T., & Ellithorpe, M.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- George Mason University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Communication
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-06-11
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 766-785
- ISSN
- 0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1902276314
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 28.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Communication (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (0752876)
- U.S. Department of Agriculture
- Ohio State University
- Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
- Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- framing effects, open-mindedness, closed-mindedness, climate change attitudes, climate policy, individual differences, message exposure
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
