The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance
Abstract
Framing is the process by which a communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy. Two experiments examined the effect of news frames on tolerance for the Ku Klux Klan. The first presented research participants with one of two local news stories about a Klan rally that varied by frame: One framed the rally as a free speech issue, and the other framed it as a disruption of public order. Participants who viewed the free speech story expressed more tolerance for the Klan than participants who watched the public order story. Additional data indicate that frames affect tolerance by altering the perceived importance of public order values. The relative accessibility of free speech and public order concepts did not respond to framing. A second experiment used a simulated electronic news service to present different frames and replicated these findings.
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
Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm
Entman, R. M. (1993) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x · Cited by 16,203
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785
The processes of causal attribution.
Kelley, H. H. (1973) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/h0034225 · Cited by 4,025
With Malice toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments
Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. L. (1995) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174046 · Cited by 387
Cited by
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054 · Cited by 3,071
Framing as a Theory of Media Effects
Scheufele, D. A. (1999) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x · Cited by 2,179
Identification, Inference and Sensitivity Analysis for Causal Mediation Effects
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Yamamoto, T. (2010) · Statistical Science · doi:10.1214/10-sts321 · Cited by 1,628
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
IMAI, K., KEELE, L., TINGLEY, D., & YAMAMOTO, T. (2011) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055411000414 · Cited by 1,537
Metadata
- Authors
- Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1997-09
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 567-583
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2134827477
- Cited by
- 1,422
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 67.15
- 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
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.
