Cognitive strategies for media use during a presidential campaign

Fredin, Eric S.; Kosicki, Gerald M.; Becker, Lee B.

doi:10.1080/10584609.1996.9963093

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Measures of this process have been variously labeled "elaboration" (Craik & Tulving, 1975;Perse, 1990b;Schmeck, Ribich, & Ramanaiah, 1977;Weinstein, 1978), "reflective integration" (Fredin, Kosicki, & Becker, 1996;Kosicki & McLeod, 1990;McLeod et al, 1996), "active reflection" (Eveland, McLeod, & Horowitz, 1998), "AIME" (Beentjes, 1989;Salomon, 1984), "integrating" (Duchastel, 1990), "matching strategies" (Graber, 1988), and "generative learning" (lonassen, 1988b), among others. Elaboration seems to be the most common term across the various fields over time, so this is the term that we will employ.…”

Section: Structural Isomorphismmentioning

confidence: 98%

An Investigation of Elaboration and Selective Scanning as Mediators of Learning From the Web Versus Print

Eveland¹,

Dunwoody²

2002

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

142

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Structural Isomorphismmentioning

confidence: 98%

An Investigation of Elaboration and Selective Scanning as Mediators of Learning From the Web Versus Print

Eveland¹,

Dunwoody²

2002

Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media

142

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…We also asked for qualitative information about media use: respondents' assessments of media coverage's ability to explain science's relevance as well as their evaluation of the extent, comprehensibility and trustworthiness of media reporting (mostly based on Macedo-Rouet, Rouet, Epstein, & Fayard, 2003;Tsfati, Cohen, & Gunther, 2011), their attentiveness when encountering scientific topics in media (adapting a question from Fredin, Kosicki, & Becker, 1996) and their motivations for tending to scientific content (adapting scales from Rössler, 2011, 4ff. ).…”

Section: Measurementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Few studies have assessed whether populations can be divided into segments with different perceptions of science. We provide such an analysis and assess whether these segments exhibit specific patterns of media and information use. Based on representative survey data from Switzerland, we use latent class analysis to reconstruct four segments: the "Sciencephiles," with strong interest for science, extensive knowledge, and a pronounced belief in its potential, who use a variety of sources intensively; the "Critically Interested," also with strong interest and support for science but with less trust in it, who use similar sources but are more cautious toward them; the "Passive Supporters" with moderate levels of interest, trust, and knowledge and tempered perceptions of science, who use fewer sources; and the "Disengaged," who are not interested in science, do not know much about it, harbor critical views toward it, and encounter it-if at all-mostly through television.

show abstract

“…The first assumption is that people develop stable mental strategies to process and cope with the large amount of media messages because they have limited time and resources to devote to the information in the mass media. The second assumption is that people will consistently use these information processing strategies in their daily activities over time because they find them effective (Fredin, Kosicki and Becker, 1996;McLeod, Kosicki and Pan, 1991).…”

Section: Elaborative Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors influencing public risk–benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing

Scheufele

Corley

2011

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the influence of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing on public perception of benefits and risks of nanotechnology, based on a large-scale nationally representative telephone survey of U.S. adult citizens. Results indicate that cognitive processes in the form of news elaboration had a significant positive main effect on benefits outweigh risks perception. The influences of attention to science in newspapers, attention to science news on television, and interpersonal communication about science on public perception of benefits outweigh risks were moderated by elaborative processing, after controlling for socio-demographic variables, religious beliefs, trust in scientists, and scientific knowledge. The findings highlight the importance of elaborative processing when it comes to understanding how the mass media differentially influence public benefits outweigh risks perception of emerging technologies. Specifically, high elaborative processing emphasizes higher levels of perceived benefits outweigh risks than low elaborative processing. This study explores explanations for this phenomenon and offers implications for future research and policy.

show abstract

Cognitive strategies for media use during a presidential campaign

Cited by 15 publications

References 20 publications

An Investigation of Elaboration and Selective Scanning as Mediators of Learning From the Web Versus Print

An Investigation of Elaboration and Selective Scanning as Mediators of Learning From the Web Versus Print

The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns

Factors influencing public risk–benefit considerations of nanotechnology: Assessing the effects of mass media, interpersonal communication, and elaborative processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About