Page 178 - Media Effects Advances in Theory and Research

7. MASS MEDIA ATTITUDE CHANGE 167

the persuasive communication. The goal of this cognitive effort is to deter-
mine if the position advocated has any merit. Not every message received
from the media is sufficiently interesting or important to think about, and
not every situation provides the time and opportunity for careful reflec-
tion. When people are motivated and able to take the central route, they
carefully appraise the extent to which the communication provides infor-
mation that is fundamental or central to the true merits of the position
advocated.
Of course, the particular kind of information that is perceived central to
the merits of any particular issue can vary from person to person and
from situation to situation. For example, when some people think about
social issues (e.g., capital punishment), religious considerations and argu-
ments are particularly persuasive, but for others, legalistic arguments
carry the most weight (Cacioppo, Petty, & Sidera, 1982). Likewise,
research has shown that when some people evaluate ads for consumer
products, they are primarily concerned about how usage of the product
will affect the image that they project; for other people, this dimension is
unimportant (DeBono & Packer, 1991; Snyder & DeBono, 1989). Dimen-
sions that are most important will often receive the most scrutiny (Petty &
Wegener, 1998b; Petty, Wheeler, & Bizer, 2000).
Research suggests that an important function of the media in the polit-
ical domain is to make certain political and social issues more salient
than others (see Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; see also chap. 1). For example, a
study of magazine stories showed that from the 1960s to the 1990s, sto-
ries about drug abuse and nutrition increased dramatically, stories about
communism and desegregation declined, and stories on pollution
remained about the same (Paisley, 1989). If people come to believe that
certain issues are more important due to extensive media coverage, it is
reasonable that these dimensions of judgment will become more central
in evaluating the merits of political candidates. By giving a problem
great coverage (e.g., whether the oil crisis or a presidential sex scandal),
newscasters make that problem readily accessible in the minds of recipi-
ents, making them more likely to think about that particular problem
when they judge the “bottom line” on an attitude object (e.g., a president;
see Sherman, Mackie, & Driscoll, 1990). So, by setting the agenda of what
is important to evaluate, the media can have important “indirect” effects
on attitude change. 3

3 Of course, much of the correlation between media coverage and ratings of issue-
importance is due to the fact that the media cover issues people already think are important.
Nevertheless, some research shows that the media coverage can precede public perceptions
(e.g., MacKuen, 1981), and the mere accessibility of certain issues can cause people to give
greater weight to them (Sherman et al., 1990).