An Eye for an Eye: A Psychological Approach to the Effects of Media Images of Terror on Opinion Formation
John Ainger 11081864
john.aing@hotmail.co.uk Universiteit van Amsterdam
27 May 2016
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Thesis – Erasmus Mundus
Abstract
Visuals play an increasingly important role within a multimodal reality, yet little is known about the process through which they influence attitudes. Through the lens of appraisal theory, this study tests a double mediation model whereby the framing of images affects attitudes through appraisals and emotions. An experiment was conducted using Amazon’s mTurk, presenting images of the ISIS beheadings alongside neutral text. Results indicate that appraisals and emotions are prompted by media content leading to specific policy attitudes, but the variation of the images has little effect. As such, no support is found for the double mediation model. These effects are explained by the dominance of prior dispositions and knowledge about ISIS, as well as the presence of text.
An Eye for an Eye: A Psychological Approach to the Effects of Media Images of Terror on Opinion Formation
Public opinion is an important determinant of foreign policy (Holsti, 1991)1 that operates within an interactive ‘marketplace’ alongside the political elites and the media (Baum & Potter, 2008). While its influence is affected at the macro level - the democratic framework enabling the masses to either bestow consent or constrain the desires and whims of the political elite – the process of opinion formation and alteration occurs at the individual level, with mass media acting as the ‘dynamic element’ (Zaller, 1992).
One of the key ways that the media moulds public opinion is through the use of framing. Simply put, a frame ‘is an emphasis in salience of different aspects of a topic’ (de Vreese, 2005), situated within a psychological process, involving not just media content but a person’s interpretation of it, shaped by particular cultures and contexts (Scheufele & Iyengar, 2012). By highlighting a particular aspect of an issue or event within a given context, frames have been found to have numerous effects including, but not confined to, influencing
citizen’s opinions and behavioural intentions (Schuck & de Vreese, 2006), affecting attitudes (Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997), and evoking emotions (Aarøe 2011, Gross, 2008).
However, with few exceptions (e.g. Arpan et al., 2006; Gibson & Zillmann, 2000; Iyer, Webster, Hornsey, & Vanman, 2014; Pfau et al., 2006; Powell, Boomgaarden, De Swert, & de Vreese, 2015) studies within the framing tradition have predominantly focused on textual communication, to the neglect of visuals.
This is an important overlook, as visuals increasingly play a leading role within a multi-modal, twenty-first century news landscape. Particularly within International affairs, images help to reconstruct a distant reality, e.g. by communicating the inherently dramatic and threatening components of foreign conflicts; as well as meeting the visual demands of an often ‘sensational’ 24 hour news cycle (Gans, 1979; Permlutter, 1998; Cushion & Lewis,
2009). In turn, individuals respond by processing images according to their own ‘special logic’(Mueller, 2007). As a window to the world, the eyes are naturally drawn to the visual attributes of news stories, making them more salient, particularly in the early stages of
perception (Geise, 2014; Powell, Boomgaarden, De Swert & De Vreese, 2015; Yantis, 2005), while also enabling faster processing (Graber, 2006) and easier recall (Gibson and Zillmann, 2000).
Interestingly, images also effectively arouse emotions, especially when compared with text (Doelker, 2002; Iyer & Oldmeadow, 2006), which in turn can mediate the impact of images on policy attitudes and behavioural intentions (Iyer et al., 2014; Pfau et al., 2006; Powell et al., 2015). These findings have however, been subject to inconsistent and contrasting results, prompting the need for further clarification. A more nuanced
understanding of the psychological processes underlying the relationship between images and policy attitudes would therefore prove a useful addition to the literature.
Through the lens of appraisal theory (Lazurus, 1991), I shall explore how images influence policy attitudes through two mediators: appraisals and emotions. Figure 1
exemplifies the proposed model; images stimulate specific appraisals of an event, which in turn trigger certain emotions that predict policy attitudes. This marks an advance in the state-of-the-art, by not just looking at when images affect public opinion, but also at how they do so.
In pursuing this goal, I will explore the effects of images within the consequential domain of terrorism. Images are an increasingly integral component of terrorist’s toolbox (Atwan 2015), with the mass media providing the vehicle to publicise their actions and communicate their messages. The so-called Islamic State group (also known as ISIS, IS or Daesh) has been particularly media-savvy with highly stylized, ‘Hollywood-like’, visual propaganda tailored to the aesthetics of 21st century news production (Zelin, 2015) and designed to spark changes in US foreign policy (Wood, 2015). Effects found, will not only have implications for political communication, but also for society at large – How successful are propaganda images in influencing the attitudes of the US public? This paper will therefore look at the impact of the beheading images disseminated by ISIS through US media
coverage, using an experimental manipulation of images within an online news report,by addressing the following question:
How do emotionally charged visuals affect foreign policy attitudes?
Impact of Images
The paucity of images within news framing effects studies cannot be attributed to the scarcity of images within news content, or to the inability of pictures to act as framing
devices (de Vreese 2005). Indeed, the preponderance of images within modern media output, and their innate ability to highlight salient aspects of an issue (Grabe & Bucy, 2009), makes it surprising that they have not been subject to more rigorous analysis in framing effects
literature. Instead, the dearth of literature can in part be attributed to the inherent complexity of images and their effects. The few experimental studies that have addressed the topic (see Gartner, 2011; Gibson & Zillman, 2000; Iyer et al. 2014 and Powell et al., 2015) have often been subject to inconsistent results and unquantified effects (Fahmy, Bock, & Wanta, 2015).
This study therefore endeavours to explore the psychological processes of individuals, in order to attain how and when images (in conjunction with neutral text), affect individual’s foreign policy attitudes.
The theory behind the impact of images is convincing. Delving into the field of psychology, the picture superiority effect describes how images are both implanted into memory, and recalled more effectively than text due to their vivid and concrete resemblance of the real world, resulting in stronger physiological effects (Childers & Houston, 1984; Nelson, Reed, & Walling, 1976). In communication science, eye-tracking analysis has shown images to be more ‘attention-grabbing’ than text, and studies have shown that they are often the entry point into newspaper (Garcia & Stark, 1991). They are then processed according to their ‘own logic’ through a ‘parallel-processing system’ involving both emotional and
cognitive schemas (Geise & Baden, 2014), through applicability and accessibility effects: the salient attributes of images within media content cue certain ideas, known as the applicability effect, and once activated, they are more likely to be activated in the future through priming, or the accessibility effect (Brantner et al., 2011; Price, Tewkesbury, & Powers, 1997). Accordingly, the impact of images occurs across the three prominent media effects models (framing, agenda-setting and priming) leading to an amplified outcome. Ensuing emotions can then further prime cognitions, enhancing the amplification (Geise & Baden, 2011).
Commonsensically therefore, politicians and journalists alike have frequently asserted the power of certain ‘icons of outrage’ to change the world (see Permlutter, 1998). For
example, images of dead soldiers in Somalia, bravery in Tiananmen, or more recently the image of the dead Syrian boy washed up on a Turkish beach, have all achieved high levels of salience within the media, helping to shift attitudes (Laurent, 2015). However, such assertions of ‘visual determinism’ have not always been borne out by research, thus the effects of
Permlutter, & Spratt, 2002). There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, the effect of images is unlikely to be uniform across individuals. A priming study conducted by Domke et al. (2002), found that the influence of images could only be understood by taking into account a person’s predispositions and values, while a study addressing the impact of graphic images on US support for drones, found that there was no effect of images on policy attitudes (Scharrer & Blackburn, 2015). Secondly, visuals to date have largely been treated separately from text (Coleman, 2010). By themselves, images have been found to have strong effects on emotions and policy attitudes, but when analysed alongside text, the effects have been
ambiguous (e.g. Pfau, 2006; Powell et al., 2006; Zillman, Gibson, & Sargent, 1999). Nevertheless, it is expected that the incorporation of an image will have some persuasive effect. When comparing text-alone articles to articles with text and images in conjunction, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Images in conjunction with text should have a stronger impact on attitudes than text on its own.
Thinking About Emotion: Evoking Emotions Through Appraisal Emotions
One way images can affect policy attitudes is through the emotions they elicit. Emotions form an important and efficient, if sometimes unreliable, heuristic (mental rule of thumb) in the decision-making process (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974)2, to the extent that recently it has been argued that the brain is in fact used primarily for feeling, rather than thinking (Cassino & Lodge, 2007). However, while the relationship between emotions and political behaviour has become well established (see Neuman, 2007), as has the relationship between textual framing an emotions (see Schuck & Feinholdt, 2015), few studies have
explored the mediating effect of emotion within the visual framing process (Brantner et al., 2011; Iyer et al., 2014; Pfau et al., 2006).
Intuitively, media images have strong potential to influence emotions. Journalists have to frequently grapple with the ethical issues surrounding whether or not to publish graphic images, such as the ISIS beheadings, due to their ability to provoke distress among viewers (The Listening Post, 2014). Yet media coverage of terror can also stimulate other emotions depending on how the story or image is presented. For instance, past research has found that coverage of terrorism can evoke emotions of fear and anxiety (Gadarian, 2010; Slone, 2000). Agenda-setting studies have also found that emotions of sorrow and shock evoked in the wake of 9/11 led to increased concern with terrorism (Fahmy et al., 2006), and those who watched more television coverage of the attacks experienced increased levels of fear and depression (Huddy, Feldman, Lahav & Taber, 2003).
This occurs due to their distinct semiotic quality; images are encoded and decoded as concrete representations, through an interactive process with the recipient’s interpretation, knowledge and context (Geise & Baden, 2014). This enables images to be perceived in the same way as real-world phenomena, potentially triggering identical emotional responses (Ellsworth, 1994; Schürmann, 2011), and explains why images have been found to evoke a stronger emotional impact than their textual counterparts (e.g. Iyer & Oldmeadow, 2006; Powell et al., 2015), whilst simultaneously evoking different emotions depending on what is being depicted. Images conveying a human-interest frame for instance, induce stronger emotional responses than images of politicians (Brantner et al., 2011).
In sum, while the link between photographic imagery and emotion holds much promise, finding out which emotional responses are stimulated and with which effects, requires further exploration. It is to the psychological processes underpinning the relationship between images and emotion to which this paper now turns.
Appraisals
Within psychology, appraisal theorists posit that emotions are the result of an
individual’s cognitive evaluation of stimuli (Arnold, 1960; Frijda, 1986, 2007; Ortony, Clore & Collins, 1990). Consequently, images may trigger certain appraisals that lead to certain emotions. According to Lazarus (1991), the appraisal process happens in two stages: primary appraisals address how encounters or events are relevant to the individual, while secondary appraisals concern coping options; whether any given option might prevent harm, ameliorate it, or produce additional harm or benefit. Through coverage in the mass media, International events and their corresponding images, become immediately and explicitly relevant to citizens, thus requiring a coping, or emotional, response.
These responses are easily decoded by appraisal theory. Unlike two-dimensional valence and functional neuroscience approaches, it encompasses a wide range of positive and negative emotions (Huddy et al., 2007), and allows differentiation between them (Scherer, 1984; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985). Indeed, certain specific combinations of appraisals have also been linked to specific emotional experiences (e.g. Schmidt, Tinti, Levine & Testa, 2010; Tong, Ellsworth & Bishop, 2009)3. Despite this however, the appraisal process has rarely been applied to visual media coverage. The one exception is the study by Iyer et al. (2014), which found that images of victims and perpetrators of the 2005 London bombings were appraised differently, leading to differing emotions and support for different counter-terrorism policies. However, they examined radically differing images exclusively, without text. As a result, it is not clear which images, and what specifically within the content of an image, the participants appraised.
Next this paper applies the outlined theory to the consequential domain of terrorism and its coverage.
Images of Terror: Provoking Appraisals
Images of the victims and perpetrators of terror are frequently used by media outlets, as they help to narratively convey a familiar good versus evil frame (see Nacos, 2007). The prevalence of such images is likely to exert a broad impact on viewers triggering distinct appraisals and emotions. Through applying appraisal theory to the case of terrorism, specifically the ISIS beheadings, this paper makes a number of predictions regarding the impact of images on emotion.
Sympathy is associated with increased awareness and sensitivity to the feelings of the other (Gruen & Mendelsohn, 1986). By focusing the viewers’ attention on the suffering caused, an image of a victim of terror will likely elicit feelings of sympathy, particularly if it is felt to be undeserved (Salovey & Rosenhan, 1989). At the same time, emotions of anger or fear are less likely to be stimulated, because the emphasis is on the suffering, not what caused it (ibid.). As such, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: The victim image condition, should provoke appraisals of suffering, and in turn elicit feelings of sympathy.
Likewise, the image of a masked perpetrator brandishing a knife, standing next to the shoulder of a victim, should highlight imminent danger and provoke feelings of fear. In particular, fear should be elicited by individuals who believe they have little power to avoid or cope with the anticipated negative outcome, as laid out by Lazarus’ (1991) theory of secondary appraisal. Indeed, ‘stereotyped’ visual depictions of terrorists as irrational and unpredictable have been found to evoke fear among recipients (Kossowska, de Zavala, & Kubik, 2010). Following on from this:
H3: Recipients exposed to the perpetrator condition should appraise the perpetrator as dangerous and threatening, and in turn experience feelings of fear.
Finally, both victim and perpetrator conditions clearly allude to the beheading taking place in the image. It is expected therefore, that the recipients will appraise the beheading depicted in both victim and perpetrator conditions, as unjust and illegitimate, resulting in feelings of anger. This is because the perpetrator is perceived as being directly responsible for the event (Huddy et al. 2007):
H4: Recipients exposed to both the victim condition and the perpetrator condition, will appraise the beheadings as unjust and illegitimate, and in turn should experience anger.
The Effect on Attitudes
Emotions, elicited by appraisals, can influence attitudes through associated ‘emotivational’ goals (Roseman, 2011). We test these effects with regard to a number of foreign policies.
Alongside frustration and guilt, anger is comprised within the family of ‘attack’ emotions (Roseman, 2011), arising when negative events are clear and action against the responsible agent is perceived as likely to succeed (Lazarus, 1991). When individuals feel anger at the illegitimacy of the act of beheading, they should be more likely to support retaliatory policies, due to the emotivational goal of gaining revenge and inflicting pain. Furthermore, they may also be more likely to support the banning of refugees from the Middle East, in order to punish those perceived to be responsible for the beheading. By contrast, fear is associated with an avoidance action tendency (Frijda, 1986), and the goal of achieving safety (e.g. by running away) in the face of a threat (Roseman, Wiest & Schwarz,
1994). It should also predict support for the banning of refugees from the Middle East. Meanwhile, Iyer et al. (2014) found that higher levels of fear predicted support for negotiation with terrorists, thus this is also expected:
H5a: Anger should predict support for retaliatory intervention against ISIS.
H5b: Anger should predict support for the banning of refugees from the Middle East.
H6a: Fear should predict support for the banning of refugees from the Middle East.
H6b Fear should predict support for negotiating with ISIS.
Finally, as a prosocial emotion, sympathy is associated with a desire to help those who are suffering (Iyer et al., 2014). Powell et al. (2015) found that sympathy mediated the relationship between images and support for intervention. Sympathy has also been found to lead to support for government policies helping those harmed by injustice domestically and at times of war (Iyer, Leach & Crosby 2003; Pagano & Huo, 2004). Following on, the next hypotheses are put forward:
H7a: Sympathy should lead to support for the paying of ransoms for kidnapped victims.
H7b: Sympathy should lead to less support for the banning of refugees from the Middle East. H7c: Fear should lead to support for the sending of aid to ISIS-afflicted populations.
Overall, the model proposed comprises two variables, appraisal and emotion, that mediate the relationship between images and attitudes, in a serial manner. The overarching hypothesis is therefore:
H8: The relationship between images and policy attitudes is subject to dual mediation through appraisals and emotions.
Ethnocentrism and Emotion
As a final component of this study, this paper explores whether the effects of images are differentiated according to the ethnicity of the victim. This is likely to be consequential in light of accusations that some lives are seen as more important than others within news coverage (e.g. Ajaka, 2015) and with sociological research positing that certain ethnic groups are frequently depicted as ‘the other’ within Western media (e.g. Saeed, 2007). Such
ethnocentric coverage can have important impacts on the perceptions of certain groups (e.g. Power, Murphy & Coover, 1996) and even the decision whether or not to adopt a hawkish foreign policy (Gadarian, 2010). However, to my knowledge, there is little or no research on whether ethnicity within visual media content evokes differing emotional responses. To explore this further, this paper will assess whether the manipulation of a victim’s ethnicity (in the image) affects the types and strength of emotions evoked and in turn, whether these result in differing policy attitudes. ISIS have beheaded a number of people of differing ethnicities and nationalities since their occupation of swathes of Iraq and Syria, providing a realistic case for analysis. The sub-research question posed therefore, is as follows:
SRQ: Does the manipulation of the victim’s ethnicity affect the strength and types of emotion,
Methodology Design
A survey-embedded experiment, adopting a between-groups design, was employed to test the hypotheses. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four article conditions: one text-only condition (N = 63), and three accompanied text and image conditions; an image of a ‘Western’ victim of the beheading (N = 66), an image of the perpetrator of the beheading (N = 64) and an image of a ‘Middle-Eastern’ victim of the beheading (N = 67).
Participants
A total of 304 US citizens were recruited to participate in the experiment via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk); an online marketplace where ‘requestors’ pay
‘workers’ for ‘HITs’ on assigned tasks. MTurk is an increasingly popular tool for researchers due to its relative affordability, while the results garnered from the service have been found to be more demographically diverse than standard internet samples (significantly more so than American college samples) and at least as reliable as those obtained via traditional collection methods (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Casler, Bickel, & Hacket, 2013; Williams, 2010).
From the initial sample, 44 participants were excluded for either not meeting the
demographic criteria, answering the attention check question incorrectly, not completing the survey within the allotted time, or for straight-lining behaviour (answering all questions with the same response). The final sample consisted of 260 valid participants. The average
completion time of the survey for final sample was 10 minutes and 14 seconds, while the attention check ensured participants were alert and focused on the stimuli.
Incidentally, the sample obtained was representative of the US population in terms of age and gender (United States Census, 2010). The ages within the sample ranged from 18-71
(M = 32.72, SD = 10.31), while males made up 47.3% and females 52.7% of the sample size. 94.6% stated that they were born in the US. In terms of education, 90.4% of the sample stated ‘some college’ as their highest level obtained, while 57.2% had at least obtained a 2-year college degree. 56.2% considered themselves religious, substantially less than the US population, and of those, 86.8% were from some denomination of Christianity4. Finally, the sample’s political leaning was normally distributed around “moderate” (1 = Very Liberal, 7 = Very Conservative; M = 3.85, 1.59), with 27.3% identifying themselves as Republican, 41.5% as Democrat and 23.1% as Independent5.
Further details about the sample demographics and attention checks can be found in Appendices C and A respectively.
Stimuli
Stimuli were chosen from media coverage of the Islamic State beheadings. The broader theme of the Islamic State was chosen due to its salience in public debate,
particularly surrounding the US elections, and the complexity of the situation on the ground making it highly applicable to diverse policy attitudes. Within the overall theme of the Islamic State, the particular issue of the beheadings were selected as stimuli due to their highly visual and emotionally charged nature.
A pilot experiment (N = 32) was distributed to US citizens using a snowball sample to choose appropriate text and images. The images were matched for perceived arousal and intensity of emotion, while the articles were checked to see if they were clear and easily understood, as well as to assess the suitability of the attention check questions. Finally, the reliability of emotion and appraisal items were also checked, while the relationship between the two scales was tested. Several changes to the stimuli were initiated directly as a result of the pilot.
The images of the ‘Western’ victim and perpetrator were cropped from the same screenshot taken from an original beheading video distributed by ISIS (See Appendix B), to construct two separate images: one of the victim and one of the perpetrator. They matched the typical still images of the beheadings used by mainstream media outlets. The image of the ‘Middle-Eastern’ victim was manipulated from the original cropped screenshot of the
‘Western’ victim using Photoshop; a face of a Syrian man was swapped with the original, the skin was made darker and a short beard added to help convey the notion of ‘otherness’. All images were matched for size (90mm2) to control for mitigating effects of size on attitudes and memory (e.g. Rossiter & Percy, 1983).
The chosen article present in all four conditions, was downloaded and adapted from
The Huffington Post website. It was shortened (258 words) and altered to ensure there was a
balance of attention on both the victim and the perpetrator. A typical news website banner, with a design unfamiliar to US audiences, was taken from The Daily Telegraph in the UK and provided with a fictional outlet name, The USA Chronicle, to ensure respondents were not primed by the news source. Typical social media ‘sharing’ icons were also inserted beneath the article to make it look as realistic as possible.
Of course, the highly salient nature of the beheadings makes it likely that prior exposure may influence participants’ responses. As a result, the stimuli text was kept deliberately vague and did not elude to any one victim in particular that might trigger
recollection on the part of the participants. Furthermore, the articles were given a more recent time-stamp, to give the illusion that these were recent events, rather than the highly salient news events of 2014. The image of the ‘Western’ victim was deliberately chosen not to be the most ‘well-known’ of the victims, James Foley (the first Westerner to be beheaded by ISIS, and the subject of an acclaimed documentary; IMDB 2016), but Steven Sotloff whose image was deemed to be less recognizable. It was felt that the image of the perpetrator, who is
shown masked, would stimulate less recall, while the image of the ‘Middle-Eastern’ was significantly altered from the original. Though it is likely that some prior exposure effects still remain, any significant results obtained have occurred in spite of these effects and therefore could be interpreted as stronger for it.
Procedure
Workers who agreed to complete the survey on mTurk were directed to it via a hyperlink on the mTurk website. Upon entering the survey, participants were asked to
respond to a series of questions on their demographics, political orientation, knowledge of the conflict against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and attitudes towards certain policy actions. Batteries of questions also measured their personality, Need for Affect and feelings toward certain groups, including Muslims and followers of ISIS.
Participants were then randomly assigned to one of the four stimulus conditions, presented as though they were reading from an online media outlet. Participants were told before the stimuli that they would not be allowed to progress from this article screen for at least 30 seconds, to ensure adequate processing time of the stimuli - the ‘Next’ button was disabled for the period. A period of 30 seconds was chosen due to its success in other studies using image/text combinations (e.g. Powell et al., 2015) as well as in the pilot test.
Next, respondents were confronted with a single attention check question concerning one of the facts presented in the article, to test that they had fully concentrated. Respondents who answered this question incorrectly were immediately excluded from the survey and were not paid.
Finally, the dependent measures were displayed on successive pages within the post-test: emotions, appraisals, policy attitudes and Muslim prejudices. If the survey was completed
within the allotted time, respondents were debriefed and provided with a code with which they could claim their reward from mTurk.
Measures
In the pre-test, certain controls were measured. Need for Affect (M = .48, SD = .61) was measured according to the NAQ-S scale (Appel, Gnambs, & Maio, 2012), because it is likely to moderate the emotions elicited by media content. Feelings towards other groups were also measured in case they moderated attitudes toward Muslims (e.g. González & Verkuyten, 2008) using a feeling thermometer where ‘0’ represented very cold feelings and ‘100’ very warm feelings (Immigrants, M = .60, SD = .22; Muslims, M = .51, SD = .26; followers of ISIS, M = .06, SD = .14). Knowledge of the conflict against ISIS was measured relative to other world conflicts eg. Ukraine (1 = Not at all Knowledgeable, 7 = Extremely Knowledgeable), and was found to be comparatively high (M = 4.58, SD = 1.53)6. Thus this has the potential to influence visual effects when integrated with visual cues (Geise & Baden, 2014), something that will be addressed later in the paper.
After the stimulus, participants answered questions measuring potential mediators and the dependent variables. Emotional reactions were measured by asking participants to
indicate, on a scale of 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Extremely), the degree to which they felt each emotion. Three items assessed fear (afraid, anxious, frightened; α = .88; M = .45, SD = .27), three items assessed sympathy (compassionate, sympathetic, empathetic; α = .82; M = .67,
SD = .24), and three items assessed anger (angry, outraged, furious α = .91; M = .72, SD =
.24). A measure for distress was also included to ensure that the images in one condition were not more disturbing or upsetting than the others (upset, distressed, anguished; α = .82; M = .62, SD = .24). In line with Iyer et al.’s (2014) study, six statements assessed participants’ appraisals after viewing the articles, from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 7 (Agree strongly). Two
items assessed appraisals of suffering (e.g. “I thought about the needless suffering of the
victim”; α = .78; M = .82, SD = .20), danger (e.g. “I thought about the possibility of future attacks in the US, perpetrated by ISIS”; α = .52; M = .65, SD = .25) and injustice (eg. “I thought about the unfairness of the beheadings”; α = .77; M = .82, SD = .19).
Attitudes toward the various policy actions were measured using single items rather than composite scales (e.g. “The US should send troops to fight ISIS on the ground” 1 =
Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly disagree; see Appendix C for further details). Finally, in
relation to the second research question, Muslim prejudice was measured with two items that focused on warmth-like feelings. One item was taken from Borgardus’ (1933) social distance scale asking participants how they would feel about having Muslims move in as neighbours using a five point scale from ‘Extremely negative’ to ‘Extremely positive’ (M = .52, SD = .26), while the other mirrored the feeling thermometer in the pre-test, but solely assessed feelings towards Muslims (M = .55, SD = .27), excluding feelings towards other social groups7.
Results Overall effect of images
Table 2. Mean support for government policies per Frame condition.
Text Alone Text with Image
Victim Perpetrator Send Troops .55 (.27) .60 (.28) .51 (.29) Enter Diplomatic Negotiations .38
(.28)
.36 (.30)
.33 (.32) Permit Paying of Ransoms .42
(.30)
.40 (.28)
.35 (.28) Ban Middle-Eastern Refugees .47*
(.31) .43 (.32) .41* (.32) Send Aid .52 (.25) .55 (.27) .57 (.28) N 63 133 64
Note. Standard deviations in parenthesis. All scales scored from 0 to 1. Means with matching
superscripts are significantly different, p ≤ .05
A series of analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted, with prior attitudes as a control, to examine the mean differences between the conditions for the dependent
measures of policy attitudes. The results proved to be ambiguous and contrasting, and overall, few significant differences were found.
The first hypothesis stated that, images in conjunction with text, should have a
stronger impact on attitudes than text on its own. The inclusion of an image however, did not lead to any change of attitudes. Contrary to expectations, the only significant difference found between conditions, F(3, 192) = 3.08, p = 0.05, was for the banning of Middle Eastern Immigrants from the US, with the text-alone condition leading to highest support. H1 is
therefore rejected.
Emotions
H2 predicted that appraisals of suffering would be provoked in participants exposed to
the victim condition. However, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) found that appraisals of suffering were not significantly different across the victim (M = .81 , SD = .21) and perpetrator conditions (M = .79, SD = .21), t(128) = 0.63, p = .53, when controlling for
Knowledge, Need for Affect and Distress. In addition, mediation analyses conducted using
Hayes Process-macro in SPSS with a simple mediation bootstrapping procedure (Model 4, 1,000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2013) found little support for appraisals of suffering mediating the relationship between images and sympathy, b = -.01, SE = .01, CI [-.05, .02]. With mediation analyses showing no indirect relationship, H2 is rejected.
Likewise, appraisals of danger were not significantly different between the two conditions (victim, M = .66, SD = .24, perpetrator, M = .66, SD = .25), t(128) = -.03, p = .98.
and mediation analyses found no indirect effect between images and emotions, b = .00, SE = .02, CI [-.03, .04]. H3, stating that the perpetrator condition should elicit appraisals of danger
and threat, is therefore also not supported.
Finally, H4 hypothesised that both the victim condition, and the perpetrator condition
would trigger appraisals of injustice. An ANCOVA test (with the same covariates as before) examined the effect of both primary image conditions alongside the text-only control
condition, but found no difference in the appraisals elicited between the conditions, F(2, 192) = .65, p = .53, H4 was also rejected.
Going into greater depth, appraisals did significantly predict and account for a significant proportion of the variance of emotions, despite not being evoked by the
conditions. Appraisals of suffering significantly predicted sympathy, b = .49, t(258) = 7.12, p < .001, R2 = .16, F(1, 258) = 50.68, p < .001; appraisals of danger significantly predicted fear, Table 3. Bivariate correlations between all variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Appraisals 1. Victim suffering 2. Danger .37** 3. Injustice .72** .413** Emotions 4. Sympathy .41** .19** .35** 5. Anger .39** .34** .43** .21** 6. Fear .30** .43** .33** .27** .44** 7. Distress .48** .33** .47** .43** .66** .61** Policy Support 8. Send Troops .18** .16** .15** .08 .23** .09 .10 9. Negotiate .18** .12 .14* .29** -.13* .24** .10 -.10 10. Allow ransoms .22** .18** .22** .20** .06 .35** .26** -.07 .49** 11. Ban refugees -.01 .21** .02 .15* .21** .09 .07 .32** .23** .12 12. Send aid .29** .06 .19 .22** -.04 .11 .14* .07 .32** .21** -.44** N = 260. *p < .05. **p < .01.
b = .47, t(258), p < .001, R2 = .18, F(1, 258) = 57.20, p < .001; and appraisals of injustice significantly predicted anger, b = .53, t(258), p < .001, R2 = .18, F(1, 258) = 58.20, p < .001.
In sum, the frames were not responsible for how the articles were appraised, but the appraisals elicited by the articles led to the hypothesised emotions, despite the rejection of H2,
H3 and H4. The next section will briefly look into alternative explanations for the differing
appraisals.
Attitudes
Simple single regressions were used to test the remaining hypotheses concerning the effects of emotions on policy attitudes. H5a and H5b stated that anger should predict support
for both retaliatory intervention against ISIS, and increased support for the banning of refugees from the Middle East respectively. Both of these hypotheses were supported. Anger successfully predicted increased support for sending troops, b = .27, t(258) = 3.80, p < .001, and accounted for 23% of the variance, R2 = .23, F(1, 258) = 14.42, p < .001. Likewise, anger significantly predicted support for the banning of refugees from the Middle East, b = .27,
t(258) = 3.50, p = .001, and explained a substantive proportion of the variance, R2 = .21, F(1, 258) = 12.24, p = .001.
Following on, H6a, and H6b predicted that fear would lead to greater levels of support
for the banning refugees from the Middle East and for negotiating with ISIS. Fear failed to predict support for the banning of refugees from the Middle East, b = .10, t(258) = 1.5, p = .13, or account for significant variance, R2 = .01, F(1, 258) = 2.26, p = .13; and was thus rejected. H7b by contrast, was supported; fear predicted support for negotiations with ISIS, b
= .26, t(258) = 4.00, p < .001, and accounted for a small, but still significant, proportion of the variance, R2 = .06, F(1, 258) = 16.00, p < .001.
Finally, H7a, H7b and H7c predicted that sympathy should lead to support for the
paying of ransoms for kidnapped victims, less support for the banning of refugees from the Middle East, and support for the sending of aid to affected populations. All three hypotheses were supported by the data. Sympathy significantly predicted support for the paying of ransoms, b = .25, t(258) = 4.86, p = .001, and substantively accounted for 4.2% of the variance, R2 = .04, F(1, 258) = 11.20, p = .001. Likewise, sympathy significantly predicted the banning of refugees from the Middle East, b = -.19, t(258) = -2.37, p = .02, and the sending of aid to affected populations, b = .25, t(258) = 3.55, p < .001, as well as accounting for a significant proportion in the variation of both, R2 = .21, F(1, 258) = 5.64, p = .02, R2 = .05, F(1, 258) = 12.62, p < .001.
Next, mediation analyses were used to test whether the differing levels of support for the various policies were mediated by the appraisals and emotions triggered as a result of the image conditions. Each attitude was analysed alongside the image condition (victim condition coded as 0, perpetrator coded as 1), with appraisals and emotions as the mediators according to model 6 of Hayes’ PROCESS tool in SPSS (Hayes, 2013). However, despite the strong links between appraisals and emotions, and emotions and the dependent variables, no indirect effect was found between the stimuli and the policy attitudes (Results can be found in Appendix C).
Taken together, we can say that these results support the notion that emotions are a strong predictor of policy attitudes, but that they did not mediate the relationship between the image conditions and the dependent variables.
Ethnocentric effects
In addressing the sub-research question, t-tests found that there was little effect, induced on both emotions and policy attitudes, when the ethnicity of the victim was altered.
Appraisals were analysed first and found that there were no significant differences in either the appraisals, or the emotions induced as a result, between the Western and Middle-Eastern victim conditions. Turning to policy attitudes, support for the paying of ransoms was the only attitude that achieved significance. Respondents that were exposed to the Western victim condition were less supportive of the paying of ransoms of victims of kidnapping (M = .40,
SD = .28) than in the Middle-Eastern victim condition (M = 0.50, SD = .28), t(131) = -1.98, p
= .05. Finally, t-tests were also conducted to see if there were any differences in the levels of prejudice against Muslims, but the results were insignificant; changing the image did not alter perceptions of Muslims amongst respondents (see Appendix C).
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of images in the formation of policy attitudes, within the context of the Islamic State’s beheadings. It sought to complement the small, but growing, body of literature on the power of visuals within media content, by providing a unique and systemic analysis of the psychological interactions underpinning the relationship between images and attitude formation. Alongside realistic media output, that constituted both images and text, appraisal theory was proposed as a predictor of emotions, which in turn were hypothesized to affect political attitudes.
In sum, the empirical evidence collected found that the framing of images largely failed to predict attitudes or intentions, either directly, or indirectly through appraisals and emotions. That is not to say however, that the images had no effect at all, but that they did so uniformly. Results indicate that appraisals were instead primed, not predicted, by the stimuli; and though they were the same across conditions, they were found to predict certain
Contrary to expectations, both the Western victim and perpetrator image conditions had the same impact on policy attitudes. Furthermore, the text-alone condition frequently exerted greater impact than the image conditions and was the only condition to differ significantly from the others, with higher levels of support for the banning of refugees from the Middle East exhibited. This result is largely inconsistent with past research on the power of visuals, but not entirely surprising. Two potential reasons can account for why this
occurred. Firstly, it may be that the presence of an attention-grabbing image within the article increased the salience of the text, whose structure in turn guided the participant’s support for the various policies (Zillman, Knobloch, & Yu, 2001)8. Secondly, the results may be
indicative of the comparatively high levels of knowledge surrounding the conflict in Iraq and Syria, with the article conditions merely priming easily accessible attitudes
(Roskos-Ewoldsen, Roskos-(Roskos-Ewoldsen, & Carpentier, 2002). In other words, the text-alone condition may have prompted a mental visual image of the beheadings, in line with the pictorial superiority effect, despite the absence of a tangible image within the article.
Next, appraisals of the images were found to be an important and significant predictor of emotions, despite not differing between the Western victim and perpetrator conditions. As expected, specific appraisals of suffering, danger and injustice, elicited
emotions of sympathy, fear and anger, respectively, providing an important delineation of the psychological processes underlying responses to visual media content. Rather than being caused by media content, appraisals were most likely shaped by individuals’ prior
dispositions and knowledge (which was proved to be high in the case of ISIS), and probably contributed to the surprising lack of indirect effects. Furthermore, the ‘dampening’ (Pfau et al., 2006), or levelling, effect of the accompanying text may also have had an overriding effect on the images. While the images themselves may have induced differing emotions, the text remained the same, potentially directing the emotional response (e.g. Gross 2008). An
image-alone condition would have been needed however, to provide further scrutiny of this assertion. Perhaps more interestingly however, the inherent similarity between the two images may have led to similar effects. Whilst they portray different figures, the beholder is likely to be implicitly aware of the other within the image due to the way the image is composed, having been taken from a single screenshot of an Islamic State video. Arguably, this indicates that more subtly framed images have a diminished effect than the contrasting images of previous studies (e.g. Gartner, 2011; Iyer et al., 2014; Powell et al., 2015) - especially if they give an indication to the broader context of an event. All these factors considered, it seems that in our case, media simply served to prime rather than frame appraisals, with prior dispositions and knowledge shaping them instead.
In terms of attitudinal responses, emotions were found to have significant effects in all but one of the hypotheses - that fear would affect both support for the banning of refugees. It may be the more rational, and less affective, cognitions dominated, with individual
evaluations deeming refugees to not be a significant risk to the US. Importantly, all other links between emotions and the dependent variables were supported, emphasising the role of emotion as a heuristic in decision-making. The mediation analyses conducted however, opposed findings from previous research, asserting that media content affects individuals’ outlook indirectly through emotions (e.g. Gross, 2008; Iyer et al., 2014; Powell et al., 2015). In all likelihood, this is primarily attributable to the lack of differential effects between the conditions on both emotions and the dependent variables, and should not be taken as
evidence that emotions do not mediate individual outlook. Though once again, the inclusion of text may also have had an effect. It has been argued for example, that text generates persuasive effects through a more systematic, cognitive and less emotionally driven route than images alone (Sparks, Areni & Cox 1998). The comparative victim image analysis would lend some credence to this assertion. While the Middle-Eastern victim condition had
significantly different effects in support for the paying of ransoms, mediation analyses again failed to find an indirect effect of emotion. This would indicate that effects operate down a different path to that of emotion, suggesting that a cognitive element may be at play.
Turning briefly to the results of the sub-research question, no significant differences were found in the levels of Muslim prejudice (or emotions, as mentioned in the previous paragraph), when comparing the two victim conditions. It could be that the portrayal of both as a victim mitigated the impact of any potential prejudice, because neither is perceived to pose a threat; or it could simply be a result of social desirability effects. In terms of attitudes and intentions few significant effects were found with the exception of support for the paying of ransoms and the intention to protest against intervention. Those exposed to the Middle-Eastern victim condition were more likely to do both, though the reasons why are not clear from the data. It may be that respondents perceived the Middle-Eastern victim as more symptomatic of the wider issues surrounding ISIS9, and thus in need of more assistance from the US. However this is merely speculation on the part of the author.
Limitations and Implications
With this in mind, we delve into some of the notable limitations of this study. Firstly, as with all experimental studies internal validity has been favoured over ecological validity. The experiment was conducted by employing a ‘one shot’ design, so we cannot tell from the results what effect repeated viewing of the images might have on respondents. This is particularly pertinent, as IS has beheaded at least five Westerners, and countless others, which surely leads to an amplified effect in the long run. It also leads us to another limitation: the highly salient nature of the beheadings. The shocking images of the beheadings of
journalists, aid workers and soldiers by ISIS were widely distributed across the world and in the US, which raises the possibility that prior exposure to the images could have significant
extraneous effects. As highlighted in the methodology, the potential of these effects was controlled for as much as possible through image and text selection, but some prior-exposure and knowledge effects undoubtedly remain. An opportunity for further research would be to assess whether multiple images seen over time has a compounding effect. Furthermore, this study would have benefitted from an image-only or neutral condition, so it could more accurately distinguish the effects between groups. The effects witnessed were broadly the same across conditions, so any results were perhaps a result of priming, rather than framing effects. In line with this, effect sizes, in particular mediation effects, triggered across the conditions were generally small, if not insignificant. Further research into the cognitive effects of images would provide a useful remedy, as well as continuing research into the interactions between personality traits and emotion. As a caveat however, future research should continue to assess the role of broadly similar visual frames, in keeping with traditional psychological conceptions of framing.
Taken together, the findings of this paper contain important implications for how democratic governments respond to an increased threat of terror. The results chime with the growing body of research indicating that media content, and the graphic images present within, can have widely varying impacts on public opinion, and in some cases, no impact at all. Instead, when forming attitudes, individuals tend to be guided by their prior dispositions and psychological schemas. Specifically, in an increasingly information-abundant
environment, emotions are relied upon as an alternative decision-making strategy, which relies less on rationality and more on feeling. When reading an article concerning a graphic event, images may trigger emotions, but often do not shape them. Even so, a reliance on emotions for decision-making can have some important implications. When emotional reactions lead to swift, but uncalculated decisions, the results may often be sub-prime, as the second Gulf War in Iraq arguably testified. Any decision to intervene in Syria should be
made on the basis of rational argument, rather than emotive appeal. Finally, the findings of this study are of interest to any counter-radicalisation policy with the aim of stopping disenfranchised Western citizens from joining ISIS. Though not directly analysing how media content forms the opinions of would-be radicals, the results concerning the powerful effects of emotion and personality are nevertheless of deep interest, and would be a prime avenue for further exploration.
To conclude, our findings point towards a nuanced role of visuals within terrorism and International affairs. This study delineates the integral role of psychology within the consumption of media content, and the resulting opinions formed. As such, this paper moves the field of communication one step closer to the goal of a fully integrative model of media effects.
Endnotes
1 This was not always the case. In the mid-twentieth century, public opinion was seen as ill-informed, volatile and impotent; therefore a dubious foundation for foreign policy (Almond 1960; Lippmann 1922)
2
As with many scholarly fields such as economics and psychology, individuals are no longer depicted as ‘rational’ actors in their consumption of media. For example, one study by Gadarian (2010) showed how the presentation of media content can have counter-intuitive effects on individuals, increasing support for policies advocated by the President and government.
3
Some scholars dispute whether appraisals or emotions come first (e.g. Zajonc, 1984), but they at least covary. Furthermore, appraisals can be used to differentiate between emotional responses (Frijda & Zeelenburg, 2001) and manipulated appraisals have been found to shape emotional reactions (e.g. Roseman & Evokadas, 2004).
4
Only one person categorised themselves as a Muslim, equivalent to 0.4% of the sample population. Muslims make up around 1% of the US population overall (Pew Research Centre, 2015).
5
An ANOVA showed that the demographics did not differ significantly across experimental groups (Age, p = .13; Gender, p = .12; Birthplace, p = .06; Education, p = .92; Religion, p = .63; Political Leaning, p = .80; Party Support, p = .07;).
6
An ANOVA showed that levels of knowledge did not differ across experimental groups (p = .80).
7
Question wording of both pre- and post-test questions are available in Appendix A.
8
Articles with Westerm victim/perpetrator images were viewed on average seven seconds longer (M = 81.98, SD = 53.12) than the text condition (M = 74.75, SD = 35.78), but the results were not significant, F(2, 190) = .49, p = .62.
9
Instead of the more ‘newsworthy’ event of a Westerner being beheaded (see Harcup & O’Neill, 2001).
References
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207-226.
Ajaka, N. (2015, November 17). Paris, Beirut, and the Language Used to Describe Terrorism. Retrieved May 11, 2016, from
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/11/paris-beirut-media-coverage/416457/
Appel, M., Gnambs, T., & Maio, G. R. (2012). A short measure of the need for affect. Journal of personality assessment, 94(4), 418-426.
Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality.
Atwan, A. B. (2015). Islamic State: The Digital Caliphate. Univ of California Press.
Baum, M. A., & Potter, P. B. (2008). The relationships between mass media, public opinion, and foreign policy: Toward a theoretical synthesis. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 11, 39-65.
Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology & Social Research.
Brantner, C., Lobinger, K., & Wetzstein, I. (2011). Effects of visual framing on emotional responses and evaluations of news stories about the Gaza conflict 2009. Journalism &
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on psychological
science, 6(1), 3-5.
Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of
participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior,29(6), 2156-2160.
Cassino, D., & Lodge, M. (2007). The primacy of affect in political evaluations. The affect
effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior, 101-123.
Childers, T. L., & Houston, M. J. (1984). Conditions for a picture-superiority effect on consumer memory. Journal of consumer research, 643-654.
Coleman, R. (2010). Framing the pictures in our heads. Doing News Framing Analysis:
Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives, eds. Paul D'angelo and Jim A. Kuypers (NY: Routledge, 2010), 233-61.
Cushion, S., & Lewis, J. (2009). Towards aFoxification'of 24-hour news channels in Britain? An analysis of market-driven and publicly funded news coverage. Journalism, 10(2), 131-153.
De Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information design journal+
Doelker, C. (1997). Ein Bild ist mehr als ein Bild. Visuelle Kompetenz in der
Multimedia-Gesellschaft. Stuttgart, 21999.
Domke, D., Perlmutter, D., & Spratt, M. (2002). The primes of our times? An examination of the ‘power’of visual images. Journalism, 3(2), 131-159.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality. Psychological
assessment, 18(2), 192.
Ellsworth, P. C. (1994). Levels of thought and levels of emotion. The nature of emotion:
Fundamental questions, 192-196.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.Journal of
communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Fahmy, S., Cho, S., Wanta, W., & Song, Y. (2006). Visual agenda-setting after 9/11: Individuals' emotions, image recall, and concern with terrorism.Visual
Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 4-15.
Finn, S. (1997). Origins of media exposure linking personality traits to TV, radio, print, and film use. Communication research, 24(5), 507-529.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions: Studies in emotion and social interaction.Edition de la.
Frijda, N. H., & Zeelenberg, M. (2001). Appraisal: What is the dependent?.
Gadarian, S. K. (2010). The politics of threat: How terrorism news shapes foreign policy attitudes. The Journal of Politics, 72(02), 469-483.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American journal of sociology, 1-37.
Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news: A study of CBS evening news, NBC nightly news,
Newsweek, and Time. Northwestern University Press.
Garcia, M. R., Stark, M. M., & Miller, E. (1991). Eyes on the News. Poynter Institute.
Geise, S. (2014). Eye Tracking in Media Studies. The International Encyclopedia of Media
Studies.
Geise, S., & Baden, C. (2015). Putting the image back into the frame: Modeling the linkage between visual communication and frame‐processing theory. Communication
Theory, 25(1), 46-69.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011). Personality traits and the consumption of political information. American Politics Research, 39(1), 32-84.
Gibson, R., & Zillmann, D. (2000). Reading between the photographs: The influence of incidental pictorial information on issue perception. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 77(2), 355-366.
Grabe, M. E., & Bucy, E. P. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of
elections. Oxford University Press.
Graber, D. A. (1996). Say it with pictures. The annals of the American academy of political
and social science, 85-96.
Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169-192.
Gruen, R. J., & Mendelsohn, G. (1986). Emotional responses to affective displays in others: The distinction between empathy and sympathy. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(3), 609.
Harcup, T., & O'neill, D. (2001). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited.Journalism
studies, 2(2), 261-280.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
Holsti, O. R. (1992). Public opinion and foreign policy: challenges to the Almond-Lippmann Consensus Mershon Series: research programs and debates. International studies
quarterly, 439-466.
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. (2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior, 202-230.
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., Lahav, G., & Taber, C. (2003). Fear and terrorism: Psychological reactions to 9/11. Framing terrorism: The news media, the government, and the
public, 255-78.
Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(1), 117-129.
Iyer, A., & Oldmeadow, J. (2006). Picture this: Emotional and political responses to photographs of the Kenneth Bigley kidnapping. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 36(5), 635-647.
Iyer, A., Webster, J., Hornsey, M. J., & Vanman, E. J. (2014). Understanding the power of the picture: the effect of image content on emotional and political responses to terrorism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(7), 511-521.
Kossowska, M., Golec de Zavala, A., & Kubik, T. (2010). Stereotyped images of terrorists as predictors of fear of future terrorist attacks.Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and
Political Aggression, 2(3), 179-197.
Laurent, O. (2015, September 04). What the Image of Aylan Kurdi Says About the Power of Photography. Time. Retrieved May 06, 2016, from http://time.com/4022765/aylan-kurdi-photo/
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford: University Press.
The Listening Post. (2014). The ethics of graphic imagery in the news. [Online Video]. 15 December 2014. Available from:
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2014/12/ethics-graphic-imagery-news-20141215154553824476.html. [Accessed: 6 May 2016].
Moore, K., & McElroy, J. C. (2012). The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and regret. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 267-274.
Mueller, M. G. (2007). What is visual communication? Past and future of an emerging field of communication research. Studies in Communication Sciences, 7(2), 7-34.
Nacos, B. L. (2007). Mass-mediated terrorism: The central role of the media in terrorism and
Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political behavior, 19(3), 221-246.
Nelson, D. L., Reed, V. S., & Walling, J. R. (1976). Pictorial superiority effect. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory,2(5), 523.
Neuman, W. R. (2007). The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and
behavior. University of Chicago Press.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1990). The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge university press.
Pagano, S. J., & Huo, Y. J. (2007). The Role of Moral Emotions in Predicting Support for Political Actions in Post‐War Iraq. Political Psychology, 28(2), 227-255.
Percy, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (1983). Effects of Picture Size and Color on Brand Attitude Responses in Print Advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 10(1).
Perlmutter, D. D. (1998). Photojournalism and foreign policy: Icons of outrage in
international crises. Praeger Publishers.
Pfau, M., Haigh, M., Fifrick, A., Holl, D., Tedesco, A., Cope, J., ... & Martin, M. (2006). The effects of print news photographs of the casualties of war.Journalism & Mass
Powell, T. E., Boomgaarden, H. G., De Swert, K., & de Vreese, C. H. (2015). A Clearer Picture: The Contribution of Visuals and Text to Framing Effects.Journal of
Communication, 65(6), 997-1017.
Power, J. G., Murphy, S. T., & Coover, G. (1996). Priming Prejudice How Stereotypes and Counter‐Stereotypes Influence Attribution of Responsibility and Credibility among Ingroups and Outgroups. Human Communication Research, 23(1), 36-58.
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought the impact of news frames on readers' cognitive responses. Communication research, 24(5), 481-506.
Roseman, I. J. (2011). Emotional behaviors, emotivational goals, emotion strategies: Multiple levels of organization integrate variable and consistent responses. Emotion
Review, 3(4), 434-443.
Roseman, I., & Evdokas, A. (2004). Appraisals cause experienced emotions: Experimental evidence. Cognition and Emotion, 18(1), 1-28.
Roseman, I. J., Wiest, C., & Swartz, T. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 206.
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Carpentier, F. R. D. (2002). Media priming: A synthesis. Media effects: Advances in theory and research, 2, 97-120.
Saeed, A. (2007). Media, racism and Islamophobia: The representation of Islam and Muslims in the media. Sociology Compass, 1(2), 443-462.
Salovey, P., & Rosenhan, D. L. (1989). Mood states and prosocial behavior.Handbook of
social psychophysiology, 371-391.
Scharrer, E., & Blackburn, G. (2015). Images of Injury: Graphic News Visuals’ Effects on Attitudes toward the Use of Unmanned Drones. Mass Communication and
Society, 18(6), 799-820.
Scherer, K. R. (1984). Emotion as a multicomponent process: A model and some cross-cultural data. Review of Personality & Social Psychology.
Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2012). The state of framing research: A call for new
directions. The Oxford Handbook of Political Communication Theories. Nueva York:
Oxford UniversityPress. Pág, 1-26.
Schmidt, S., Tinti, C., Levine, L. J., & Testa, S. (2010). Appraisals, emotions and emotion regulation: An integrative approach. Motivation and emotion, 34(1), 63-72.
Schuck, A. R., & Feinholdt, A. (2015). News Framing Effects and Emotions.Emerging
Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource.
Schürmann, E. (2010). Transitions from Seeing to Thinking. On the Relation of Perception,
Worldview and World-disclosure. na.
Schuck, A. R., & De Vreese, C. H. (2006). Between risk and opportunity news framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of
Communication, 21(1), 5-32.
Slone, M. (2000). Responses to media coverage of terrorism. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 44(4), 508-522.
Smith, C. A., & Ellsworth, P. C. (1985). Patterns of cognitive appraisal in emotion. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 48(4), 813.
Tong, E. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Bishop, G. D. (2009). An S-shaped relationship between changes in appraisals and changes in emotions.Emotion, 9(6), 821.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Velasco González, K., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 47(4), 667-685.
Williams, G. (2010, February 22). The Reliability, Efficiency, and Affordability of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from
http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/the-reliability-efficiencyaffordability-of-amazons-mechanical-turk/22994.
Wood, G. (2015). What ISIS really wants. The Atlantic, 3.
Yantis, S. (2005). How visual salience wins the battle for awareness. Nature
neuroscience, 8(8), 975-977.
Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
Zelin, A. Y. (2015). Picture Or It Didn’t Happen: A Snapshot of the Islamic State’s Official Media Output. Perspectives on Terrorism, 9(4).
Zillmann, D., Knobloch, S., & Yu, H. S. (2001). Effects of photographs on the selective reading of news reports. Media Psychology, 3(4), 301-324.
Appendix A: Experiment
INFORMED CONSENT AT BEGINNING OF QUALITRICS
You are being asked to participate in a task in which you will read short texts, and then answer a few questions about the information you read.
Your participation is entirely voluntary.
Please bear in mind the following conditions to receive payment:
-It will take you around 10 minutes to answer the survey. -You are expected to read instructions and questions carefully.
We will check that you have effectively met these conditions before approving your payment.
These conditions follow Mechanical Turk policy, which states "a Requester may reject your work if the HIT was not completed correctly or the instructions were not followed."
Finally, the information you report is confidential and will be strictly used for research purposes.
Thank you very much for participating in this survey.
What is your age? (18-100)
If less than 18, skip to the end of the survey. DEMOGRAPHICS & TRAITS
First, we have some questions about your demographics. What is your gender?
• Male (1) • Female (2)
• Less than High School (1) • High School / GED (2) • Some College (3)
• 2-year College Degree (4) • 4-year College Degree (5) • Masters Degree (6) • Doctoral Degree (7)
• Professional Degree (JD, MD) (8) • Other (Please specify)
Were you born in the US? • Yes
• No
If ‘no’, where were you born? (List of countries)
Do you consider yourself of a particular religion/denomination? • Yes (1)
• No (2)
If yes, which religion or denomination are you a member? • Protestant (1) • Catholic (2) • Mormon (3) • Other Christian (4) • Judaism (5) • Islam (6) • Hinduism (7) • Buddhism (8) • Unaffiliated (9)
• Other (10) (Please specify)
In general, how would you describe your political views? • Very liberal (1) • -(2) • -(3) • Moderate (4) • -(5) • -(6) • Very conservative (7)
Which political party do you identify with the most? • Republican (1)
• Democrat (2) • Independent (3)
