Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Kognitive Wirkungen politischer Kommunikation

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbuch Politische Kommunikation

Zusammenfassung

Das vorliegende Kapitel diskutiert die kognitive Komponente von Medienwirkungen im Bereich der politischen Kommunikation. Dabei stellen wir fünf zentrale theoretische Konzepte vor: Wissens- und Lerneffekte, Kultivierungseffekte, Agenda Setting, politisches Medienpriming und Framing-Effekte. Wir diskutieren die Grundpfeiler der Konzepte, das gängige methodische Vorgehen und geben Einblicke in offene Fragen. Im Fazit werden Gemeinsamkeiten und aktuelle Herausforderungen der Konzepte diskutiert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Arendt, Florian, und Jörg Matthes. 2014. Cognitive effects of political mass media. In Political communication, Hrsg. Carsten Reinemann, 547–568. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barabas, Jason, Jennifer Jerit, William Pollock, und Carlisle Rainey. 2014. The question(s) of political knowledge. American Political Science Review 108(4): 840–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, Larry M. 1996. Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 194–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beniger, James R. 1987. Toward and old new paradigm: The half-century flirtation with mass society. Public Opinion Quarterly 51(part 2: Supplement: 50th Anniversary Issue): 46–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilandzic, Helena, Holger Schramm, und Jörg Matthes. 2015. Medienrezeptionsforschung. Konstanz: UVK.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brosius, Hans-Bernd, und Hans Mathias Kepplinger. 1990. The agenda-setting function of television news: Static and dynamic views. Communication Research 17(2): 183–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciatore, Michael A., Dietram A. Scheufele, und Shanto Iyengar. 2016. The end of framing as we know it … and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society 19(1): 7–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaiken, Shelly. 1987. The heuristic model of persuasion. In Social influence: Ontario symposia on personality and social psychology series, Hrsg. Mark P. Zanna, James M. Olson und C. Peter Herman, 3–39. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong, Dennis, und James N. Druckman. 2010. Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review 104(4): 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Bernard C. 1963. The press and foreign policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini, Michael X., und Scott Keeter. 1993. Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science 37(4): 1179–1206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini, Michael X., und Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doob, Anthony N., und Glenn E. Macdonald. 1979. Television viewing and fear of victimization: Is the relationship causal? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(2): 170–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43(4): 51–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Entman, Robert M., Jörg Matthes, und Lynn Pellicano. 2009. Nature, sources, and effects of news framing. In The handbook of journalism studies, Hrsg. Karin Wahl-Jorgensen und Thomas Hanitzsch, 175–190. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eveland, William P. 2001. The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from nonelection, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research 28(5): 571–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eveland, William P., und R. Kelly Garrett. 2017. Communication modalities and political knowledge. In The Oxford handbook of political communication, Hrsg. Kate Kenski und Kathleen Hall Jamieson, 517–529. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Förster, Jens, und Nira Liberman. 2007. Knowledge activation. In Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles, Hrsg. Arie W. Kruglanski und Edward Tory Higgins, 201–231. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerbner, George, und Larry Gross. 1976. Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication 26(2): 172–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbner, George, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, und Nancy Signorielli. 1980. The „mainstreaming“ of America: Violence profile no. 11. Journal of Communication 30(3): 10–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, Martin. 2001. Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review 95(2): 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, Reid, und Bernadette Park. 1986. The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review 93(3): 258–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. Tory. 1996. Knowledge activation: Accessibility applicability and salience. In Social psychology. Handbook of basic principles, Hrsg. E. Tory Higgins und Arie W. Kruglanski, 133–168. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbert, R. Lance, Dhavan V. Shah, und Nojin Kwak. 2004. Fear, authority, and justice: Crime-related TV viewing and endorsements of capital punishment and gun ownership. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 81(2): 343–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, Shanto, und Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamieson, Patrick E., und Daniel Romer. 2017. Cultivation theory and the construction of political reality. In The Oxford handbook of political communication, Hrsg. Kate Kenski und Kathleen Hall Jamieson, 595–604. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerit, Jennifer, und Jason Barabas. 2006. Bankrupt rhetoric: How misleading information affects knowledge about social security. Public Opinion Quarterly 70(3): 278–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, Daniel, und Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47:263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kümpel, Anna, und Julian Unkel. 2021. Verarbeitung politischer Informationen. In Handbuch Politische Kommunikation, Hrsg. Isabelle Borucki, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, Stefan Marschall und Thomas Zerback. Berlin: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenz, Gabriel S. 2009. Learning and opinion change, not priming: Reconsidering the priming hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 821–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lind, Fabienne, und Hajo G. Boomgaarden. 2019. What we do and don’t know: A meta-analysis of the knowledge gap hypothesis. Annals of the International Communication Association 43(3): 210–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, George E., W. Russell Neuman, und Michael MacKuen. 2000. Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthes, Jörg. 2009. Identität und Vielfalt des Framing-Ansatzes. Eine systematische Analyse der Forschungsliteratur. In Identität und Vielfalt der Kommunikationswissenschaft, Hrsg. Peter Schulz, Uwe Hartung und Simone Keller, 117–131. Konstanz: UVK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthes, Jörg. 2012. Framing politics: An integrative approach. American Behavioral Scientist 56(3): 247–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthes, Jörg. 2014a. Framing. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthes, Jörg. 2014b. Kognition. In Handbuch Rezeptions- und Wirkungsforschung, Hrsg. Carsten Wünsch, Holger Schramm, Volker Gehrau und Helena Bilandzic, 13–28. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthes, Jörg, und Christian Schemer. 2012. Diachronic framing effects in competitive opinion environments. Political Communication 29(3): 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matthes, Jörg, Andreas Nanz, Marlis Stubenvoll, und Raffael Heiss. 2020. Processing news on social media. The political incidental news exposure model (PINE). Journalism 21(8): 1031–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, Maxwell E. 2005. A Look at Agenda-setting: Past, present and future. Journalism Studies 6(4): 543–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, Maxwell E. 2014. Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion, 2. Aufl. Cambridge, UK/Malden: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, Maxwell E., und Amy Reynolds. 2009. How the news shapes our civic agenda. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research, Hrsg. Jennings Bryant und Mary Beth Oliver, 3. Aufl., 1–16. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, Maxwell E., und Donald L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. The Public Opinion Quarterly 36(2): 176–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCombs, Maxwell E., Salma Ghanem, Federico Rey Lennon, R. Warwick Blood, Yi-Ning Chen, und Hyun Ban. 2011. International applications of agenda-setting theory’s Acapulco typology. In Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques, Hrsg. E. Page Bucy und R. Lance Holbert, 383–394. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Michael, und James Shanahan. 1997. Two decades of cultivation research: An appraisal and meta-analysis. Annals of the International Communication Association 20(1): 1–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Michael, James Shanahan, und Nancy Signorielli. 2009. Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research, Hrsg. Jennings Bryant und Mary Beth Oliver, 3. Aufl., 34–49. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, Michael, James Shanahan, und Nancy Signorielli. 2015. Yesterday’s new cultivation, tomorrow. Mass Communication and Society 18(5): 674–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moy, Patricia, Michael A. Xenos, und Verena K. Hess. 2006. Priming effects of late-night comedy. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18(2): 198–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, und Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review 91(03): 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, Pippa. 2000. A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies, Communication, society, and politics. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peter, Jochen. 2002. Medien-Priming – Grundlagen, Befunde und Forschungstendenzen. Publizistik 47(1): 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrocik, John R. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 825–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, Richard E., und John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Price, Vincent, und David Tewksbury. 1997. News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In Progress in communication sciences. Advances in persuasion, Hrsg. G. A. Barnett und F. J. Boster, 173–212. Greenwich: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, John P., und Mark R. Levy. 1996. News media use and the informed public: A 1990s update. Journal of Communication 46(2): 129–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roskos-Ewoldsen, David R., Mark R. Klinger, und Beverly Roskos-Ewoldsen. 2007. Media priming: A meta-analysis. In Mass media effects research advances through meta-analysis, Hrsg. Raymond W. Preiss, Barbara Mae Gayle, Nancy Burrell und Mike Allen, 53–80. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roskos-Ewoldsen, David R., Beverly Roskos-Ewoldsen, und Francesca R. Dillman Carpentier. 2009. Media priming: An updated synthesis. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research, Hrsg. Jennings Bryant und Mary Beth Oliver, 3. Aufl., 74–93. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, Dietram A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49(1): 103–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, Dietram A., und Shanto Iyengar. 2017. The state of framing research: A call for new directions. In The Oxford handbook of political communication, Hrsg. Kate Kenski und Kathleen Hall Jamieson, 619–632. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufele, Dietram A., und David Tewksbury. 2007. Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication 57(1): 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, L. J. 1995. Assessing the social influence of television: A social cognition perspective on cultivation effects. Communication Research 22(4): 402–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, L. J. 1996. Psychological processes underlying cultivation effects further tests of construct accessibility. Human Communication Research 22(4): 482–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, L. J. 2006. Processing strategy moderates the cultivation effect. Human Communication Research 27(1): 94–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrum, L. J., Jaehoon Lee, James E. Burroughs, und Aric Rindfleisch. 2011. An online process model of second-order cultivation effects: How Television cultivates materialism and its consequences for life satisfaction. Human Communication Research 37(1): 34–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Takeshita, Toshio. 2006. Current critical problems in agenda-setting research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 18(3): 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tichenor, Phillip J., George A. Donohue, und Clarice N. Olien. 1970. Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. The Public Opinion Quarterly 34(2): 159–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Vreese, Claes H. 2004. Primed by the Euro: The impact of a referendum campaign on public opinion and evaluations of government and political leaders. Scandinavian Political Studies 27(1): 45–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanta, Wayne, und Salma Ghanem. 2007. Effects of agenda setting. In Mass media Effects research advances through meta-analysis, Hrsg. Raymond W. Preiss, Barbara Mae Gayle, Nancy Burrell und Mike Allen, 37–51. Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Lu, und Douglas Blanks Hindman. 2011. Does the digital divide matter more? Comparing the effects of new media and old media use on the education-based knowledge gap. Mass Communication and Society 14(2): 216–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weimann, Gabriel, und Hans-Bernd Brosius. 2016. A new agenda for agenda-setting research in the digital era. In Political communication in the online world: Theoretical approaches and research designs, Hrsg. Gerhard Vowe und Philipp Henn, 26–44. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich

    Andreas Nanz

  2. Advertising and Media Effects Research Group, Institut für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Universität Wien, Wien, Österreich

    Jörg Matthes

Authors
  1. Andreas Nanz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jörg Matthes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Nanz .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Universität Duisburg-Essen, Duisburg, Germany

    Isabelle Borucki

  2. Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw

  3. Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Stefan Marschall

  4. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, München, Germany

    Thomas Zerback

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Nanz, A., Matthes, J. (2021). Kognitive Wirkungen politischer Kommunikation. In: Borucki, I., Kleinen-von Königslöw, K., Marschall, S., Zerback, T. (eds) Handbuch Politische Kommunikation. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26242-6_38-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26242-6_38-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-26242-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-26242-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften und Recht

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation