Popis: |
Based on research on framing effects and biased cognitive processing, this study investigates the role of biased cognitive processing and group cues in frames-in-thought following exposure to identity-related frames. Research on selective exposure and cognitive dissonance suggests that individuals prefer attitude-consistent messages. Exposing oneself only to confirmatory information leads to higher attitude strength and polarisation. However, as people increasingly rely on social media platforms to access their news, they are more likely to be exposed to counter-attitudinal messages. Still, attitude polarisation on topics such as immigration and asylum and climate change grows ever stronger, suggesting that selective exposure only partly explains attitude polarisation for some of these topics. This study proposes that, in addition to selective exposure and filter bubbles, confirmatory bias plays a significant role in reinforcing existing attitudes – leading to higher polarisation. More specifically, cognitive bias is a systematic thought process caused by the tendency of the human brain to simplify information processing through a filter of personal experience and preferences. Thus, biased processing implies using schema, prior attitudes and other internal and peripheral cues to maintain and defend prior attitudes and belief systems. For highly polarised issues – such as immigration, asylum or climate change, on which people have strong prior attitudes – it can be expected that individuals will prioritise this type of information processing. Based on research on framing effects and biased cognitive processing, this study posits that, when exposed to frames-in-communication that emphasise some aspects of an issue, individuals may assign more or less salience to those considerations depending on whether they confirm or clash (respectively) with their prior attitudes and social identities. We test this assumption in a between-subject experiment using a German sample (N=200). Specifically, this study will test how outgroup (peripheral) cues influence identity-related frames-in-thought following exposure to a real-life article framing refugees and integration policies. We manipulate the nationality of the outgroup of reference: Syrian (Condition 1) and Ukrainian (Condition 2). We expect that – despite the only treatment variation being the outgroup of reference – there will be significant differences in frames-in-thought across these conditions. More specifically, participants in the Syrian condition will report higher assimilation frames-in-thought than those in the Ukrainian condition. Conversely, we expect those in the Ukrainian versus Syrian condition to report higher multicultural frames-in-thought. Finally, since refugees are often represented as more culturally diverse (i.e., Muslims from outside of Europe) in the media and public discourse, we expect that frames-in-thought in the non-nationality condition will be similar to those in the Syrian condition. Additionally, Islamophobia and secular critique of Islam will moderate the relationship between frame exposure and frames-in-thought in that, in the Syrian condition, these variables will be positively related to assimilation frames-in-thought and negatively to multicultural frames-in-thought. In turn, European identification will be negatively related to assimilation frames-in-thought in the Ukrainian condition but positively related in the Syrian condition. |