ABSTRACT
While most studies on attitudinal media effects are concerned with a comparable scientific question they do not always coincide in their theoretical approach. In the present paper, we show that this state of affairs has caused controversies about the meaning and testability of specific types of attitudinal media effects – in particular, framing, cultivation, priming, and persuasion effects. We argue that such disagreements are misguided and could be prevented by adopting four Principles as a meta-theoretical basis for all studies on attitudinal media effects. We show what these Principles imply for theory formulation, and we discuss how they relate to empirical falsification procedures.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Lennert Coenen (PhD, KU Leuven, 2017) is a Postdoctoral Fellow and lecturer at the Leuven School for Mass Communication Research (KU Leuven). His research is mainly directed at theory development in the area of media effects on public opinion.
Jan Van den Bulck (PhD, KU Leuven, 1996) is a full Professor at Department of Communication Sciences (University of Michigan). His research interests include the role of the media in the social construction of reality, cognitive approaches to media effects, and fiction effects (e.g., cultivation theory).
ORCID
Lennert Coenen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7542-337X
Jan Van den Bulck http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0885-0854