Search

In the aftermath of September 11, 200l, an unusually large percentage of Americans expressed high levels of confidence in the institutions charged with responding to the terrorist attacks. By the following summer, such confidence had declined significantly. This study draws on data from a panel study conducted in fall 2001 and summer 2002 to track Americans' emotional responses to terrorism and their levels of confidence in government institutions as well as to explore how these phenomena were related. It is focused on whether--and if so, how--the positive emotions of pride and hope influenced confidence in institutions and helped sustain that confidence over time. Positive relationships between hope, pride, and confidence during both study periods are found. Analysis of confidence and emotions over time suggests reciprocal relationships between confidence and hope. Taken as a whole, the findings point to the importance of considering the emotional sources and implications of confidence. Keywords: confidence in government; trust; affect: public opinion; terrorism; September 11: anxiety

This study argues that citizens base their opinions about world affairs in part on generalized beliefs about how much their nation can trust other nations. Using original data from a two-wave panel survey and a cross-sectional survey, we show that Americans hold stable, internally consistent, and largely pessimistic generalized beliefs about whether the United States can trust other nations. We find that social trust, political trust, partisanship, and age influence this form of trust, which we call international trust. We then demonstrate that international trust shapes whether Americans prefer internationalism to isolationism, perceive specific foreign nations as unfriendly and threatening, and favor military action against Iraq. The role of international trust in shaping opinion may be consistent with theories of low-information rationality, but competing interpretations are also plausible.

Those seeking to frame political issues to their advantage recognize the power of emotional appeals. Yet the study of framing has focused mainly on the cognitive effects of framing rather than on its emotional effects. This study presents the results of two experiments designed to explore the effect of episodic and thematic framing on emotional response and policy opinion. Participants were randomly assigned to read a column arguing against mandatory minimum sentencing that employed either a thematic or one of two episodic frames featuring a woman who received a harsh sentence under the policy. Episodic framing was more emotionally engaging. Furthermore, the specific emotions elicited by the episodic frame—sympathy and pity for the woman featured in the column—were associated with increased opposition to mandatory minimum sentencing. Yet the thematic frame was actually more persuasive once this indirect effect of frame on emotional response was taken into account. The results are consistent with the conclusion that framing effects on policy opinion operate through both affective and cognitive channels. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined whether news framing of policy debates shapes audience members' emotions. An experiment revolving around the issue of campaign finance reform tested the effects of conflict and substance coverage on anger and disgust among participants. Conflict coverage produced a conditional effect on these emotions, whereas substance coverage did not. Specifically, the extent to which conflict coverage provoked anger and disgust increased with prior support for the losing side of the debate (in this case, the pro-campaign finance reform side). Such effects may carry implications for political journalism and democratic politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]