Multiple Levels of Motivation for News Viewing: Theory of Planned Behavior versus. Elaboration Likelihood Model Predictions. Rebecca M. L.

Transcription

1 Levels of Motivation 1 Running Head: LEVELS OF MOTIVATION Multiple Levels of Motivation for News Viewing: Theory of Planned Behavior versus Elaboration Likelihood Model Predictions Rebecca M. L. Curnalia Kent State University Doctoral Candidate / Instructor School of Communication Studies Kent State University P.O. Box 5190 Kent, Ohio, Ph: (330) rlukasie@kent.edu

2 Levels of Motivation 2 The theory of planned behavior and elaboration likelihood model both have predictions about motivation and ability. The predictions of these separate theories are compared, and recent applications of these theories to media effects are critiqued. A model is proposed that includes behavioral predictions based on the theory of planned behavior and cognitive predictions based on the elaboration likelihood model.

3 Levels of Motivation 3 Multiple Levels of Motivation for News Viewing versus Elaboration: Theory of Planned Behavior versus Elaboration Likelihood Model Predictions Nabi and Hendriks (2003) argued, talk show segments that address topics of social concern can be conceptualized as persuasive messages, incorporating arguments and evidence supplied by the show s guests along with cues, like source attractiveness, that could carry influence (p. 327). The same can hold true for news reports. Reporters offer certain perspectives on issues by selecting which facts to relay, how much time to allocate to each relevant party involved, who to interview and, less frequently, offer their own opinions on topics. These commonly recognized components of news stories have the potential to aid in the formation of viewers attitudes for social issues and public figures (Entman, 1989). Therefore, when assessing the effects of exposure to news, it is necessary to examine the literature on attitude formation and change. For example, the theory of planned behavior and elaboration likelihood model could inform our understanding of the effects of exposure to news. The theory of planned behavior (TPB; Azjen, 1985) argued that individuals intention to engage in a behavior is predicted by their attitude toward the behavior, perception of social normative pressure to engage in the behavior, and perceived control over the behavior. The elaboration likelihood model (ELM; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), on the other hand, suggests that individuals must be both motivated and able to process a message and to cognitively elaborate on its content. Increased cognitive processing leads to greater message scrutiny; it results in more stable and lasting attitudes.

4 Levels of Motivation 4 Both of these theories include measures of motivation and ability. Specifically, the TPB accounts for normative pressure to engage in a behavior (motivation) and perceived control over the behavior (ability; Ajzen, 1985). Similarly, the ELM takes into account, for example, personal relevance and need for cognition (motivation) and prior experience (ability) in explaining the extent of processing. These two theories suggest that one must be both motivated and able to watch the news and motivated and able to process the news. Presumably, taking into account this two step process could further refine predictions of news use and outcomes. There may be two distinct forms of motivation during the news viewing process: motivation to watch and motivation to process. Therefore, this paper will include a discussion of motivational variables that likely influence whether individuals choose to watch the news. Next, motivational variables that influence whether viewers attend to, analyze, and integrate the information contained in news stories will be discussed in conjunction with the importance of measuring perceived ability. Review of Literature Theory of Planned Behavior The TPB asserts that the likelihood of engaging in a behavior is predicted by beliefs about the behavior and subjective norms toward engaging in the behavior (Ajzen, 1985). When individuals decide to engage in a behavior, according to the TPB, they assess (a) their beliefs about the outcomes of the behavior, (b) the likelihood that those beliefs are true, (c) and whether the outcome is favorable or not. In addition, individuals also consider (d) what others would want them to do, (e) how important others opinions are, and (f) whether they are able to perform the behavior. Applications of the TPB in

5 Levels of Motivation 5 mass communication research have frequently focused on the influence of media on the development of salient beliefs. Merging the theory of reasoned action, the theoretical precursor to the TPB, and cultivation theory, Nabi and Sullivan (2001) argued that television can be the source of people s salient beliefs about a behavior. In sum, they found that increased exposure to television intensified perceptions of society as a violent, scary environment. Further, these beliefs about society subsequently influenced viewers behavioral intention to protect themselves from crime. Similarly, Neuwirth and Frederick (2004) explained that, according to spiral of silence theory, individuals turn to the media for information about public opinion. They reasoned that the opinion climate presented by the media can influence peoples normative beliefs. Therefore, there is some evidence that the mass media can influence salient beliefs and subjective norms, both of which influence behavioral intention in the TPB. Griffin, Neuwirth, Giese, and Dunwood (2002) used propositions from the heuristicsystematic model (HSM) and theory of planned behavior (TPB) to examine individuals information seeking and cognitive processing of risk related information. Griffin et al. argued that the HSM serves to predict information processing and, as a result, learning. The TPB, they reasoned, helps discern how these communication behaviors may influence beliefs, evaluations, attitudes, and, ultimately, the adoption and maintenance of preventative behaviors (p. 706). They argued that attitude outcomes, or relevant beliefs and evaluations of those beliefs, which predict behavioral intention, are determined by individuals processing level. Specifically, more effortful processing presumably leads to more beliefs being accessible in memory and more polarized evaluations of those beliefs.

6 Levels of Motivation 6 Griffin et al. found that increased processing did determine the number of accessible beliefs individuals had about the message target. Griffin et al. s (2002) research is conceptually very similar to Lavine, Borgida, and Sullivan s (2000) study of the effect of issue relevance on information processing and attitude accessibility. Griffin et al., however, did not have a strong motivation manipulation in their study. Rather, they focused on the processing outcomes. Lavine et al. (2000), on the other hand, assessed personal relevance in relation to information processing, which is more clearly in-keeping with ELM literature. Further clarifying the potential influence of television on beliefs, Nabi and Hendriks (2003) found that talk show hosts reactions and guests reactions served as a cue about the topic being discussed. They found that viewers perceptions of the host biased their beliefs about the show s guests. Viewers perceptions of the guests influenced their perceptions of the strength of the guests arguments and the viewers attitude that resulted from exposure. Therefore, television exposure may influence salient beliefs. There is one important issue with these studies. The TPB was introduced to explain the likelihood of engaging in a behavior, not necessarily the likelihood of engaging in cognitive processing. Therefore, it is unclear whether TPB predictions about having positive beliefs about outcomes and supportive subjective norms about engaging in the behavior incite attention and processing or whether they are limited to predicting attention. The Cognitive Mediation Model versus Elaboration Likelihood Model ELM. The ELM has predictions about ability, motivation, and the implications for attitude change. There are two routes an individual may use to process a message: the

7 Levels of Motivation 7 central and peripheral routes (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The receiver of a persuasive message processes through the central route if he or she is motivated and able to process the message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986). When processing a message centrally, the receiver evaluates the quality of the arguments in the message. Processing via the central route to persuasion requires more message related thinking and results in greater attitude strength (Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1981). In contrast to the central route, Petty and Cacioppo (1981, 1986) also proposed a peripheral route to attitude change. Peripheral processing occurs when the receiver is either unmotivated or unable to process the persuasive message or both unmotivated and unable. Rather than evaluating the message, the receiver of the persuasive message attends to peripheral cues (Stiff, 1986) or characteristics of the persuasive context to develop his or her attitude. The peripheral route to persuasion, then, requires less cognitive energy (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981). Petty and Cacioppo (1981, 1986) asserted that attributes of messages that appeal to motives (i.e., maintaining face) are peripherally satisfied by attractive sources that meet the social expectations of the receiver. These types of cues are used to evaluate the success or failure of a persuasive message when peripheral processing occurs. CMM. Eveland s (2002) cognitive mediation model (CMM) employs key elements of the ELM to explain the cognitive effects of exposure to news. The CMM also includes differences in individuals motives for exposure to the news from the uses and gratifications tradition. Eveland (2001) proposed the CMM to explain how individuals motivation for processing information determined learning about political candidates from news. He situated viewing motives as a variable that determines the extent of

8 Levels of Motivation 8 processing. Eveland argued that increased motivation would lead to cognitive elaboration, which he explained as the process of connecting new information to other information stored in memory, including prior knowledge, personal experiences, or connection of two bits of information together in new ways (p. 573). This is one possible explanation of Griffin et al s (2002) findings. Specifically, effortful processing may influence integration, which in turn influences the types and number of salient beliefs about an issue. Also, in the CMM, surveillance motives would be more likely to incite active processing than, for example, motives to pass time or be entertained (Eveland, 2001). Surveillance motives include peoples need to be informed, and are considered more active orientations toward viewing. The more active gratifications, then, lead to increased attention which is related to greater elaboration. Increased elaboration causes an increase in information integration, thereby leading to more pronounced learning from news content. Eveland (2001) used three separate surveys to confirm this model. Two points of clarification are needed, though. First, Eveland s (2001) definition of, and measure for, cognitive elaboration is actually a definition and measure of cognitive integration. Cognitive integration is the process of connecting old information in memory to new information from the message (see Eagly & Chaiken for a detailed treatment of the difference). On the other hand, cognitive elaboration is the extent of message relevant thought (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Though Petty and Cacioppo (1986) did assert that complete elaboration and complete integration of message arguments were the final result of central processing, the integration assumption remains untested within the ELM

9 Levels of Motivation 9 framework. Therefore, elaboration and integration may both be outcomes, but they should not be treated as the same outcome. Second, In Eveland s (2001) model, learning from the news is a key outcome of cognitive elaboration. However, Petty, Priester, and Briñol (2002) explained, The cognitive response analysis attempted to account for the low correlation between message learning and persuasion (p. 163). They argued that cognitive responses, rather than the amount of learning in the form of recalled information, determine attitude outcomes. Therefore, in the ELM tradition, learning the message arguments is less central than the thoughts that individuals have about the message. Despite these ambiguities, Eveland, Shah, and Kwak s (2003) subsequent analysis of the mediating relationships proposed in the CMM further substantiated the model. In a longitudinal survey study, they found that surveillance motivations predicted increases in knowledge about presidential candidates. However, they failed to support the hypothesis that surveillance motivations were related to elaboration on news content. They suggested examining perceptions of media sources as a different form of motivation to elaborate. There is substantial evidence that motivation is related to learning from the news and attitude differences. For example, Lo (1994) found that involvement was related to learning from the news. Similarly, Perse (1990) found that more active viewing motives increased retention of information in news programs. However, learning is conceptually different from elaboration and integration of information. Specifically, a person can temporarily retain details of news stories, or learn information. However, integration of information into existing memory structures may be more effortful than storing news details in short term memory.

10 Levels of Motivation 10 I argue, therefore, that viewing motives, along with subjective norms, are components of motivation better suited to explaining individuals disposition toward paying attention to news stories. On the other hand, other motivational variables, such as need for cognition and perceived personal relevance, are variables that have been found to influence the extent of processing. Therefore, Eveland et al. s (2003) null results were likely the result of a faulty conceptualization of motivation to cognitively process as opposed to motivation to perform a behavior. Viewing Motives Uses and gratifications theory explains viewers motives for using the news. Specifically, basic human needs produce motives that then lead to behaviors to gratify those needs (Rubin, Perse, & Barbato, 1988, p. 606). The motives identified for general television viewing include: information-learning, entertainment, financial feasibility, convenience, companionship, relaxation, passing time, arousal, topic development, behavioral guidance, escapism, advertising, and social interaction (Rubin & Rubin, 1982). Rubin (1984) found that viewing motives are either ritualistic or instrumental. Ritualistic viewing motives are more passive, whereas instrumental viewing motives are more purposive and active. While viewing motives may be a predictor of attention, they have been linked to mass media effects. For example, Ex, Janssens, and Korzilius (2002) analyzed the effect of viewing motives on the cultivation of attitudes from television. They found that individuals with ritualistic viewing motives experienced increased cultivation of portrayals on television compared to individuals with more instrumental

11 Levels of Motivation 11 motives. Therefore, it is important to identify whether viewing motives are based on cognitive needs and are related to the extent of processing. However, it is unclear whether viewing motives function in the same way as individual and situational motivational variables identified in persuasion literature and applied in the ELM framework. For example, the TPB identifies subjective norms as a form of motivation to perform a behavior (e.g., people s expectations about one s informedness would influence their intention to watch the news). Further, viewing motives may be related to salient beliefs about the outcome of a behavior. Specifically, the environmentally created needs that one experiences may determine whether they pay attention to a news show. From this perspective, viewing motives are more behavioral than cognitive forms of motivation (e.g., Slater, 1997). Specifically, viewing motives may be linked to the decision to attend to a message whereas motivational variables such as personal relevance, involvement, and need for cognition may be related to motivation to process. Motivation in the ELM Accuracy, defense, and impression motivation. Chaiken, Giner-Sorolla, and Chen (1996) distinguished accuracy, defense, and impression motivations as potential explanations of motivation to systematically versus heuristically process messages. Accuracy motivations are rooted in receivers desires to have valid beliefs about the topic. Defense motivations are based on individuals desire to have consistent attitudes and beliefs. Finally, impression motivations result from people s need to meet social objectives by having certain beliefs and attitudes. Neuwirth, Frederick, and Mayo (2002) explained that individuals sufficiency threshold, or the gap between people s perceived

12 Levels of Motivation 12 present knowledge level and their desired knowledge level, can increase systematic processing of news. This, then, serves as an additional motivational variable. Neuwirth et al. (2002) found that both information sufficiency and accuracy motivations determine the extent of central processing of news content. Outcome relevant involvement. Petty and Cacioppo (1979) explained that involvement increases as a message is perceived as personally important, meaningful, or consequential to receivers. They manipulated personal relevance in an experimental treatment by including a description of the author as an someone working on implementing a program at another university (low relevance) or someone implementing a program at their own school (high relevance). Their results showed that high personal relevance induced central processing, whereas low personal relevance caused peripheral processing (see also Petty et al., 1981, Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1984; Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). Subsequent research has suggested that involvement is more multifaceted and situation specific (i.e., Johnson & Eagly, 1989). Johnson and Eagly (1989) found that there are three types of involvement that influence the extent of motivation to actively process: outcome relevant involvement, impression relevant involvement, and value relevant involvement. For example, individuals could feel that they are personally affected by the outcomes related to a message. In addition to having a personal stake in outcomes, people may also feel that their values are challenged. Finally, people may also feel social pressure to know or understand message content. As an example of how personal relevance functions during television viewing, Southwell (2004) examined encoding of advertising content at varying levels of

13 Levels of Motivation 13 relevance. Southwell employed a measure of past drug use as an indicator of the relevance of drug related advertisements. However, the researcher did not find a significant relationship between experience with drugs and encoded exposure to drug related advertisements. This may have been the result of a conceptually weak operationalization of relevance. For example, Wu and Schaffer (1987) considered prior experience with a topic as an ability variable rather than motivational. Anticipated communication / task importance. Atkin (1972) found that anticipated communication with others, in addition to interest in an election, related to increased information seeking. Information seeking is the process of actively looking for information on a particular topic in the media. In this study, Atkin found that anticipating social interactions increased motivation to attend to information on particular issues. However, it is unclear whether this may also influence the extent of processing or if it is solely a behavioral rather than cognitive motivator. Specifically, Atkin s (1972) conceptualization is more in keeping with theory of planned behavior assumptions about normative pressure to engage in a behavior. The assumption that anticipated conversation may be a cognitive motivator is in keeping with Chaiken s (1980) results. Chaiken also found that anticipating a discussion about a message increases motivation and subsequent information processing. Chaiken and Maheswaran (1994) manipulated task importance by telling participants in their study that their responses to a persuasive message were either important (weighted heavily in a marketing decision) or unimportant (not weighted heavily). Increased task importance did lead to increased elaborative processing. However, task importance has not been examined as a motivational factor in exposure to

14 Levels of Motivation 14 news. For situations such as, for example, voting, task importance can vary among people. Therefore, the importance of the voting decision may influence motivation to attend to and actively process news content. For example, Ohr and Schrott (2001) found that political involvement increased information seeking, as did the likelihood of engaging in political discussions. The distinction between normative pressure to engage in a behavior and social pressure to be informed may prove to be significant in distinguishing between behavioral disposition toward, versus cognitive outcomes of, news exposure. Need for cognition. Need for cognition (NFC; Cacioppo & Petty, 1982) is a receiver characteristic that determines an individual s predisposition to enjoy effortful cognitive tasks. Individuals high in NFC elaborate more on message content than individuals low in NFC as a result of their increased motivation. The NFC scale distinguishes between individuals who have a predisposition to enjoy effortful thought and individuals who avoid thinking deeply (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). As with personal relevance, individuals high in NFC are more persuaded by the quality of the message. Individuals high in NFC also demonstrated greater recall of arguments from the persuasive message and reported more effortful consideration of the communication (Cacioppo, Petty, Kao, & Rodriguez, 1986). Individuals low in NFC relied more heavily on peripheral cues such as audience reactions (Axom, Yates, & Chaiken, 1987). Haugtvedt and Petty (1992) found that high NFC is correlated with attitude stability. Cacioppo et al. (1986) also found that increased NFC leads to greater attitude-behavior consistency. In other words, NFC affects message processing. High NFC is related to increased cognitive effort, and low NFC is related to low cognitive effort. Increased

15 Levels of Motivation 15 cognitive effort, in turn, is related to more stable attitudes that are more predictive of behavioral intention. Ability in the ELM As mentioned earlier, the TPB includes a measure of perceived behavioral control, which is a measure of ability to perform a behavior. In addition to issues of people s ability to watch the news (e.g., access to news sources), there are also ability variables related to processing of content (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Time pressure. Time pressure is an experimental manipulation that limits individuals ability to give effortful thought to a message by limiting the amount of time allowed for participants to consider the message (Moore, Hausknecht, & Thamodaran, 1986). Moore et al. (1986) varied the amount of time people had to consider advertisements by using three levels of voice compression. They found that increased time compression led to less elaboration, less recall, and less overall attention. Time compression, then, may limit receivers ability in that receivers may not have time to consider information in the message. This is more relevant to television than print media forms. Specifically, television news allots a certain amount of time to each story in a broadcast. The time spent on a news item may limit response time and, therefore, limit elaboration on the information presented in the news story. However, in print media, people can read at their own pace and, as a result, can take the time they need to integrate the information they are reading into their existing knowledge structures. Modality. Clarifying the effects of communication modality on ability to process, Booth-Butterfield and Gutowski (1993) argued that print modalities afford readers more

16 Levels of Motivation 16 time to actively process and discount peripheral cues compared to audio and visual modalities. In their study, Booth-Butterfield and Gutowski used three message modalities: print, audio, and visual. They found that receivers in the print modality relied less on peripheral cues, whereas people in the audio and visual modalities relied more on peripheral cues. Sparks, Areni, and Cox (1998) manipulated language style in addition to modality; their results supported Booth-Butterfield and Gutownski s findings. Participants who read transcripts were persuaded more by argument quality than by peripheral cues. Modality manipulations, then, affect ability to elaborate on content, in keeping with the propositions of the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Specifically, written forms of messages afforded increased ability which lead to argument-based persuasion. Further, Chaiken and Eagly (1983) also found that exposure to print versus audio or visual modalities increased the attitudes after a time delay, but the results were only marginally significant. It is difficult to determine if the nature of the relationship between ability and modality from these experimental studies. Specifically, it is unclear whether individuals motivation to acquire information would lead them to a modality that enables elaboration, like print news. Further, there are also variations in television news. For example, PBS has The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, where substantial amounts of time are devoted to each news story. Conversely, thirty-minute local news shows are more prone to brief news stories that may compress ability. Further, radio shows like Rush Limbaugh, Talk of the Nation, and All Things Considered devote several hours to news, again affording more time for effortful processing. In sum, it is unclear whether the modality

17 Levels of Motivation 17 manipulations used in the experiments discussed here would substantially affect ability to elaborate on information, or whether the form of media people choose depends on their motivation to actively process. Message comprehensibility. In addition to the modality of the message, the comprehensibility of the message also influences people s ability to elaborate. Hafer, Reynolds, and Obertynski (1996) argued that messages that are difficult to understand may affect the extent of cognitive elaboration receivers are able to generate. They found that message incomprehensibility increased reliance on peripheral cues. This has important implications for news viewership. Specifically, individuals may find general news or, certain topics in the news (e.g., politics), difficult to understand. This perceived issue complexity could either determine which modality they select, or simply determine the likelihood of attending to any form of news. Prior experience. Prior experience with a message topic can influence the extent of processing because individuals with experience are more able to integrate the information (Wu & Shaffer, 1987; Wood, Rhodes, & Biek, 1995). Wu and Shaffer (1987) found that people with attitudes based on personal experience were less persuaded by peripheral cues than individuals with indirect experience. As an application of this variable, Rhee and Cappella (1997) found that individuals with more general knowledge of politics were able to learn more and create more developed arguments than individuals without prior knowledge. Their findings suggest that having an existing schema for a topic, then, increases individuals ability to integrate new information. Taken together, these studies suggest that the topics covered in the news that individuals are familiar with

18 Levels of Motivation 18 or have personal experience with and that are perceived as easy to understand should be more easily integrated compared to unfamiliar topics. Conceptualizing and Operationalizing Motivation, Elaboration, and Integration The studies summarized here, though diverse in their focus and methodology, each identified unique components of motivation. Several key motivational components have been identified: subjective norms, viewing motives, accuracy, defense and impression motivations, personal relevance, task importance, anticipated conversation, and need for cognition. Similarly, several determinants of ability have been identified in the literature: perceived behavioral control, time pressure, modality, message comprehensibility, and experience with the topic. However, before beginning a discussion of measures of motivation and ability, it is important to consider the measurement of the outcomes that these variables predict. Outcome Measures Reflective integration is the incorporation of new information in the person s existing cognitive framework for understanding the subject (Kosicki & McLeod, 1990, p. 76). Kosicki and McLeod developed an integration scale to measure how much individuals think about news stories and attempt to integrate that new information with their prior knowledge. Integration is conceptually similar to Petty and Cacioppo s (1986) conceptualization of elaboration. Specifically, increased integration is an active level of processing, similar to central processing. However, as mentioned early, they are not synonymous terms. The integration scale includes items measuring nine indicators of processing: (a) trying to understand the personal implications of news stories, (b) perceived knowledge

19 Levels of Motivation 19 about issues, (c) interest in news items, (d) talking to others about news stories, (e) thinking about stories, and (f) looking for more information on stories (Kosicki & McLeod, 1990; see Appendix A). Though the scale was reliable, it may not be a valid instrument. Specifically, in the scale there are items that are related to motivation (e.g., talking with others), which is a predictor of processing rather than an outcome of processing. The scale also includes outcome variables (e.g., thinking about items). For a valid outcome measure, the scale should focus specifically on cognitive elaboration. Further, though it is referred to by the authors as a scale of integration, it appears to actually be measuring elaboration, or the extent of thought about the message. Conversely, Eveland s elaboration scale appears to actually be measuring integration. Eveland (2001) argued that increased motivation leads to more cognitive integration. Eveland developed an elaboration scale with constructs that were very similar to Kosicki and McLeod s (1990) integration scale. Eveland s scale focuses more specifically on thinking about news items, relating news items to existing knowledge, recalling news items, and interpreting news items. Eveland s measures seem to be more intuitively related to integration as an outcome, whereas Kosicki and McLeod s (1990) scale appears to be more focused on elaboration. For example, Eveland s (2001) scale includes linking information to existing knowledge structures, which is part of the process of integration. However, Kosicki and McLeod s measure assess how much people think about news items, which is related to elaboration. Similarly, Griffin et al. (2002) proposed a measure of heuristic versus systematic processing. Two of the items in their scale appear to be measuring both motivation and active processing. Specifically, those items inquire about the potential to have to act on a

20 Levels of Motivation 20 topic, which is related to task importance. However, beyond those items, the remaining seven items in their scale are semantically very similar to Eveland s (2001) items. Griffin et al. s scale assesses relating old information to the message topic, amount of thinking about the message, and perceptions of how much information is sufficient to make a determination on the issue (the sufficiency threshold). It is unclear whether any of these scales directly measure cognitive elaboration versus integration. In the ELM, elaboration is traditionally measured with the thoughtlisting task, where the message relevant thoughts receivers have are counted to determine the extent of elaboration (e.g., Petty, Cacioppo, & Goldman, 1982). Therefore, both the integration scale proposed by Kosicki and McLeod and the elaboration scale proposed by Eveland (2001) should be used in conjunction with a thought-listing task to test their validity. Motivation Measures Viewing motives. Both Rubin (1984) and Eveland (2001) provide measures of motivations for watching news. Rubin s viewing motive scale includes measures of watching television to relax, because there is nothing else to do, because it is entertaining, to find information, or watching television as a social activity (see Appendix D for the complete scale). However, Eveland s scale focuses solely on indicators of surveillance motives (e.g., using the news to find facts, to learn, to make judgments, etc.). It is unclear whether Eveland s measure is tapping the same variables that Rubin s scale categorizes. It may be necessary to compare the results of each of these scales to further explain whether Eveland et al. s (2003) results were due to invalid instruments or misapplication of a motivational variable.

21 Levels of Motivation 21 Accuracy, defense, and impression motivations. Chaiken, Giner-Sorolla, and Chen (1996) identified accuracy, defense, and impression motivations. However, a scale for measuring these distinct motivations was not provided. Therefore, a scale is proposed based on their operational definitions (see Appendix D). Accuracy motivations are measured on five items that measure importance of being informed, holding accurate opinions, being up-to-date, being educated on topics, and perceived importance of validating information. Defense motivations are measured with four items relevant to news viewing: news as a source of attitude-relevant information, news as a source to substantiate beliefs, news to check for agreement between self and others, and news as a method of comparing one s way of life to others. Finally, impression motivations are measured on four items: expectations to be conversant on topics, using the news to develop talking points, using the news to sound informed in conversations, and perceived social expectations to know about topics. Personal relevance. Petty and Cacioppo (1979) explained that involvement increases as the topic is perceived as more personally important, meaningful, or consequential to receivers. However, because personal relevance is typically manipulated in ELM studies, there is not scale available beyond the single item manipulation check typically employed in post-test questionnaires. Therefore, based on their conceptualization of personal relevance, a scale was developed (see Appendix F). The scale includes general measures of people s perception of the importance of news items to their daily lives. Motivation in the TPB. Motivation in the TPB includes the beliefs about the outcome of the behavior and subjective norms for engaging in the behavior (Azjen,

22 Levels of Motivation ). For example, to establish the salience of a belief within the TPB, individuals may be asked if they believe that the news is a good way to learn about events in the world. To determine the perceived outcome, then, people would be asked whether they think it is valuable to know about events in the world. Once beliefs toward the behavior are established, people would be asked whether other people would want them to engage in a behavior. Participants would then be asked to evaluate how important other people s opinions are to them. Therefore, to determine whether people are motivated to watch the news, they can be presented with a set of potential outcomes of exposure (e.g., learning about issues) and evaluate those outcomes on a semantic differential scale (e.g., favorable to unfavorable), then be asked to project the likelihood of the outcome (e.g., very likely to very unlikely). Finally, a series of questions could be asked to determine who (e.g., family, friends, coworkers, classmates, instructors, etc.) would expect them to watch the news and how important that person or group is to them (e.g., very important to not at all important). Ability Measures Given the proposition of both the TPB and ELM that individuals must be able to engage in the behavior and able to cognitively process, it is important to include controls for perceived ability in studies examining the integration of news content. Specifically, Eveland s (2001) study did not include measures of ability, which may account for his failure to find a relationship between motivation and elaborative processing. In the ELM, individuals must be both motivated and able to process the message for cognitive elaboration to occur (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In the absence of ability, it is unlikely that individuals would integrate news items. It could be argued that most news is

23 Levels of Motivation 23 relatively accessible; however, this does not ensure that individuals perceive themselves as able to access and understand news items. For example, people may not feel that they have time to watch or read the news (perceived behavioral control), or that issues covered in news are too complex to understand (cognitive ability). A scale to measure ability and perceived behavioral control could be used to control for these antecedent conditions: perceived time restraints, modality limitations, perceived comprehensibility, and prior experience (see Appendix H). Model Propositions The operationalization of variables proposed here will be used to test the major assumptions of the TPB, ELM, and CMM. First, regarding the distinction between motivation within the ELM, TPB, and CMM: Proposition 1: The sum of beliefs about the outcomes of watching the news, combined with subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, will predict attention to news, but not elaboration on news content. Proposition 2: Viewing motives will be related to the perceived consequences of exposure to news and unrelated to elaboration. Proposition 3: The combined motivational variables (relevance, NFC, anticipated conversation, and accuracy and defense motives) will predict elaboration. Second, the following propositions are related to the role of ability in the ELM: Proposition 4: Perceived cognitive ability will be related to elaboration on news content. Regarding the issue of modality (see appendix I), two propositions are offered:

24 Levels of Motivation 24 Proposition 5: Both motivation and ability will predict the modality of news individuals select to watch. Proposition 6: Individuals high in both cognitive ability and cognitive motivation will elaborate more on news content regardless of the modality selected. The final proposition, then, relates to the two stage process being proposed and the two potential outcomes: Proposition 7: Individuals must be both motivated to attend (i.e., have active viewing motives) and be motivated to process (i.e., personal relevance) for elaboration to occur. Proposition 8: Elaboration is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for integration to occur. Conclusion These propositions provide the opportunity to clarify Eveland s (2001) findings on the role of motivation in determining the extent of news processing. Specifically, the scales proposed and hypotheses offered mark a return to the original predictions of the ELM. The ELM suggests that individuals must be both motivated and able to elaborate on a message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Subsequent research identified clear motivation and ability variables that influence the extent of processing, some of which have been confounded in outcome measures in mass communication research, as in the reflective integration scale (Kosicki & McLeod, 1990). It is important to make a clear distinction between predictors of elaboration and the integration that is predicted. Factor analytic techniques and reliability measures are insufficient to separate potentially highly

25 Levels of Motivation 25 correlated variables like motivation, ability, and integration, despite the fact that they serve different functions in the process of message evaluation. Further, researchers need to be careful about the situation of variables within the ELM framework. Viewing motives are the needs that individuals wish to fulfill by engaging in a behavior (Rubin, 1984). Azjen (1985) argued that the TPB predicts behavior based on the idea that all behavior is goal driven. Rather than conceptualizing viewing motives as an individual variable that influences the likelihood of elaboration, viewing motives may be related to salient beliefs about the outcome of news viewing, or the goals associated with the behavior. In sum, viewing motives are likely part of the outcomes individuals anticipate from watching the news rather than a determinant of those outcomes. Finally, mass communication research has failed, to date, to include ability as a key predictor variable in the process of message elaboration. It is reasonable to assume that news is relatively accessible to most people. However, researchers need to further examine whether people perceive themselves to be able to access and process the news. Examining ability, in addition to the motivational variables discussed earlier, should clarify the potential application of the ELM to explanations of the effects of news. Once the mechanisms by which persuasion could occur as a result of exposure to news have been identified, research can begin to address Entman s (1999) and Nabi and Hendriks (2003) suggestion that attitudes can be influenced by exposure to television. Further, as researchers develop their understanding of the attitudinal effects of exposure to television, it will likely confirm Nabi and Sullivan s (2001) and Griffin et al. s (2002) findings that exposure to television also makes certain beliefs more salient. In sum, there

26 Levels of Motivation 26 is likely a two step process at work: motivation and ability to attend to messages and motivation and ability to cognitively elaborate message components. As elaboration and integration occur, attitudes and salient beliefs, and resulting behavioral decisions, will fluctuate.

27 Levels of Motivation 27 References Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp ). New York: Springer-Verlag. Atkin, C. K. (1972). Anticipating communication and mass media information-seeking. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, Axsom, D., Yates, S. M., & Chaiken, S. (1987). Audience response as a heuristic cue in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, Booth-Butterfield, S., & Gutowski, C. (1993). Message modality and source credibility can interact to affect argument processing. Communication Quarterly, 41, Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, R. (1986). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1983). Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorella, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and

28 Levels of Motivation 28 impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp ). New York: Guilford Press. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, Entman, R. M. (1989). How the media affect what people think: An information processing approach. Journal of Politics, 51, Eveland, W. P. Jr. (2001). The cognitive mediation model of learning from the news: Evidence from non-election, off-year election, and presidential election contexts. Communication Research, 28, Ex, C. T., Janssens, J. M., & Korzilius, H. P. (2002). Young females' images of motherhood in relation to television viewing. Journal of Communication, 52, Griffin, R. J., Neuwirth, K., Giese, J., & Dunwoody, S. (2002). Linking the heuristicsystematic model and depth of processing. Communication Research, 29, Haugtvedt, C. P., & Petty, R. E. (1992). Personality and persuasion: Need for cognition moderates the persistence and resistance of attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, Johnson, B. & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, Kosicki, G. M., & McLeod, J. M. (1990). Learning from political news: Effects of media

29 Levels of Motivation 29 images and information-processing strategies. In S. Kraus (Ed.), Mass communication and political information processing (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lavine, H., Borgida, E., & Sullivan, J. L. (2000). On the relationship between attitude involvement and attitude accessibility: Toward a cognitive-motivational model of political information processing. Political Psychology, 21, Lo, V-h. (1994). Media use, involvement, and knowledge of the Gulf War. Journalism Quarterly, 71, Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, Moore, D. L., Hausknecht, D., & Thamodaran, K. (1986). Time compression, response opportunity, and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, Nabi, R. L., & Hendriks, A. (2003). The persuasive effect of host and audience shots in television talk shows. Journal of Communication, 71, Nabi, R. L., & Sullivan, J. L. (2001). A cultivation analysis from a theory of reasoned action perspective. Communication Research, 28, Neuwirth, K., & Frederick, E. (2004). Peer and social influence on opinion expression: Combining the theories of planned behavior and spiral of silence. Communication Research, 31, Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2002). Person-effects and heuristic-systematic processing. Communication Research, 29, Ohr, D., & Schrott, P. R. (2001). Campaigns and information seeking: Evidence from a German state election. European Journal of Communication, 16,

30 Levels of Motivation 30 O Keefe, G. F., Mendelsohn, H., & Liu, J. (1976). Voter decision making: 1972 and Public Opinion Quarterly, 40, Perse, E. M. (1990). Media involvement and local news effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, Rhee, J. W., & Cappella, J. N. (1997). The role of political sophistication in learning from news. Communication Research, 24, Rubin, A. M. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34, Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1982). Older persons' TV viewing patterns and motivations. Communication Research, 9, Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication

31 Levels of Motivation 31 Research, 14, Slater, M. D. (1997). Persuasion processes across receiver goals and message genres. Communication Theory, 7, Slater, M. D. (1999). Integrating application of media effects, persuasion, and behavior change theories to communication campaigns: A stages-of-change framework. Health Communication, 11, Southwell, B. G. (2005). Between messages and people: A multilevel model of memory for television content. Communication Research, 32, Sparks, J. R., Areni, C. S., & Cox, K. C. (1998). An investigation of the effects of language style and communication modality on persuasion. Communication Monographs, 65, Wu, C., & Shaffer, D. R. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, Wood, W., Rhodes, & Biek, M. (1995). Working knowledge and attitude strength: An information processing analysis. In R. Petty & J. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.