{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027306967984934087, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002824858757062147, 'mean_word_length': 5.403614457831325, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Shifting Frames: Conditional Indirect Effects of Contested Issues on Perceived Effectiveness Through Multiple Emotions

Prior research has found that exposure to news frames can cause emotional responses to political issues. Yet, little is known about how different combinations of news frames and issues relate to discrete emotions and whether these emotions, in turn, affect issue perceptions. The present study investigates these questions by testing whether (a) the effects of news articles, featuring highly versus moderately contested policy issues on perceived policy effectiveness (PPE), are mediated by three discrete emotions (anger, fear, and hope) and (b) if these effects depend on the type of generic news frame used (human interest vs. economic consequences). An online experimental survey (N = 405) demonstrated that the effects of issue contestation on PPE were mediated by hope and anger, but not by fear. These effects were only apparent within a human interest frame. The theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.