Annals of the International Communication Association

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/rica20

Conceptualizing long-term media effects on

societal beliefs

Adam Shehata, Dennis Andersson, Isabella Glogger, David Nicolas

Hopmann, Kim Andersen, Sanne Kruikemeier & Johannes Johansson

To cite this article: Adam Shehata, Dennis Andersson, Isabella Glogger, David Nicolas
Hopmann, Kim Andersen, Sanne Kruikemeier & Johannes Johansson (2021) Conceptualizing
long-term media effects on societal beliefs, Annals of the International Communication
Association, 45:1, 75-93, DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2021.1921610

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1921610

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 04 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8733

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rica20
ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION
2021, VOL. 45, NO. 1, 75–93
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2021.1921610

Conceptualizing long-term media effects on societal beliefs

Adam Shehataa, Dennis Anderssona, Isabella Glogger a, David Nicolas Hopmannb,
Kim Andersen a,b, Sanne Kruikemeier c and Johannes Johansson a
a
Department of Journalism, Media and Communication, University of Gothenburg, Göteborg, Sweden; bCentre for
Journalism, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark; cAmsterdam School of Communication Research
(ASCoR), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article critically examines long-term media effects in communication Received 1 August 2020
research. Focusing on news exposure, the purpose is to provide a review Revised 14 April 2021
and theoretical conceptualization of long-term effects on societal beliefs. Accepted 15 April 2021
The first part presents an empirical overview of research published in
KEYWORDS
leading communication journals. While longitudinal studies are not Media effects; long-term;
uncommon, few have an explicit and elaborated focus on long-term schema theory; societal
influences. To advance future research, the second part builds on beliefs; agenda-setting;
cognitive schema theory to develop three distinct ways of cultivation; framing
conceptualizing long-term effects: in terms of (a) effect duration, (b)
effect mechanisms and (c) effect dynamics. Finally, the third part
condenses a comprehensive literature review into a multilevel
framework model of factors contributing to long-term media effects on
societal beliefs.

Public opinion rests on citizens’ perceptions of societal problems. How such perceptions are shaped
is, therefore, fundamental for democracy and political accountability (Kinder & Kiewiet, 1981; Mutz,
1998). In a classic 100 year-old quote, Lippmann succinctly captured the problem facing every citizen
in democratic societies: ‘[t]he world that we have to deal with politically, is out of reach, out of sight,
and out of mind’ (1922/1997, p. 18). Lippmann wrote in the very early days of the modern mass
media era, but his ideas on how the press shapes perceptions of the world outside have inspired
an entire field of political and mass communication research. Today’s discussions concerning misper-
ceptions, polarization, ‘fake news’ and social media underscore a consistent interest in the relation-
ship between media environments and worldviews among citizens.
Despite the accumulation of evidence for various media effects on public opinion, a question criti-
cal to the entire field remains unsettled: Under what conditions are media effects consequential and
long-lasting, as opposed to transient and short-lived? This question reflects a mismatch between
media effects theory and research designs employed in the field, a disconnection typically noted
in reviews of classic effect theories. For instance, Tewksbury and Scheufele (2009) note that
‘[f]raming effects are, almost exclusively, conceptualized as long-term in nature’ and that most ‘pol-
itical communication researchers […] are interested in the impact of exposure to messages on
enduring beliefs and opinions about an issue’ (p. 29). Still, the typical framing effects study is a
one-shot experiment. Another example comes from cultivation research, which explicitly theorizes
long-term influences on citizens’ beliefs about society. A review of almost 40 years of cultivation

CONTACT Adam Shehata [email protected] Department of Journalism, Media and Communication, University of
Gothenburg, Seminariegatan 1B, 41313, Göteborg, Sweden
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
76 A. SHEHATA ET AL.

research concluded that ‘the literature has moved toward a pattern of research practices that test
short-term reactions to specific message elements’ and therefore ‘[m]uch of what is labeled as culti-
vation research now is oriented toward testing claims made by many other media effects theories
much more than the claims made by cultivation theory’ (Potter, 2014, p. 1032). Similarly, Perse
and Lambe (2017) note that ‘much research has been limited to short-term manifestations of
‘effects’ that can be easily measured in laboratories or in surveys’, leading them to conclude that,
‘ … for the most part, research has not considered the effects of long-term, cumulative media
exposure’ (p. 15).
As these examples illustrate, classic theories of media effects emphasize the importance of long-
term influences of the media. Empirical studies, however, seldom reflect such conceptualizations or
assumptions. In this article, we examine long-term media effects in communication research, focus-
ing on the effects of news exposure. More specifically, our purpose is to provide a comprehensive
review and theoretical conceptualization of long-term media effects on societal beliefs.
To accomplish this goal, the article is organized into three main sections. First, we present an over-
view of empirical research in leading communication science journals. Focusing on agenda-setting,
cultivation and framing effects, this overview illustrates that most studies do not deal specifically
with long-term effects – and when they do, the approach to long-term effects is rather narrow.
Second, we build on cognitive schema theory to develop a more comprehensive conceptualization
of long-term media effects. Apart from the more typical (1) effect duration approach, this section
suggests (2) specific mechanisms and (3) a typology of effect dynamics as alternative ways of under-
standing long-term media effects. Based on this more elaborated conceptualization of long-term
effects, the third part of the paper condenses our literature review into a multilevel framework of
factors contributing to long-term media effects. A conditional effects model integrating news
content, recipient and context characteristics is proposed to explain belief formation in an increas-
ingly fragmented media environment. We end the paper with a call for more integrative approaches
to the study of long-term media effects as well as suggestions for future research avenues.

An overview of long-term media effects in published work

To inform our discussion about long-term media effects, we start by looking into empirical research
on three key theories in the field: agenda-setting, cultivation and framing. Agenda-setting theorizes
the transfer of salience of objects (first-level) and attributes (second-level) from the media agenda to
the public agenda, relying on accessibility effects as the primary mechanism (McCombs, 2014; Scheu-
fele, 2000). Cultivation theory focuses on how exposure to television influences societal perceptions
in line with the television portrayals, typically related to beliefs about the prevalence of crime
(Morgan & Shanahan, 2010). Finally, the accessibility, applicability and activation of cognitive
schemas play a key role in psychological models of framing effects (Chong & Druckman, 2007;
Price & Tewksbury, 1997; Scheufele, 2004).
Our overview focuses on research published in five top communication journals: Communication
Research, Journal of Communication, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Political Communi-
cation and Public Opinion Quarterly. Using the bibliometric research software ‘Harzing–publish or
perish’, we collected the articles that contained the name of each theory (i.e. agenda-setting, cultiva-
tion and framing), published between 1972 and 2019. A second search in all abstracts was then con-
ducted to uncover articles that use agenda-setting, cultivation or framing as central concepts,
resulting in approximately 2,300 articles in total. We finally selected only those articles that
focused on media effects on public opinion – excluding those focusing on elites, political actors
or media content only. The final sample consists of 131 articles (agenda-setting=61, cultivation=31
and framing=39).1 While this sample of journal articles cannot offer a complete picture of the huge
amount of research into these media effect theories, the collection represents important and influ-
ential studies that illustrate main tendencies and biases from a long-term media effects perspective.
We were particularly interested in the extent to which long-term effects are the main focus in these
 ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 77

studies and what research designs are used to capture these media effects – as well as how this
differs across the three theories. Two main findings emerged from this exploration.

1) Main focus: Though assumptions about long-term dynamics often remain implicit in studies of
agenda-setting, cultivation and framing, few empirical studies deal explicitly with long-term
effects as a main research question (15%). Two types of studies can be identified in this
regard. First, a number of framing effect studies address matters such as effect duration and long-
evity (e.g. Lecheler & de Vreese, 2011, 2013; Rhee, 1997; Tewksbury et al., 2000). By including
delayed post-test measurements – sometimes with additional in-between treatments – these
studies analyze how long framing effects last. Second, a few agenda-setting studies deal with
similar issues related to optimal cause–effect time lags. Combining media content and longitudi-
nal survey data, these studies seek to determine the time frame during which agenda-setting
operates (e.g. Neuman, 1990; Watt et al., 1993; Zhu et al., 1993).
2) Research design: While few studies have an explicit focus on addressing long-term effects, their
overall research designs may be more or less suitable for analyzing such dynamics empirically.
The research designs employed differ substantially across the three theories, which has signifi-
cant implications for the ability to capture long-term influences. Longitudinal approaches are,
for instance, most common in studies on agenda-setting (53%), followed by studies on
framing (33%) and cultivation (13%) effects. The longitudinal designs of agenda-setting and
framing studies are very different, however. While the typical longitudinal framing effects
study employs an experimental pretest-posttest design, with a relatively short time-lag (days
or weeks), longitudinal agenda-setting studies tend to focus on more long-term processes
(monthly or quarterly measurements). Another important methodological difference is that
nine out of ten agenda-setting (89%) and cultivation (90%) studies are based on observational
data, while framing effects research is heavily dominated by experimental designs (87%).

In short, despite the emphasis on long-term influences in media effects theory, our empirical over-
view indicates that very few studies actually deal explicitly with long-term effect dynamics. Instead,
they focus on other research questions. Most research addresses particular relationships and hypoth-
eses derived from the specific theories – such as the relationship between the media agenda and
public agenda (agenda-setting), television viewing and crime perceptions (cultivation) or media
frames and policy attitudes (framing) – without paying specific attention to time-related aspects
per se.
Most importantly, the few studies that do have some sort of long-term effects focus, rely on a
rather narrow understanding of long-term as a matter of optimal time lags and effect duration. As
we outline in the next section, this approach represents only one way of theoretically conceptualiz-
ing ‘long-term’ media effects. In the remainder of this article, we therefore seek to advance a more
comprehensive approach to the study of long-term influences, anchored in theories of cognitive
schemas.

Schema theory and three conceptualizations of long-term effects

Our proposed conceptualization of long-term media effects builds on theories of mental models and
cognitive schemas. This approach has important advantages. First, a schema perspective is broadly
applicable to a wide range of cognitive media effect theories, including agenda-setting, cultivation
and framing (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Fiske & Taylor, 2017; McCombs, 2014). Second, schema
theory provides a theoretical basis for elaborating on conceptual aspects of long-term influences
on societal beliefs.
Beliefs about society are anchored in cognitive schemas – the mental representations that struc-
ture perceptions of issues, events and actors. To simplify and comprehend the complex and chaotic
world outside, people organize their cognitive representations of various societal problems as
78 A. SHEHATA ET AL.

mental models, consisting of objects, attributes and relations between these attributes (Fiske & Taylor,
2017). Hence, societal beliefs can be specified as ‘associations people create between an object and
its attributes’ regarding societal matters (Cottam et al., 2016, p. 48; see also Eagly & Chaiken, 1998;
Potter, 2012). In addition to structuring knowledge, schemas (1) guide selective exposure, attention
and perception, (2) facilitate interpretation of incoming information and (3) reduce uncertainty and
allow inferences in new situations. Schemas, thus, help filling in the blanks when information is
missing (Matthes, 2008; Perse & Lambe, 2017).
Cognitive schemas are hierarchically structured with higher-order (abstract) representations sub-
suming lower-order (specific) representations of issues, events and actors. These mental represen-
tations are typically highly stable and resistant. Under specific circumstances, however, they are
also dynamic and open for change (Fiske & Taylor, 2017; Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009). People’s ten-
dency to strive for belief consistency means that schemas are preserved and maintained through
assimilation as incongruent information is adapted to fit preexisting schemas. Through accommo-
dation, in contrast, schemas are updated and revised in response to new information. Schema
change involves a variety of accommodations, such as (1) establishing new object attributes; (2)
strengthening or weakening of already existing object-attribute and attribute-attribute relations;
(3) replacing schema relevant cases as specific representations of objects; or (4) increasing
schema complexity and differentiation as domain-specific knowledge and expertise grow (Crocker
et al., 1984; Scheufele, 2004). We regard all such forms of schema change as accommodation. This
means that accommodation of schemas can generate a variety of belief dynamics involving the for-
mation, stability and change of specific beliefs – a topic elaborated upon below.
Schema theory allows us to clarify and develop our understanding of long-term media effects on
societal beliefs. Distinctions between short-term and long-term effects can be clarified by consider-
ing issues relating to the activation of preexisting schemas, the characteristics of schemas, as well as
the processes through which schemas accommodate. Accordingly, we outline three ways of concep-
tualizing long-term media effects: in terms of (1) effect duration, (2) effect mechanisms and (3) effect
dynamics. These conceptualizations emphasize specific theoretical issues with implications for
research design and measurements, but are not mutually exclusive. In particular, the conceptualiz-
ations provide three answers to the basic question: what is a long-term media effect?

Answer 1: long-term as a matter of effect duration

The first way of thinking about long-term effects was most prominent in our overview of studies on
agenda-setting, cultivation and framing – defining long-term from an empirical perspective. Long-

Figure 1. Long-term as effect duration.

 ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 79

term effects are those that survive some empirically defined time threshold, usually decided by the
research design employed. Figure 1 illustrates the basic idea behind long-term effects as a matter of
effect duration.
A typical short-term effect is the immediate activation of a preexisting schema following exposure
to certain content. The activation level may follow various decay curves as illustrated in Figure 1, but
schema activation entails no change of the schemas as such. Exposure to an issue-specific news
frame on immigration may, for instance, activate one of several preexisting cognitive schemas,
which, in turn, influences issue interpretations and overall assessments on whether immigration
has a positive or negative impact on society (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Matthes & Schemer,
2012). A long(er)-term effect displays a less steep decay curve (Chong & Druckman, 2010; Koch &
Arendt, 2017). Thus, long-term is simply defined in relative terms in contrast to short-term effects,
which are those that fade more quickly after exposure. Importantly, while Figure 1 illustrates a
very specific curve, the shape and rate of decay may vary significantly between media effects and
outcomes. The main conceptual distinction between short- and long-term effects is still the same,
however.
This way of addressing questions about the longevity of media effects is typical for agenda-
setting studies employing time-series analysis, as well as a number of framing experiments
looking at effect duration. Duration is often assumed to depend on the strength of the initial
effect, with the rate of decay reliant upon some moderator variable at the content, individual or con-
textual level (see framework model in part 3 below). Since duration primarily relies on schema acti-
vation as a source of influence – rather than accommodation of schemas – this approach reflects a
rather narrow understanding of long-term effects.

Answer 2: long-term as a matter of effect mechanisms

A second conceptualization builds on specific properties of cognitive schemas. Two schema dimen-
sions are important for understanding short and long-term media effects on societal beliefs: (1) level
of schema development and (2) level of schema abstraction.
On the one hand, people differ in how well developed their schemas for particular domains and
topics are. Experience, knowledge and expertise influence the amount of stored information, and
how well organized, connected and integrated such information is (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997;
Fiske & Taylor, 2017). Both between-person and between-domain differences are relevant here. A
person may be an expert with highly developed schemas in one area, but completely ignorant
(aschematic) on another (Crocker et al., 1984).
On the other hand, level of abstraction also matters. As noted above, schemas are hierarchically
ordered, with higher- and lower-ordered objects and attributes structured vertically – as well as sub-
categories at each vertical level organized horizontally. Individual schemas are also embedded in a
network of relationships, ranging from the more concrete and specific representations to higher
levels of abstraction (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997; Conover & Feldman, 1984). The distinction
between situation models, mental models and schemas is particularly fruitful here, since ‘there is
a continuum of abstractness along which mental representations exist, from a situation model
(least abstract) to a mental model to a schema (most abstract)’ (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009,
p. 85). While situation models contain representations of specific stories, actors and events,
schemas are more generic.
Situation models and schemas also vary in their degree of contextualization and mutability. Situ-
ation models of specific actors and events are constructed immediately, ‘on the fly’, as people
consume news stories. These traces of influence may – or may not – have subsequent impact on
higher-order mental representations. Thus, the more specific the mental representation, the
greater the potential (short-term) impact of communication (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2004; see
also Scheufele, 2004; Wyer & Radvansky, 1999). In contrast, since higher-order schemas are more
durable and generic than their lower-order counterparts, their applicability to various judgmental
80 A. SHEHATA ET AL.

Figure 2. Long-term as effect mechanisms.

tasks also extend beyond specific situations in both time and space. While situation models of
specific events or stories more quickly lose their impact, mental models and schemas can be acti-
vated for a longer period of time (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009).
Inspired by Mitchell (2012), Figure 2 summarizes the implications of these schema characteristics.
More than simply a matter of effect duration, long-term should be defined in terms of the type of
effect media have on societal beliefs – or the psychological mechanisms that link lower-order situ-
ation models to accommodation of higher-order schemas. In most cases, media effects are highly
transient and limited, momentarily affecting perceptions of specific narratives, events and characters
during exposure (situation models). A news story about a specific crime will create immediate per-
ceptions of the particular story, for example, how exactly the pickpocket stole the victim’s handbag.
This concrete sequence of events will, however, fade quickly from memory after exposure.
At other times, effects are more enduring, extending beyond the immediate situation by
influencing perceptions of somewhat broader sets of events or themes (mental models). Persistent
effects are those that also involve schema accommodation, targeting perceptions of broader
classes of events, actors and structures. Now more generic perceptions of crime, which go
beyond the specific pickpocketing story, are affected. These could include perceptions of the
state of affairs in the local community or crime developments in the country, the larger causes
and consequences of crime, or even more abstract beliefs about the trustworthiness of people
in general. Effects are long-term in the sense that accommodated schemas are broadly applicable
to various situations and highly stable over time. Thus, abstract schemas are less likely to change
than situation models in response to news coverage, but their long-term impact is far greater.
Long-term media effects depend on whether the initial formation and subsequent updating of
situation models in response to media stimuli translate into accommodation of higher-order
schemas that persist over time – schemas that can later be applied frequently and widely in a
variety of settings.

Answer 3: long-term as a matter of effect dynamics

A third way of conceptualizing long-term effects focuses on distinct effect dynamics that manifest
only over time. Changes at more specific levels of a schema do not always influence abstract
levels. Schema theory suggests three models of such change (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Crocker
et al., 1984). First, according to the bookkeeping model, schema adjustments occur incrementally
in response to belief-inconsistent information. Second, the conversion model describes fundamental
‘all-or-none’ shifts, in the sense that ‘schemata can change massively and suddenly in response to
dramatic or salient instances that deviate from prior experiences’ (Balogun & Johnson, 2004,
 ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 81

Figure 3. Long-term as effect dynamics.

Note: Each graph illustrates long-term effect dynamics of being repeatedly exposed to a negative or positive news frame. Variables displayed
include belief position (positive, neutral, negative), belief certainty (wider bounds = lower certainty), and number of exposures over time to
either a positive of negative news frame.

p. 525). Third, the subtyping model outlines change as a form of differentiation affecting the structure
of schemas. When incongruent information cannot be assimilated into a preexisting schema, subca-
tegories are created at more specific levels of the schema (Crocker et al., 1984; Fiske & Taylor, 2017).
Bookkeeping, conversion and subtyping offer a basis for understanding media effects through
the lens of specific short-term and long-term belief dynamics. Extending upon these general prin-
ciples of schema accommodation, as well as previous typologies of communication effects
(Matthes, 2007; Perse & Lambe, 2017; Potter, 2012; Scheufele, 2004), Figure 3 proposes a set of dis-
tinct media effect dynamics that manifest over a longer period of time only. Long-term, in this sense,
refers to a comprehensive conceptualization of unique dynamics of influence, allowing for combi-
nations of effect cumulation and non-linearity across time.
To illustrate the variety of distinct long-term effect dynamics, Figure 3 displays what happens to
citizens’ societal beliefs when they are repeatedly exposed to belief consistent or inconsistent news cover-
age over time. The typology builds on framing terminology to illustrate the key factors at work, yet it
provides a generic understanding of media effects on societal beliefs. Four variables are highlighted
in the figure: (1) Belief position along the y-axis refers to whether citizens hold positive or negative
perceptions about specific societal conditions – relating for instance to crime, health care, the
economy or immigration; (2) News frame refers to whether citizens are exposed to positively or nega-
tively framed news coverage of the specific issue; (3) Belief certainty, reflected by the grey-shaded
area surrounding the black belief position lines, refers to the certainty with which citizens hold a par-
ticular position; (4) Time along the x-axis refers to the number of over-time exposures to specific
news frames. The eight types of long-term media effects outlined are to be thought of as theoretical
constructs in the sense that they are ‘cleaned’ from any third variables that may condition these
effect dynamics (a topic discussed in the next section).
First, initial belief formation (Figure 3.1) describes situations when a new belief object appears on
the media agenda. With no prior object-specific beliefs, citizens initially become heavily reliant on
cues from the media. This situation is equivalent to having no (or very rudimentary) schemas in
specific domains – which lowers cognitive resistance barriers and opens for influence (Crocker
et al., 1984). Depending on the dominant news frame, beliefs will quickly adjust in a specific direction
82 A. SHEHATA ET AL.

through establishing new schemas or links between schemas (Scheufele, 2004). The fact that citizens
lack object-specific beliefs will leave them highly susceptible to strong initial effects, which gradually
weaken as the store of object-specific considerations accumulates and schemas become more well-
developed. Since belief positions crystalize with repeated exposure, belief certainty increases as
well – as illustrated by the narrower certainty margin around the position line.
Second, Figure 3 also outlines two effects on belief position stability. Gradual belief mainten-
ance (3.2) operates as a reminder effect (Asp, 1986; Matthes, 2007). Through repeated frame
exposure, people are constantly updated on beliefs they already hold. As noted by Matthes
(2007), ‘when media framing does not change, individuals will most likely retrieve the same infor-
mation as before, simply because they remember the same media frames as before’ (p. 66), but
‘in the absence of additional communication, framing effects rapidly decay over time’ (Chong &
Druckman, 2010, p. 665). The maintenance effect is a function of the accessibility mechanism;
continuous schema activation over time can potentially even result in chronic
accessibility (Koch & Arendt, 2017). Gradual belief reinforcement (3.3) also reflects belief position
stability. In this case, however, repeated exposure also increases the weight attached to certain
object-specific beliefs. As citizens encounter belief-congruent communication, they gradually
become more certain about those beliefs, making them harder to change (Potter, 2012;
Slater, 2007).
Third, five distinct media effects related to belief change are illustrated. In the case of gradual
belief polarization (3.4), prior belief positions successively turn more extreme in response to congru-
ent news frames. Such developments also come with increasing belief certainty. The opposite effect,
gradual belief moderation (3.5), takes place when people’s baseline beliefs become less extreme over
time. This moderation occurs when people are exposed to belief-incongruent news frames over
time: extreme beliefs weaken into more moderate beliefs, certainty into uncertainty. The contrasting
curved lines reflect that baseline belief position and certainty condition the trajectory of the change.
It takes more effort and time to initiate changes from strong belief positions (due to higher levels of
belief strength), than initiating changes of weakly held beliefs (Chong & Druckman, 2012; Matthes &
Schemer, 2012). In the case of gradual polarization, individuals respond quickly to belief-congruent
news frames, followed by diminishing marginal effects. Gradual belief moderation displays the oppo-
site pattern, with strongly held beliefs being more resistant to incongruent news frames initially, fol-
lowed by growing marginal effects. In both instances, however, citizens hold on to their initial
positions.
Societal beliefs can also undergo change through conversion effects. Gradual belief conversion
(3.6) is an extension of the moderation effect, in which citizens eventually also take on a different
belief position: from negative to positive or from positive to negative. Again, the curved lines
reflect that prior belief positions are initially insensitive to exposure to repetitive incongruent
frames. At a certain tipping point, the cognitive resistance barriers weaken and susceptibility
to belief changes increases. While gradual belief conversion describes a slow change process
that accumulates over time, the sudden temporary belief conversion (3.7) effect outlines a rapid
belief dynamic triggered by some external shock or event. In this case, a baseline belief position
quickly changes from negative to positive (or vice versa) in response to a powerful incongruent
news frame. Though such rapid ‘all-or-none’ conversion may be rather unusual (Balogun &
Johnson, 2004; Crocker et al., 1984), these effects are driven by the combination of high
levels of uncertainty, triggered by unexpected shocks to belief systems and particularly strong
news frames (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Matthes, 2007; McCombs, 2014). Without
continued support to sustain the belief conversion, the effect dissipates and gradually regresses
to baseline (Koch & Arendt, 2017). On the contrary, a sudden lasting belief conversion (3.8) effect,
which follows the same initial pattern as the temporary effect, also leads to a persistent
conversion.
Taken together, this way of conceptualizing long-term draws attention to the different belief
dynamics that media effects may induce – and which remain largely invisible in a short-term
 ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 83

perspective. Effect cumulation, non-linearity and timing are core factors of this dynamic approach to
long-term effects. The typology proposed in Figure 3 provides a framework for distinguishing various
dynamics that manifest over time only.

***
In sum, these three conceptualizations – effect duration, mechanisms, and dynamics – represent dis-
tinct ways of addressing long-term media effects in communication research, with implications for
theory, research design and measurements. While not mutually exclusive, they relate to specific
research questions ranging from (1) the duration of schema activation, (2) the mechanisms
behind schema accommodation, to (3) the dynamics through which schemas accommodate.

Factors influencing long-term media effects: a multilevel framework

After conceptualizing long-term media effects as questions of duration, mechanisms, and dynamics,
we now turn to factors that influence such effects. In line with most recent understandings of media
effects (Lecheler & de Vreese, 2018; Valkenburg & Peter, 2013), and theories of schema development
(Crocker et al., 1984; Matthes, 2008), we suggest that long-term effects are conditional on three
groups of factors: (1) content factors at the news story level, (2) recipient factors at the individual
level and (3) contextual factors surrounding the news exposure situation. While the list of specific
factors cannot be exhaustive – alternative frameworks already exist in the media effects literature,
although developed for different purposes – we focus on variables that are the most relevant
from a schema theory and long-term effects perspective.
The starting point is a typical everyday news encounter: citizens read, hear or watch a particular
news story (irrespective of the platform). In this situation, perceptions are formed through an inter-
action between content and recipient characteristics (Perse & Lambe, 2017; Valkenburg & Peter,
2013). Using the schema framework outlined above, ‘as people comprehend media stories, they con-
struct situation models of the specific stories. In addition they construct mental models of larger
events’ (Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2009, p. 86). Whether these on-the-fly impressions leave enduring
imprints on cognitive schemas is however less clear. Effects of single news encounters typically dis-
sipate rapidly, leading people to quickly forget what they read or hear about (Chong & Druckman,
2010; Koch & Arendt, 2017; Mitchell, 2012), but a variety of factors condition this process.

Content-level factors
Factors at the content level refer to message characteristics of news items. We emphasize three
characteristics of news content that might be particularly important for long-term influences:
frame strength (compelling arguments), negativity and exemplification. From a long-term effects
perspective, these content factors are likely to be relevant for each of the conceptualizations ident-
ified above.

Frame strength (compelling arguments)

News coverage influences issue interpretations by suggesting issue-specific emphasis frames, but
not all frames are equally effective. The concept of ‘frame strength’ – similar to compelling argu-
ments in attribute agenda-setting research (McCombs, 2014) – focuses on qualities of frames that
make them more persuasive in opinion formation (Aarøe, 2011; Chong & Druckman, 2007a;
Matthes, 2007). Strong frames focus on considerations that are both available and applicable
among the public, while weak frames emphasize unavailable or irrelevant considerations (Chong
& Druckman, 2007a, 2007b). In the short run, frame strength should have an immediate impact
on belief formation when recipients consume and process news (illustrated in Figures 1 and 2). In
the long run, frame strength should be considered endogenous, however – as a function of
84 A. SHEHATA ET AL.

media effects itself. Since both consideration availability and applicability depend on long-term
cumulative and consonant news exposure (Koch & Arendt, 2017; Scheufele, 2004), gradual
schema accommodation also changes the strength of frames (e.g. gradual effect dynamics in
Figure 3).

Negativity
Another content characteristic assumed to elicit strong effects is negativity – a widespread feature of
news coverage (Lengauer et al., 2012; Soroka et al., 2019). Given that people have a general prefer-
ence for negative information and that such information weigh more heavily in impression for-
mation than positive information (Soroka & McAdams, 2015), negativity is expected to influence
effect duration by yielding stronger effects (e.g. Figure 1). In a review of framing effects, Lecheler
and de Vreese (2016) note that ‘negative news frames are likely to have stronger and therefore
longer-lasting effects on opinions than positive news frames’ (p. 13). Similarly, using a psychophysio-
logical experimental approach, Soroka and McAdams (2015) conclude that ‘negative news content is
likely to have a greater, and possibly more enduring, impact than positive news content’ (p. 13; see
also Soroka et al., 2019). Yet, the extent to which these mostly emotional and attitudinal reactions
impact cognitive schemas and beliefs about society is less clear.

Exemplification
Exemplification theory suggests that beliefs about society are heavily influenced by exemplars. First,
concrete, vivid and emotional exemplars have a memory advantage compared to more abstract
base-rate information when people assess the probability of real-world events (Aarøe, 2011;
Shrum, 2009; Zillmann, 1999;). Second, exemplars attract attention and are more easily remembered.
From a schema perspective, the ‘more memorable the information, the more likely it may be to
influence the schema’ (Crocker et al., 1984, p. 215). Studies also relate exemplar effects to sleeper
effects. The impact of vivid and attention-grabbing exemplars grows stronger over time, and
these ‘[s]leeper effects are most likely to occur in the case of threatening and emotionally laden
images’ (Bigsby et al., 2019, p. 276; see also Appel & Richter, 2007) – relating most clearly to
effect duration and mechanisms of schema accommodation (Figures 1 and 2). Studies that
address this over-time sleeper effect process are still few, according to a recent meta-analysis
(Bigsby et al., 2019).

Recipient-level factors
In addition to content factors, cognitive approaches emphasize the interaction between message
characteristics and individual-level recipient factors (Crocker et al., 1984; Perse & Lambe, 2017; Scheu-
fele, 2004; Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). Individual-level factors are crucial since they influence not only
schema activation, but assimilation and accomodation as well, leading either to long-term belief
maintenance and reinforcement or to various forms of belief change (Figure 3). Which schemas
that are activated by a news story greatly influence information processing and issue interpretation
– and which schemas that are activated and accessible depend on individual-level trait and state
factors. We focus on three individual-level trait and state factors: information processing strategies,
expertise and resonance.

Information processing
How citizens’ process the news they are exposed to is crucial for belief formation in general, and the
duration and dynamics of long-term effects in particular (Figures 1 and 3). Two approaches illustrate
the role of information processing.
First, dual processing theories, such as the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), suggest differen-
tial effects depending on whether information is processed through the central or peripheral route
(Petty et al., 2009; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Central processing involves careful cognitive examination
 ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 85

of a message in relation to prior beliefs, knowledge, experiences and values – to assess the merits of
an argument or statement. Peripheral processing, in contrast, is based on low cognitive engagement,
relying on automatic assessments of simple context cues. Central route processing generates more
enduring belief effects, as well as greater resistance to subsequent belief-incongruent communi-
cation than peripheral processing (Holbert et al., 2010; Perse & Lambe, 2017). At the same time,
both routes may well lead to sudden conversion effects: While central processing is likely to generate
sudden lasting conversion effects (e.g. Figure 3.8), peripheral processing will follow a temporary con-
version dynamic (e.g. Figure 3.7). The ELM also explains sleeper effects whenever a message is pro-
cessed thoroughly (central route) but rejected based on a low source trust cue (peripheral route). As
the peripheral cue dissipates from memory, the initial processing leads to gradual message accep-
tance (Petty et al., 2009).
Second, the distinction between memory-based (MB) and on-line (OL) opinion formation pro-
vides an alternative approach to the study of long-term media effects (Hill et al., 2013; Lodge
et al., 1995). According to the MB model, people store pieces of information as they consume
news, without forming an overall object judgement. When subsequently asked about their
opinion, they construct an assessment by retrieving considerations accessible from short-term
memory at the time. According to the OL model, people keep and continuously update a global
object assessment as an online tally when consuming news. The tally is immediately stored in
long-term memory, while the specific considerations making up the summary assessment are forgot-
ten. MB and OL processing influence the duration and persistence of communication effects (Bizer
et al., 2006; Chong & Druckman, 2010; Matthes, 2007).
Taken together, information processing that favors beliefs formed with greater certainty – central
route or OL processing – is likely to contribute to more persistent media effects as illustrated, for
example, in Figures 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8 (Chong & Druckman, 2010; Matthes & Schemer, 2012). Such
effortful processing will also increase the likelihood that situation models created on the fly have
lasting imprints on more abstract levels of schemas (Figure 2). However, few citizens hold online
tallies of strong beliefs on many issues, making memory-based processing and situation model
effects more common (Chong & Druckman, 2010; Hill et al., 2013).

Expertise
Belief certainty and strength are related to expertise. Similar concepts frequently referred to in the
media effects literature are knowledge and sophistication. As noted above, expertise varies both
between individuals and across domains. High levels of expertise are equal to having more well-
developed cognitive schemas, compared to having rudimentary or no domain-specific schemas
(aschematic). Experts hold more information on a given topic. Their knowledge is also better inte-
grated and organized: more concepts and stronger links between those concepts (Crocker et al.,
1984; Fiske et al., 1983). The schemas of experts contain a higher quantity of well-integrated
chunks of information and substantially more schema-consistent information, too. As a conse-
quence, experts are more resistant than novices to belief conversion in the face of incongruent
news coverage (e.g. Figures 3.7 and 3.8). Though subtyping occurs continuously, contributing to
schema development and differentiation, these processes will primarily promote gradual belief
maintenance and reinforcement (Matthes, 2008) (e.g. Figures 3.2 and 3.3). With more strongly
held beliefs comes greater resistance to change. Whenever schemas are less developed – such as
among domain-specific novices or when new objects appear on the media agenda – beliefs are
highly sensitive and quickly adapt to the dominant media frame (e.g. Figure 3.1).

Resonance
News frames that fit preexisting schemas will always have a big advantage over schema-inconsistent
frames. Two resonance dimensions emphasized in the media effects literature are particularly impor-
tant. First, value resonance refers to the congruence between identity-relevant beliefs and attitudes
and content characteristics. A range of consistency theories, such as cultural cognition (Kahan et al.,
86 A. SHEHATA ET AL.

2011), motivated reasoning (Taber & Lodge, 2006) and the reinforcing spirals model (Slater, 2015)
emphasize the importance of various identity-relevant attitudes (ideology, life-style, religion, etc.)
in the selection and interpretation of facts. The more strongly anchored beliefs are in personal,
social or political identities, the more resistant they are to change (Bartels, 2002; Gaines et al.,
2007). Second, experience resonance is highlighted in the cultivation and agenda-setting literatures.
Since cognitive schemas continuously develop in response to experiences (Crocker et al., 1984; Fiske
& Taylor, 2017), the accumulated knowledge from past personal experiences exerts a significant
impact on what people bring to a given news exposure situation. Looking at framing effects as
an example, the role of such experiences should matter in two ways (McCombs, 2014; Morgan & Sha-
nahan, 2010; Mutz, 1998). On the one hand, when people lack experiences (unobtrusive issues), their
reliance on media increases, and beliefs about society are more likely to adjust to media coverage.
On the other hand, when people have personal experiences (obtrusive issues), belief dynamics
depend on the congruency between those experiences and media coverage. While experience res-
onance facilitates frame acceptance, media effects in situations of incongruency depend on how
people weigh their personal experiences relative to media coverage.

Context-level factors
The final group of factors extends beyond the immediate news exposure situation. Context refers to
the environmental and situational characteristics in which news consumption and elaboration take
place. Contextual factors are relevant for understanding how messages encountered in the media
are validated in everyday life and social settings – by either supporting or weakening beliefs
through various effect dynamics over time (Figure 3). Here, we discuss repetitive and competitive
news exposure as well as social network communication as crucial context-level factors.

Repetitive exposure
Discussions about long-term media effects largely revolve around repetitive and cumulative content
exposure over extended periods of time. Cultivation and agenda-setting are built on the notion of
cumulation (Koch & Arendt, 2017; Perse & Lambe, 2017) and repeated exposure to consonant news
frames is also a key mechanism behind schema change (Scheufele, 2004). With respect to beliefs
about society in particular, two competing arguments are found in the literature. On the one
hand, repetition is the basis for the illusory truth effect: repeating a message increases the perceived
accuracy or validity of a claim. Both message familiarity and processing fluency have been suggested
as mechanisms behind illusory truth (or mere exposure) effects (Moons et al., 2009; Pennycook et al.,
2018), and repetitive exposure increases belief accessibility, certainty and strength (Druckman et al.,
2012; Slater, 2015).
On the other hand, Petty and Cacioppo (1986; see also Cacioppo & Petty, 1989) suggest a two-
stage curvilinear relationship between message repetition and acceptance. Initially, repetition
increases opportunities to learn about the message. Beyond this initial stage, additional repetition
induces tedium and psychological reactance, leading to counterarguing and skepticism. At the
same time, experimental studies suggest that repetitive exposure to one-sided content generate
stronger – though not necessarily cumulative – effects than a single exposure (Druckman et al.,
2012; Lecheler et al., 2015; Lecheler & de Vreese, 2013), contributing to belief stability. As shown
in Figure 3, however, repetitive exposure is not confined to stability effects, but can contribute to
various forms of gradual moderation, polarization and conversion effects as well.

Competitive exposure
While message repetition may be a powerful force behind long-term stability effects (see, e.g.
Figures 3.2 and 3.3), news coverage of many societal problems is characterized by competitive
media messages and framing environments. Though studies suggest that competitive environments
neutralize media effects as people selectively accept the frames that match their predispositions
 ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 87

(Chong & Druckman, 2010; Lecheler & de Vreese, 2018), important qualifications are needed here.
First, neutralizing effects on global judgements are not equal to no effects. The content of thoughts
is likely to change through continuous belief updating (Brewer & Gross, 2005; Crocker et al., 1984).
Second, compared to simultaneous competitive frame exposure, sequential counter-messages over
time appear to favor recency over frequency effects, especially among low-effort information pro-
cessors (Chong & Druckman, 2010; Mitchell, 2012). Third, however, extended time delays between
the most recent exposure and effect measurement may lead to recency-frequency reversal, with
beliefs regressing to a baseline defined by frequent and cumulative exposure (Koch & Arendt,
2017; Lecheler & de Vreese, 2013). Similarly, studies suggest that an initial frame generating
strong effects on beliefs formed with greater certainty will both persist subsequent counter-
framing and encourage successive belief-consistent selective exposure (Chong & Druckman, 2010;
Druckman et al., 2012; Kepplinger et al., 2012; Matthes & Schemer, 2012). Fourth, competitive
framing can generate backfiring and contrast effects whenever a strong or compelling argument
competes with a weak argument, ‘pushing the recipient further in the direction of a strong frame
than if she or he had been exposed only to the strong frame’ (Chong & Druckman, 2007, p. 640).
Thus, counter-message extremity matters, since moderately incongruent information receives
more attention and consideration, instead of being rejected right away.

Social networks
Individuals’ news consumption does not take place in social isolation or in a vacuum. Citizens are
nested in social networks of family, friends, colleagues and acquaintances that function as sources
of information and as filters in larger communication flows – both offline and on social media.
Through everyday political conversations, beliefs and attitudes are socially validated and negotiated
in relation to group norms. As such, media effects are continuously moderated by social networks
(Mutz & Young, 2011; Schmitt-Beck, 2003). According to the filtering hypothesis, interpersonal com-
munication functions in a similar manner as predispositions, by telling people about the validity of
media messages and whether these should be accepted (Schmitt-Beck, 2003; Song & Boomgaarden,
2017). Prior research suggests that interpersonal communication can moderate media effects, such
as agenda-setting, framing and reinforcing spirals (Druckman & Nelson, 2003; Song & Boomgaarden,
2017; Wanta & Wu, 1992).
Two aspects of social networks are important to consider. First, extensive research shows that pol-
itical talk primarily takes place within strong-tie relationships, such as among family members and
close friends (Ekström, 2016; Mutz & Young, 2011). Second, these strong-tie networks are typically
characterized by homogeneity. As noted by Schmitt-Beck and Lup (2013), the ‘homophily principle
is a powerful force in people’s interpersonal communication’ […] and hence ‘most political talking
occurs between like-minded souls and consists in exchanges of mutually agreeable statements’
(p. 519). The argument is that homogenous networks either weaken or strengthen media
influence, depending on message-network congruency.

A summary framework model

The factors outlined above provide a multilevel framework for analyzing long-term media effects on
citizens’ beliefs about society. Figure 4 combines the moderators of long-term media effects (Paths B,
C, and D) with our conceptualization of these effects as a matter of duration, mechanisms and
dynamics (Path A).
Following the empirical overview and synthesis of factors, we suggest four broad propositions
derived from the model. Depending on the specific theoretical point of departure and explanatory
factors emphasized, long-term media effects may have different sources generated by distinct mech-
anisms and processes:
88 A. SHEHATA ET AL.

Figure 4. Factors conditioning long-term media effects on societal beliefs.

Note: Paths highlighted in the model: A = Focal relationship; B = Content-level moderators; C = Individual-level moderators; D = Context-level
moderators; E = allowing for potential reciprocity; F = Selective exposure driven by individual-level characteristics; G = Contextual factors
behind news selection and exposure. Additional dashed lines = potential joint influences of moderators.

1. Long-term effects driven by extrinsic powerful messages (Path B). This argument emphasizes
content characteristics as the driving mechanism. Here, the relationship between message
characteristics and long-term effects is understood in terms of effect strength and effect duration.
Since certain content induces strong initial media effects, these effects will generally linger over a
longer period of time.
2. Long-term effects driven by intrinsic motivation to process news (Path C). This argument focuses
on individual-level motivation as the driving mechanism. According to this reasoning, long-
term effects emerge as a result of high intrinsic motivation to seek out, attend to and elaborate
on media messages. Different from the content argument above, the information processing
argument also includes gradual elaborative processes that extend beyond the instantaneous
exposure situation, connecting specific situation models to accommodation of more abstract
levels of cognitive schemas. As such, effects of intrinsic motivation may flourish over longer
periods of time – and generate different subsequent belief dynamics than content-driven
effects.
3. Long-term effects driven by continuous contextual support (Path D). This argument emphasizes
situational and environmental factors surrounding news exposure as the driving mechanisms.
Either through repetitive exposure to consonant and one-sided news coverage or
filtered through homogenous and consensual social networks, long-term effects on beliefs
about society may be sustained by consistent external support. This way of understanding
long-term influences is identical to the general mechanisms behind cultivation and
socialization effects. A constant flow of belief-consistent communication is a low-
motivation source of long-term effects, supporting temporary and eventually chronic belief
accessibility.
4. Long-term effects conditioned by multiple antecedents. To understand fully the nuances of various
effect processes, none of the factors singled out can be studied in complete isolation. Rather,
long-term media effects need to be analyzed using an integrative approach that comprehen-
sively accounts for factors at various levels of analysis. The dashed lines in Figure 4 highlight
this point by illustrating potentially simultaneous influences of content-, recipient- and
context-level factors. For the sake of simplicity, only moderation effects are included in the
model. To complete the picture, arrows have also been added to recognize reciprocal effects
 ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 89

of societal beliefs on news exposure (Path E), as well as the important role that individual- and
context-level factors play for media selection mechanisms (Paths F and G).

Toward an integrative approach of studying long-term media effects

The purpose of this article has been to provide a comprehensive theoretical conceptualization of long-
term media effects on societal beliefs. The contrast between theoretical claims about long-term influ-
ences on the one hand, and empirical research on the other hand, has been noted in a number of
field reviews: ‘considering the amount of research that has been conducted on media effects, it is
astonishing how little is known about the cumulation and duration of these effects’ (Koch &
Arendt, 2017, p. 8; see also Perse & Lambe, 2017; Potter, 2014; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). Follow-
ing an overview of empirical research, we used schema theory to propose and develop three distinct
conceptualizations of long-term media effects: as a matter of (a) effect duration, (b) effect mechan-
isms and (c) effect dynamics. In addition, we presented a multilevel framework on antecedents of
long-term media effects – accounting for the conditional and integrative nature of influences on
such effects. Our conceptualization and multilevel framework address some long-standing issues
in the field of media effects research and serve as a point of departure for future research.
Most importantly, we address questions relating to the ‘(new) era of minimal effects’ controversy
(Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Holbert et al., 2010). By proposing and specifying a broader conceptualiz-
ation of long-term media effects, the article outlines a variety of effect mechanisms and dynamics
anchored in schema theory that have been largely neglected in previous research. While longitudinal
studies are not uncommon in the field, few have a comprehensive theoretical focus on long-term
effects. Research questions relating to optimal time lags and effect duration are important, but
they represent a rather narrow approach for understanding the full range of potential influences.
Failure to adequately account for the diverse nuances of the dependent variable – societal beliefs
– as well as how these are updated over time in response to media coverage, is likely to be a
main reason for minimal effects findings (Holbert et al., 2010; Perse & Lambe, 2017). A similar
point can be made with respect to the independent variables – or how the causal effect processes
are theorized and empirically addressed. A schema theory perspective particularly emphasizes the
conditionality of media effects as an interaction between content and recipient level factors.
Failure to account for these conditional factors has recently been noted as another main reason
behind weak media effects (Lecheler & de Vreese, 2018; Perse & Lambe, 2017; Valkenburg & Peter,
2013). The multilevel framework presented here provides a path forward suggesting how factors
at different levels of analyses condition long-term media effects on societal beliefs. These consider-
ations call for a more integrative focus in research on long-term media effects.
Future studies should go beyond effect duration as the main approach to analyzing long-term
effects. Focusing on the mechanisms through which situation models translate into more abstract
levels of cognitive schemas, and/or the broader variety of effect dynamics that manifest only over
more extended periods of time, calls for a more comprehensive account of the how news media
influence citizens’ societal beliefs. First, by distinguishing between transient, enduring and persistent
media effects (Mitchell, 2012), the mechanisms approach focuses on research questions relating to
when and how more specific and momentary mental representations formed during news exposure
lead to accommodation of higher-order cognitive schemas. Second, the proposed typology of eight
distinct effect dynamics provides a direction for addressing research questions concerning the for-
mation, maintenance, gradual adjustment and conversion of beliefs. Attention should be paid to the
time-dependency, cumulation and non-linearity that define these effect dynamics.
Ideally, this research should be conducted using an integrative approach. By outlining factors at
the (a) content, (b) individual and (c) context level, we have suggested a multilevel framework for
understanding long-term media effects. In contrast to previous empirical studies on beliefs, the fra-
mework calls for more integrative work on how these factors interact. The conditional role of social
networks and personal experience appears particularly important for future research on long-term
90 A. SHEHATA ET AL.

effects on societal beliefs. Another implication relates to the distinction between extrinsic and intrin-
sic sources behind long-term effects. Long-term influences may be driven either by strong content
effects, personal motivations and/or contextual support. Thus, long-term effects can emerge and
sustain also in the absence of strong information processing motivations. Being highly motivated
to seek out and cognitively process information is one route to long-term media effects – and
perhaps the most important – but it is certainly not the only one.
It should be noted that it has been our ambition to provide a generic conceptualization and fra-
mework for future studies on long-term effects. Though the focus has been on societal beliefs in a
broad sense, the arguments based on a schema theory are relevant also for attitude formation more
generally (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Fiske & Taylor, 2017; Slater, 2015). Media effect theories, such as
agenda-setting, cultivation and framing, ultimately focus on societal perceptions and issue interpret-
ations, but these effects are also assumed to impact attitudinal outcomes (Matthes & Schemer, 2012;
McCombs, 2014). Furthermore, the conceptualization and framework are intended to be platform
neutral. Whether citizens consume news by reading printed or online newspapers, listening to
radio or podcasts, watching television or getting recommendations through social media, does
not affect the general applicability of our arguments. Use of different platforms may of course
influence how particular effect dynamics play out, but this platform difference can also be addressed
using the proposed framework. A similar point can be made concerning the distinction between
active and passive modes of news use. This factor is likely to be crucial for long-term effects, and
it is subsumed under the broader category of information processing motivations in our multilevel
framework. Thus, our ambition is to provide a general conceptualization and framework through
which more specific research questions and mechanisms can be developed and tested.
Taken together, this article calls for more integrative research on long-term media effects. By consid-
ering a broader conceptualization of long-term influences – focused on mechanisms of schema accom-
modation and particular effect dynamics – we gain a better understanding of the ‘what, when, and how’
of both short- and long-term effects. Though almost a century has passed since Lippmann’s (1922/1997)
influential book on public opinion, research on media effects continues to develop. Today’s concerns
regarding misperceptions, belief polarization and ‘fake news’, highlight the importance of analyzing
how citizens’ beliefs are shaped over time in an increasingly fragmented media environment. We, there-
fore, hope that the review presented here will encourage future work on long-term media effects.

Note
1. The complete list of articles is available from authors.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020
research and innovation program (grant agreement No 804662). The project was also supported by a grant from the
Swedish Research Council (VR 2016-02262).

ORCID
Isabella Glogger http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3371-0485
Kim Andersen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8282-596X
Sanne Kruikemeier http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8053-8200
Johannes Johansson http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8000-3225
 ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 91

References
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic framing. Political Communication, 28(2),
207–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2011.568041
Appel, M., & Richter, T. (2007). Persuasive effects of fictional narratives increase over time. Media Psychology, 10(1), 113–
134. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213260701301194
Asp, K. (1986). Mäktiga massmedier: studier i politisk opinionsbildning. Akademilitteratur.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. The Academy of
Management Journal, 47(4), 523–549. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159600
Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2).
Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new Era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication.
Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707–731.
Bigsby, E., Bigman, C. A., & Gonzales, A. M. (2019). Exemplification theory: A review and meta-analysis of exemplar mess-
ages. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(3), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2019.
1681903
Bizer, G., Tormala, Z., Rucker, D., & Petty, R. (2006). Memory-based versus online pro-cessing. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 42(5), 646–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.002
Brewer, P., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, frames, and citizens’ thoughts about Policy issues: Effects on content and quantity.
Political Psychology, 26(6), 929–948. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00451.x
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1989). Effects of message repetition on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 3–12.
Cappella, J., & Jamieson, K. (1997). Spiral of cynicism. Oxford University Press.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007a). A theory of framing and Opinion formation in competitive elite environments.
Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331_3.x
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2010). Dynamic Public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science
Review, 104(4), 663–680. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055410000493
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. (2012). Counterframing effects. Journal of Politics, 75(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0022381612000837
Conover, P., & Feldman, S. (1984). How people organize the political world: A schematic model. American Journal of
Political Science, 28(1), 95–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110789
Cottam, M., Mastors, E., Preston, T., & Dietz, B. (2016). Introduction to political psychology. Routledge.
Crocker, J., Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (1984). Schematic bases of belief change. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.), Attitudinal judgment (pp. 197–
226). Springer.
Druckman, J., Fein, J., & Leeper, T. (2012). A source of Bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review,
106(2), 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000123
Druckman, J., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 728–744.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00051
Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1998). Attitude structure and function. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of
social psychology (pp. 269–322). McGraw-Hill.
Ekström, M. (2016). Young people’s everyday political talk: A social achievement of democratic engagement. Journal of
Youth Studies, 19(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2015.1048207
Fiske, S., Kinder, D., & Larter, M. (1983). The novice and the expert: Knowledge-based strategies in political cognition.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(4), 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90029-X
Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (2017). Social cognition: From brains to culture. Sage.
Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan
motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69, 957–974.
Hill, S., Lo, J., Vavreck, L., & Zaller, J. (2013). How quickly we forget: The duration of Persuasion effects from Mass com-
munication. Political Communication, 30(4), 521–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2013.828143
Holbert, L., Garrett, R. K., & Gleason, L. (2010). A new era of minimal effects? A response to Bennett and Iyengar. Journal
of Communication, 60(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01470.x
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural Cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research,
14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
Kepplinger, H. M., Geiss, S., & Siebert, S. (2012). Framing scandals: Cognitive and emotional media effects. Journal of
Communication, 62(4), 659–681. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01653.x
Kinder, D., & Kiewiet, R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 129–161.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400002544
Koch, T., & Arendt, F. (2017). Media effects: Cumulation and duration. The International Encyclopedia of Communication.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0217
92 A. SHEHATA ET AL.

Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Getting real: The duration of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 959–
983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01580.x
Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). What a difference a day makes? The effects of repetitive and competitive news
framing over time. Communication Research, 40(2), 147–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650212470688
Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2016). How long do news framing effects last? A systematic review of longitudinal
studies. Annals of the International Communication Association, 40(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.
2015.11735254
Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2018). News Framing effects. Routledge.
Lecheler, S., Keer, M., Schuck, A., & Hänggli, R. (2015). The Effects of Repetitive news framing on Political opinions over
time. Communication Monographs, 82(3), 339–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2014.994646
Lengauer, G., Esser, F., & Berganza, R. (2012).: Negativity in political news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and
key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911427800
Lippmann, W. (1922/1997). Public opinion. Free Press Paperbacks.
Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candi-
date evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082427
Matthes, J. (2007). Beyond accessibility? Toward an online and memory-based model of framing effects.
Communications: European Journal of Communication Research, 32(1), 51–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/COMMUN.
2007.003
Matthes, J. (2008). Schemas and media effects. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of communication
(pp. 4502–4508). Blackwell.
Matthes, J., & Schemer, C. (2012). Diachronic framing effects in competitive opinion environments. Political
Communication, 29(3), 319–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2012.694985
McCombs, M. (2014). Setting the Agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Polity Press.
Mitchell, D. G. (2012). It’s about time: The lifespan of information effects in a multiweek campaign. American Journal of
Political Science, 56(2), 298–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00549.x
Moons, W., Mackie, D., & Garcia-Marques, T. (2009). The impact of repetition-induced familiarity on agreement with
weak and strong arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0013461
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(2), 337–355.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151003735018
Mutz, D. (1998). Impersonal influence. How perceptions of mass collectives influence Political attitudes. Cambridge
University Press.
Mutz, D., & Young, L. (2011). Communication and public opinion: Plus Ça change? Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(5), 1018–
1044. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr052
Neuman, R. (1990). The threshold of public attention. Public Opinion Quarterly, 54(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1086/
269194
Pennycook, G., Cannon, T. D., & Rand, D. G. (2018). Prior exposure increases perceived accuracy of fake news. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 147(12), 1865–1880. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000465
Perse, E., & Lambe, J. (2017). Media effects and society. Routledge.
Petty, R. E., Brinol, P., & Priester, J. R. (2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood
model of persuasion. In J. Bryant, & M. D. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 125–
164). Routledge.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
Potter, J. (2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64(6), 1015–1036. https://doi.org/10.
1111/jcom.12128
Potter, J. (2012). Media Effects. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News Values and Public Opinion: A theoretical account of Media Priming and framing.
In G. A. Barnett, & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in Communication sciences (pp. 173–212). Ablex.
Rhee, J. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election Campaign coverage: A social cognitive account of framing effects.
Journal of Communication, 47(3), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1997.tb02715.x
Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., Davis, J., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2004). Implication of the mental models approach for cultiva-
tion theory. Communications: European Journal of Communication Research, 29(3), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1515/
comm.2004.022
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D., Roskos-Ewoldsen, B., & Carpentier, F. (2009). Media priming: An updated synthesis. In J. Bryant, &
M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 74–93). Taylor & Francis.
Roskos-Ewoldson, D., & Roskos-Ewoldson, B. (2009). Current research in media priming. In R. L. Nabi, & M. B. Oliver (Eds.),
The sage Handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 177–192). Sage.
Scheufele, B. (2004). Framing-effects approach: A theoretical and methodological critique. Communications: European
Journal of Communication Research, 29(4), 401–428. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2004.29.4.401
 ANNALS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 93

Scheufele, D. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of Political com-
munication. Mass Communication and Society, 3(2–3), 297–316. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_07
Schmitt-Beck, R. (2003). Mass Communication, personal Communication and Vote choice. The filter hypothesis of media
influence in comparative perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 33(2), 233–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0007123403000103
Schmitt-Beck, R., & Lup, O. (2013). Seeking the soul of democracy: A review of recent research into citizens’ political talk
culture. Swiss Political Science Review, 19(4), 513–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12051
Shrum, L. J. (2009). Media consumption and perceptions of social reality. In J. Bryant, & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 50–73). Routledge.
Slater, M. (2007). Reinforcing Spirals: the mutual influence of media selectivity and media effects and their impact on
individual Behavior and social identity. Communication Theory, 17(3), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2885.2007.00296.x
Slater, M. (2015). Reinforcing Spirals model: Conceptualizing the relationship between media content exposure and the
development and maintenance of attitudes. Media Psychology, 18(3), 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.
2014.897236
Song, H., & Boomgaarden, H. (2017). Dynamic spirals put to test: An agent-based model of Reinforcing Spirals between
selective exposure, interpersonal networks, and attitude polarization. Journal of Communication, 67(2), 256–281.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12288
Soroka, S., Fournier, P., & Nir, L. (2019). Cross-national evidence of a negativity Bias in psychophysiological reactions to
news. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(38), 18888–18892. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908369116
Soroka, S., & McAdams, S. (2015). News, politics, and negativity. Political Communication, 32(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10584609.2014.881942
Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political
Science, 50(3), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
Tewksbury, D., Jones, J., Peske, M., Raymond, A., & Vig, W. (2000). The interaction of news and advocate frames:
Manipulating audience perceptions of a local public policy issue. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
77(4), 804–829. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900007700406
Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. (2009). News Framing theory and research. In J. Bryant, & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects:
Advances in theory and research (pp. 17–33). Routledge.
Valkenburg, P., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2),
221–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12024
Wanta, W., & Wu, Y.-C. (1992). Interpersonal communication and the Agenda-setting process. Journalism Quarterly, 69(4),
847–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909206900405
Watt, J., Mazza, M., & Snyder, L. (1993). Agenda-setting effects of television news coverage and the effects decay curve.
Communication Research, 20(3), 408–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365093020003004
Wyer, R. S., & Radvansky, G. A. (1999). The comprehension and validation of social information. Psychological Review, 106
(1), 89–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.1.89
Zhu, J.-H., Watt, J., Snyder, L., Yan, J., & Jiang, Y. (1993). Public issue priority formation: Media agenda-setting and social
interaction. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 8–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01246.x
Zillmann, D. (1999). Exemplification Theory: Judging the whole by some of its parts. Media Psychology, 1(1), 69–94.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_5