Piso de adoquines de H° Premoldeados: Este ítem comprende la provisión de elementos, materiales, maquinarias, herramientas y mano de obra necesaria, para ejecutar los trabajos de las

Part 2 of this chapter extended upon Chapter 2 to propose a probabilistic framing process model. Part 3 then applied this model, along with the model of belief formation and information processing described in Part 1, to our understanding of framing effects. These sets of considerations are relevant to understanding the possible effects of using dominant terrorist actors (DTAs) and framing devices in discourse about NDAs, and as such serve the basis for an experimental study testing the effects of the DTA framing device.

Prior to laying out hypotheses related to framing specifically, it is first worth considering the normative case, that is, what should happen in the absence of the DTA framing device. I will begin with a basic supposition: prior domain specific beliefs should be predictive of future domain specific beliefs, all else equal. The logic of this supposition is self-evident (the state of X at t1 is almost always the best predictor of X at t2), however, it is also suggested by the online updating and affect transfer processes described in Part 1 of this chapter.

The question of interest in the normative case is deciding which domain specific beliefs are relevant within the given context. Given that the typical discussion of a foreign NDA in the U.S. is limited to episodic coverage of attacks conducted by the NDA (B. K.

Smith et al., 2017), and given that the vast majority of the public views terrorism as a

“critical threat” (Norman, 2018), I assume that whether intended or not the effect of reading a news article about an NDA will be to map an individual’s general perceptions of the threat from terrorism to their beliefs about the threat from the NDA. That is to say, prior

perceptions of threat will guide future perceptions of threat. This can be stated in the form of our first hypothesis:

H1a: When presented with a news article describing an attack conducted by an NDA, there will be a positive direct effect of prior perceptions of the threat from terrorism in the U.S. on perceptions of the threat of the NDA to the U.S., such that those with the highest levels of prior threat perceptions will have the highest perceptions of the NDA as a threat, all else equal.

This hypothesis should generally hold true regardless of whether a DTA is used as a framing device or not and should, as with most “priors” also be the single strongest predictor of individuals perceptions of the threat posed by the NDA.

Based on the conversation in Part 1 of this chapter, it is also possible to make a general prediction about the role of executive control. A primary function of executive control (and specifically interference control is to desensitize emotional pathways, thus decreasing the likelihood that the affect system will be activated when presented with external stimuli. Given that the affect system is the primary mechanism whereby humans decide what is and is not threat, increases in executive control (which lead to a decreased likelihood of affect system activation) should result in lower beliefs that the NDA is a threat. Put more formally:

H1b: When presented with a news article describing an attack conducted by an NDA, there will be a negative direct effect of Executive Control on

perceptions of the threat of the NDA to the U.S., such that those with highest levels of Executive Control will have the lowest perceptions of NDA as a threat, all else equal.

Following from these two base considerations, the next thing to discuss is the role of the DTA framing device. Here it is useful to again consider that the primary framing of DTAs has historically been as threat (B. K. Smith et al., 2016), and that the context within which DTAs emerge into the public consciousness is through events which are deemed highly threatening (i.e., 9/11, the beheading of James Foley). Given this and given that the default frame for thinking about an article describing an attack by an NDA is “threat,” then Equation 4 suggests that inclusion of the DTA framing device should increase the likelihood of using the “threat” frame to process the information. This leads to Hypothesis 2:

H2: When presented with a news article describing an attack conducted by an NDA, there will be a direct effect of the DTA framing device on the perceived threat of the NDA to the U.S., such that those read an article wherein an NDA is framed as “linked to” a DTA will believe the NDA poses a greater threat to the U.S. than those who read an article wherein the NDA is not explicitly linked to a DTA.

Notably, all else equal, this effect should be independent of both H1a and H1b: it should hold after accounting for the effect of both prior threat and Executive control.

The final hypothesis to be tested in this study relates to the differential role of Executive Control described in the section on framing effects, which built upon both the model of belief formation and information processing and the probabilistic framing process model. Essentially, when a DTA framing device is used to activate the “threat” frame,

increases in Executive Control should moderate the relationship between prior perceptions of threat and perceptions of the NDA as threat. When individuals are exerting little to no

Executive Control, there should, in effect, be no effect of prior threat – that is to say, perceptions of NDA threat should entirely be driven by the frame. In contrast, when

individuals are engaged in high levels of Executive Control, there should be large differences in perceptions of NDA threat, with those having high levels of prior threat reporting high

levels of NDA threat, and those with relatively low levels of prior threat reporting relatively low levels of NDA threat. Functionally speaking, this is a manifestation of shifts in the criterion of applicability, and can be formally expressed with the third and final hypothesis: H3: When presented with a news article describing an attack conducted by an

NDA in which the NDA is framed as “linked to” a DTA, there will be a positive interaction effect between Executive Control and prior perceptions of the threat from terrorism in the U.S. whereas there will be no interaction effect for those who read an article wherein the NDA is not explicitly linked to a DTA.

Of course, finding this hypothesis to be statistically true will only partly confirm the hypothesis. The true test will be in the pattern of loadings found when decomposing the effect, with the expected set of relations shown in Figure 4. In the no DTA framing device case, I’ve depicted all three lines having the same relationship (b = .25), with the intercept varying as a function of prior threat (𝑏₀ for high prior threat = 1, average prior threat = 0, low prior threat = -1). In the case where there is a DTA framing device, the distance between the intercepts stays the same, albeit I have increased all three by .5, as a reflection of the direct effect of the frame. In addition, each of the slopes has changed: for those with the highest prior threat, the slope is expected to be ~ 0; for those with the lowest prior threat the slope is expected to be ~ 2x the slope of those with average prior threat; and those with average prior threat are expected to be roughly halfway between the slope for High Prior Threat and the slope for Low Prior Threat (in the figure this is shown as b = .5). What matters in testing hypothesis 3 is not necessarily that these intercepts and slopes are exactly equivalent to those in these graphical depictions. However, for hypothesis 3 to hold, the general pattern of loadings should be consistent.

Figure 4. Graphical depiction of expected three-way interaction between