Nelson et al. (1997) conducted a study on the effects of framing on tolerance for the KKK. Which of the following answers is true?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: Nelson et al. (1997) conducted a study on the effects of framing on tolerance for the KKK. Which of the following answers is true?

Answer options:
1) Public order importance led to significantly higher tolerance of the KKK
2) Both A and B
3) Framing a KKK rally as a public order issue led to participants rating freedom of speech as significantly more important which then led to significantly higher tolerance of the KKK
4) Freedom of speech importance led to significantly lower tolerance of the KKK
5) Framing a KKK rally as a public order issue led to participants rating public order as significantly more important which then led to significantly lower tolerance of the KKK

Option-by-option analysis:
Option 1: Public order importance led to significantly higher tolerance of the KKK. This option asserts that increasing the perceived importance of public order makes people more tolerant of the KKK. If the actual finding showed that emphasizing public order decreased tolerance, this option would be incorrect. The logic here would also run counter to typical framing effects where concern for order can increase rejection of extremist groups.

Option 2: Both A and B. This would only be correct if both option 1 and option 3 (or another option labeled B) were true. Since option 3 is about freedom of speech becoming more important and leading to higher tolerance, which contradicts the provided correct chain in the study summary, this combined claim is unlikely. Therefore, this option is inconsistent with the specific described sequence.

Option 3: Framing a KKK rally as a public order issue led to participants rating freedom of speech as significantly more important which then led to significantly higher tolerance of the KKK. This option posits that public order framing increases the importance of freedom of speech and in turn increases tolerance. The stated study result describes lower, not higher, tolerance following such framing, so the direction of the tolerance outcome here is incorrect. Additionally, the causal chain here mixes two distinct constructs (public order framing and freedom of speech importance) in a way that does not align with the reported sequence.

Option 4: Freedom of speech importance led to significantly lower tolerance of the KKK. This option focuses on freedom of speech alone causing lower tolerance. While it might seem plausible that valuing freedom of speech could relate to decreased tolerance for a group that is controversial, the described study emphasizes a specific framing pathway through public order concerns, not a direct effect from freedom of speech importance alone. Therefore this option misses the stated mechanism involving public order framing and its impact via public order importance.

Option 5: Framing a KKK rally as a public order issue led to participants rating public order as significantly more important which then led to significantly lower tolerance of the KKK. This option captures the proposed mechanism: a framing manipulation (public order framing) increases the salience of public order as a concern, and this heightened importance of public order subsequently reduces tolerance toward the KKK. The directionality (from framing to public order salience to lower tolerance) matches the described sequence and aligns with the pattern of framing effects on attitudes toward contentious groups.

Summary of reasoning: Among the options, the one that aligns with the described chain of effects—framing the rally as a public order issue increases the perceived importance of public order, which then lowers tolerance toward the KKK—is the most consistent with the cited study's mechanism. The other options either posit the opposite direction of effects, propose different constructs without the correct sequencing, or combine claims that do not match the reported findings. Note: this analysis preserves focus on the logical and methodological coherence of each option's claim in light of framing effects and tolerance outcomes.

25S-POL SCI-M141A-LEC-1 / 25S-PSYCH-M138-LEC-1 Quiz #1

Nelson et al. (1997) conducted a study on the effects of framing on tolerance for the KKK. Which of the following answers is true?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In class, we discussed the amount of the federal budget that is spent on space-related activities and how different frames of reference could affect our perception of which of the following?

In the experiment testing the effects of frames on college student intentions to drink heavily, social loss frames were more effective than social gain frames among students high in past drinking behavior.

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler