Microsoft Word - 86-3 __.doc*
2005 2 23 2005 11 8 * e-mail: tailiw@nccu.edu.tw
95 1
92

22




94

Lang, Zhou, Schwartz,
Bolls, & Potter, 2000 Lang, Bolls, Potter, & Kawahara,
1999
a limited approach to television viewing,
Lang, Dhillon, & Dong, 1995; Lang et al., 1999; Lang et al., 2000
encodestorage
retrievalGunter, 1987



short-term memory, STM
95 1
96
long-term memory,
LTMCraik & Lockhart, 1972;
Gunter, 1987
1995; Lang, Newhagen & Reeves, 1996

Zhao, 2003




95 1
98









Grabe et al., 2000; Grabe et al., 2003

tabloid news



Kawabata, 2005
100



Graber, 1994

3a


Shoemaker, 1996

102

Ekstrom





4b


5c





104




106



2004a



108
5W1H





Shoemaker,
Schooler, & Danielson, 1989; Lang et al., 1999; Lang et al., 1995


Shoemaker et al., 1989; Lang et al., 1999; Lang et al., 1995

110

level
2000




112


3.94, SD = 0.77t = 4.20, p < .001


M = 5.83, SD = 0.95M = 4.18, SD = 1.46t =
1.74, p < .05
t = 2.90, p < .01

114
17%32 20%
39 11%21 16%
31 31.9 53%
47%

M = 5.20, SD = .07
M = 4.97, SD = .06F = 5.92, df = 1, p < .05
1a


F
M = 5.20, SD = .07 M = 4.97, SD = .06 1 5.92
M = 5.86, SD = .06 M = 5.66, SD = .05 1 6.20
M = 0.87, SD = .009 M = 0.90, SD = .008 1 3.62
2.
M = 5.54, SD = .05 M = 5.56, SD = .05 1 0.60 n.s. M = 3.57, SD = .07 M = 3.62, SD = .07 1 0.30 n.s. M = 4.41, SD = .07 M = 4.09, SD = .07 1 9.41
3.
M = 4.47, SD = .08 M = 4.05, SD = .06 1 7.90
M = 5.00, SD = .06 M = 4.88, SD = .06 1 3.76
M = 4.65, SD = .06 M = 4.36, SD = .06 1 3.72

F
M = 5.25, SD = .07 M = 5.01, SD = .06 1 3.57
M = 5.79, SD = .05 M = 5.72, SD = .05 1 1.06 n.s. M = 0.84, SD = .009 M = 0.89, SD = .008 1 10.33
2.
M = 5.54, SD = .05 M = 5.55, SD = .05 1 0.30 n.s. M = 3.48, SD = .07 M = 3.70, SD = .08 1 4.35
M = 4.21, SD = .07 M = 4.29, SD = .07 1 0.69 n.s. 3.
M = 4.38, SD = .08 M = 4.14, SD = .07 1 3.84
M = 5.05, SD = .05 M = 4.83, SD = .05 1 5.90
M = 4.52, SD = .06 M = 4.35, SD = .06 1 3.58
95 1
116
F
M = 5.55, SD = .07 M = 5.16, SD = .07 1 12.62
M = 5.81, SD = .43 M = 5.73, SD = .81 1 0.98 n.s. M = 0.89, SD = .009 M = 0.87, SD = .008 1 0.84 n.s. 2.
M = 5.51, SD = .60 M = 5.57, SD = .73 1 0.36 n.s. M = 3.58, SD = .91 M = 3.60, SD = .82 1 0.20 n.s. M = 4.04, SD = .88 M = 4.42, SD = .78 1 13.53
3.
M = 4.44, SD = .60 M = 3.97, SD = .73 1 7.82
M = 5.05, SD = .52 M = 4.84, SD = .89 1 5.42
M = 3.47, SD = .80 M = 2.91, SD = .63 1 11.65
p < .001, p < .01, p < .05

F = 6.20, df = 1, p < .05 1b
M = 0.87,
SD = .009M = 0.90, SD
= .008F = 3.62, df = 1, p < .05 1c

SD = .05F = 0.60, df = 1, p > .05
2a
= .07F = 0.30, df = 1, p > .05 2b

F = 9.41, df = 1, p < .01 2c

SD = .06F = 7.90, df = 1, p < .01
3a
F = 3.76, df = 1, p < .05 3b

118
3c
5.25, SD = .07M = 5.01,
SD = .06F = 3.57, df = 1, p < .05 4a

= .05M = 5.72, SD = .05
F = 1.06, df = 1, p > .05 4b
M =
SD = .008F = 10.33, df = 1, p < .01
4c
SD = .05F = 0.30, df = 1, p > .05
5a
= .07M = 3.70, SD = .08

F = 4.35, df = 1, p < .05 5b
M = 4.21,
= .07F = 0.69, df = 1, p > .05 5c

SD = .07F = 3.84, df = 1, p < .05
6a
= .05M = 4.83, SD = .05
F = 5.90, df = 1, p < .05 6b

SD = .06F = 3.58, df = 1, p
< .05 6c
95 1
120
M = 0.89, SD = .009
M = 0.87, SD = .008F = 0.84, df = 1,
p > .05

= .60M = 5.57, SD = .73
F = 0.36, df = 1, p > .05
M = 3.58, SD = .91M = 3.60, SD = .82
F = .20, df = 1, p > .05

= .78F = 13.53, df = 1, p < .001

= .60M = 3.97, SD = .73
F = 7.82, df = 1, p < .01
M = 5.05, SD = .52M = 4.84, SD
= .89F = 5.42, df = 1, p < .05
M = 3.47, SD = .80
M = 2.91, SD = .63


= 1, p < .05


M
M = 3.78,


95 1
122
= .17
M = 4.07, SD = .17
F =

SD = .17
F =
M = 4.56, SD = .11M
= 4.28, SD = .09
M = 4.27, SD = .10
M = 3.88, SD
M = 4.17, SD = .11
M = 4.12, SD = .11

M = 5.23, SD = .12
M = 4.90, SD = .11
M = 4.86, SD = .13
M = 4.76, SD
M = 4.26,
M = 4.69, SD = .18
M = 4.59, SD = .18
M =
M = 4.41, SD = .20
M = 5.87,
SD = .07
95 1
124


Grabe et al., 2000; Grabe et al., 2003




126





128

NSC 92-2412-H-004-024

2004a

“For the content of a medium is like the juicy piece of
meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind
McLuhan, 1964: 32

811-41


2005 1 22 2004
D1
2000
Austin, W. E., & Dong, Q. (1994). Source vs. content effects on judgments
of news believability. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
71(4), 973-983.
Bird, S. E. (2000). Audience demands in a murderous market: Tabloidization
in U.S. television news. In C. Sparks & J. Tulloch (Eds.). Tabloid
tales: Global debates over media standards (pp. 213-228). Oxford,
ML: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Brosius, H. B. (1993). The effects of emotional pictures in television news.
Communication Research, 20, 105-124.
Burgoon, J. K. (1978). Attributes of the newscaster’s voice as predictors of
his credibility. Journalism Quarterly, 55(2), 276-281.
Carey, J. W. (1975). A cultural approach to communication. Communication,
2(1), 1-22.
Craik, F. I. M. & Lockart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework
for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal
Behaviour, 11, 671-684.
Cremedas, M. E., & Chew, F. (1994 August). The influence of tabloid style
TV news on viewers recall, interest and perception of importance.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Atlanta, GA.
Davis, D. K. & Robinson, J. P. (1986). News attributes and comprehension.
In J. P. Robinson & M. R. Levy (Eds.). The main source: Learning
95 1
130
Publications, Inc.
Drew, D. & Reeves, B. (1980). Learning from a television news story.
Communication Research, 7, 121-135.
in three modes of communication. Media, Culture & Society, 22, 465-
492.
Grabe, M. E. (2001). Explication sensationalism in television news: Content
and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 45(4), 635-655.
Grabe, M. E., Lang, A., & Zhao, X. (2003). News content and form:
Implication for memory and audience evaluations. Communication
Research, 30(4), 387-413.
Grabe, M. E., Zhou, S., Lang, A. & Bolls, P. D. (2000). Packaging television
news: The effects of tabloid information processing and evaluative
responses. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44 (4), 581-
598.
Graber, D. A. (1994). The infotainment quotient in routine television news: A
director’s perspective. Discourse in Society, 5(4), 483-808.
Gunter, B. (1987). Poor reception: Misunderstanding and forgetting
broadcast news. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kawabata, M. (2005 July). Audience reception and visual presentations of
TV news programs in Japan. Paper presented at the 2005 Conference
of International Association for Media and Communication Research,
Taipei.
Knight, G. (1989). Reality effects: Tabloid television news. Queen’s
Quarterly, 96(1), 94-108.

Lang, A. (1994). Measuring psychological responses to media. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lang, A., Zhou, S., Schwartz, N., Bolls, P., & Potter, R. (2000). The effects
of edits on arousal, attention and memory for television messages:
When an edit is an edit? Can an edit be too much? Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44(1), 94-109.
Lang, A., Bolls, P., Potter, R., & Kawahara, K.(1999). The effects of
production pacing and arousing content on the information processing
of television messages. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
Media, 20(5), 451-475.
Lang, A., Dhillon, K., & Dong, Q. (1995). The effects of emotional arousal
and valence on television viewers’ cognitive capacity and memory.
Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 39(3), 313-327.
Lang, A., Newhagen, J., & Reeves, B. (1996). Negative video as structure:
Emotion, attention, capacity, and memory. Journal of Broadcasting
and Electronic Media, 40(4), 460-477.
MacDonald, M. (2000). Rethinking personalization in current affairs
journalism. In C. Sparks & J. Tulloch (Eds.). Tabloid tales: Global
debates over media standards (pp. 251-266). Oxford, ML: Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book.
Mundorf, N., Drew, D., Zillmann, D., & Weaver, J. (1990). Effects of
disturbing news on recall of subsequently presented news.
Communication Research, 17(5), 601-615.
Newhagen, J. E. (1998). TV news images that induce anger, fear, and
disgust: Effects on approach-avoidance and memory. Journal of
95 1
132
Newhagen, J. E., & Nass, C. (1989). Differential criteria for evaluating
credibility of newspapers and TV news. Journalism Quarterly, 66(2),
277-284.
Newhagen, J. E., & Reeves, B. (1992). The evening’s bad news: Effects of
compelling negative television news images on memory. Journal of
Communication, 42(2), 25-42.
9, 217-225.
Shoemaker, P. J. (1996). Hardwired for news: Using biological and cultural
evolution to explain the surveillance function. Journal of
Communication, 46 (3), 32-47.
Shoemaker, P. J., Schooler, C., & Danielson, W. A. (1989). Involvement
with the media: Recall versus recognition of election information.
Communication Research, 16, 78-103.
Tannenbaum, P. H. & Lynch, M. D. (1960). Sensationalism: The concept and
its measurement. Journalism Quarterly, 37(2), 381-392.
Woodall, W. G. (1986). Information-processing theory and television news.
In J. P. Robinson & M. R. Levy (Eds.). The main source: Learning
from television news (pp. 133-158). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

Receptions of Television News
This study simultaneously examines the effects of sensational production features, news narrative modes, and orders of sensational news topics on audiences’ reception of television news.
Research results indicate that TV news stories produced with sensational features, narrated in dramatic story-telling modes, and aired earlier in news rundowns may result in stronger audience emotional arousal and more positive evaluations. Sensational production features also enhance audiences’ news attention and recognition, but they are likely to impair one’s memory. The order of news appears to influence news attention, but has no significant effects on recognition and memory.
Keywords: television news, sensationalism, information processing, audience
research