Theoretical assessments of pretrial publicity effects: A pioneering attempt at measuring the tendency of agenda-setting statements and framing interpretations to produce assumptions of guilt

This study asks how strongly are survey respondents inclined to assign guilt on the basis of pretrial publicity (PTP) reflecting agenda-setting statements and framing interpretations. Agenda setting theory asserts that factual information influences readers to associate an accused with guilt. Framing theory asserts that arguments represent influential interpretations of guilt. Study asked 344 respondents to take a 41-question survey of PTP about an actual murder selected because it implicated two persons, a unique design. H1: Agenda-setting statements increase inclinations to assign guilt. H2: Added framing interpretations strengthen assumptions of guilt. Do selected (RQ1) demographic and (RQ2) psychographic characteristics affect inclination to assign guilt? H1 and H2 were tested with stepwise regression analysis using researcher constructed factors, resulting in significant statistical support. General Linear Model (GLM) GLM analyses of demographic and psychographic categories resulted in only one significant main effect and three interaction effects. Results support a middle ground between unfettered publicity and censorship.