Framing Effects in Newspaper Reports, Thesis of Media Laws and Ethics

Download Framing Effects in Newspaper Reports and more Thesis Media Laws and Ethics in PDF only on Docsity! Framing Effects in News Paper Reports Master Thesis Communication and Information Sciences Track Business Communication and Digital Media Tilburg School of Humanities and Digital Sciences Tilburg University The Netherlands Supervisor: dr. Carel van Wijk Second reader: dr. Anja Arts Kweku Ndamah-Arthur March, 2018 ii Abstract News media uses framing to make certain aspects of a perceived reality more prominent for audience interpretation. The choice of news frame amplifies what is more salient to the reported event. Previous research has demonstrated that readers’ response to news reports are affected by the news frames they are exposed to. This study provides a replication of the framing effect with African news reports and implements several systematic variations in the experimental materials and designs using a combination of self-reports, objective measures, and behavioural analysis. Importantly, this study took into account gender, general interest, and moral basis as potential factors affecting framing effects in news. First, it was examined whether three news frames (i.e. conflict, human interest, and attribution of responsibility frame) differ in their effect on readers’ responses in four main domains (evaluative, affective, persuasiveness, and conative). Then, it examined whether these effects were moderated by other factors such as gender, general interest, and moral basis. The experiment was completed by 121 students from the University of Ghana, of which 62 are men and 59 are women. Data were collected using self-administrated online questionnaires. Repeated measures Anova revealed that news frames differ in their effect on readers’ responses, but this effect was not always present. Also, the effect of the news frames could not always be generalized across issues. Individuals with high interest in the issue were more susceptible to the framing effect than those with low interest. No gender differences were found. Suggestions for future studies are discussed. Keywords: framing effect, news frame, moral basis, gender differences, general interest, text appreciation, emotions, intentions, opinion, Word of Mouth, belief. 2 knowledge, the importance assigned to the news, political predisposition towards the news among others (Iyengar, 1991; Kinder & Sanders, 1990; Shen, 2004; Price & Tewksbury, 1997; Price & Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997, Perse, 2001; Igartua and Cheng, 2009; Gilliam, Iyengar, Simon, & Wright, 1996); only a few framing studies have taken one or more of these factors into account. These limitations show that much research is needed to fill in the gap in this field, in order to integrate previous findings into a complete model of communication (Entman, 1993). Therefore, the current study replicated the framing effect in Valkenburg, Semetko, and de Vreese (1999), but some adjustments were made with respect to the experimental materials and design of the study. This study made use of three news frames (i.e. conflict, human interest, and attribution of responsibility), to examine framing effect in relation to two African news reports on readers. To the best of our knowledge, the study is one of the first to examine framing effect in an African context using this experimental paradigm. The first aim of the present study was to establish whether the news frames differ in their effects on readers’ responses. The second aim was to determine if these effects are moderated by factors such as the moral basis of the news report, gender, and General Interest. Further, the present study makes use of a combination of self-reports, objective measures, and behavioural analysis to examine framing effects on readers’ responses in four main domains; 1. evaluative (text appreciation, check on the type of frame) 2. affective (positive and negative emotional responses) 3. persuasive (opinion, beliefs, intentions) 4. conative (comments/Word of Mouth). Furthermore, the potential generalizability of framing effects in news across issues was investigated by exposing each participant to two relevant social and political issues in Africa: unjustified protest report in South Africa in relation to Xenophobic attacks on foreigners, and justified protest report in relation to labour strike of paramedics in Kenya. 1.2 Defining Framing The media uses framing to influence the way people respond to news reports. Framing involves two processes: selection (i.e. news media makes choice of what to include and what not to include in the news report) and salience (i.e. emphasising some aspects of the communicated information to make them more dominant) (Entman, 1993; Cappella & Jamieson, 1997). The media frames when they “select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/ or treatment recommendation” (Entman, 1993: p.52). Frames, therefore, serve the function of shedding lights on society’s problems, making clear the causes of the problems and who are involved, making moral judgments about the causal agents and their effects in the reported events or issue, and suggesting solutions or treatment for the 3 problems. Entman (1993) further argued that it is possible for a single sentence to perform more than one of these functions. Entman (1993) stated that “frames have at least four locations in the communication process: the communicator, the text, the receiver, and the culture” (p. 52). The Communicators (news media) provide the receiver (audience) with certain schemas or frames by which they interpret the events or issue. Different meanings can be assigned to the issue depending on how they are presented in a communicating text, which is characterised by certain keywords or stock phrases (Entman, 1993). Culture refers to a set of common frames rooted in how most people in a particular social group communicate or interact with each other (Entman, 1993). The news media use frames to make some aspects of the communicated text appear more salient than others, and the frame that the media uses shows what is more relevant to the reported event (Price, Tewksbury, 1997). The keywords or stock phrases are varied for emphasis which in turn makes the communicated text more meaningful or appreciated (Entman, 1993; Oversteegen & van Wijk, 2003; Fiske & Taylor, 2013). News frames play different roles in news media reporting (Igartua, Moral-Toranzo, & Fernandez, 2011), and in framing research, frames have been viewed either as independent variable or dependent variable. When viewed as an independent variable, news frames are the properties of communicating texts which serve as a precursor of audiences’ news reception and interpretation (de Vreese, 2005; Igartua, Moral-Toranzo, & Fernandez, 2011). Research in this domain states that the type of frame that the media uses has a strong effect on cognitive responses, attitudes, beliefs, and emotional responses of the audience (e.g., Iyengar, 1991, Shen, 2004; Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997; Valkenburg, Semetko, & de Vreese, 1999; Igartua & Cheng, 2009). When news frames are conceived as dependent variables, they are contained in the news and are the result of the production processes such as organizational pressures and elite routines (de Vreese, 2005; Igartua, Moral-Toranzo, & Fernandez, 2011). For instance, research analysing the informational treatment of the different social issues in the press shows that the media focuses to a large extent on the negative side of immigration, and to a much lesser extent on the positive side of immigration to the receiving country (e.g., van Dijk 1989, Vliegenthart & Roggeband, 2007; Igartua, Muniz, Otero, & de la Fuente, 2007). 1.3 Framing in Newspaper reports In their coverage of an issue or event in newspaper reports, news media routinely make use of diverse news frames to select and emphasise some aspects of reality and intentionally omit others (Entman 1993; Watkins, 2001). Most researchers have suggested some approaches by which news frames can be identified by certain distinctive characteristics, in empirical studies (Entman, 1993; Neuman, Just, & Crigler, 1992; Shah, Domke & Wackman, 2001). The first approach which is inductive in nature derives the frames from the materials during the course of analysis, and researchers do not define the frames prior to the studies, but allow the news frame to emerge 4 from the newspaper report under consideration (e.g., Neuman, Just, & Crigler, 1992; Gamson, 1992). The second approach which is deductive in nature examines the frames that have been defined and operationalized before the studies (e.g. Valkenburg, Semetko, & de Vreese, 1999). Cappella and Jamieson (1997) suggest that studies that favour the deductive approach must fulfil four criteria: identifiable conceptual and linguistic features, commonly observed in media practice, possibility to differentiate one frame from the other, and the frame must be recognized by others. Despite these suggestions, framing studies have yet to reach consensus in both methodological and theoretical applications (de Vreese, 2005; Entman, 1993). Entman (1993) describes this situation as the fractured paradigm. To integrate research on framing effects and the diverse approaches that have been suggested into a complete model as proposed by Scheufele (1999), several typologies of frames have been recommended. For instance, de Vreese (2002) recommended two typologies of frames in relation to their nature and content; issue-specific and generic frames. Issue-specific frames are frames which are applicable only to specific topics or issues under investigation. Some examples of issue-specific framing studies include Terkildsen and Schnell’s (1997) women’s movement frame, and Simon and Xenos’s (2001) labour disputes frame. These types of frame do not allow for generalization and comparison of the empirical result in theory building (de Vreese, 2005). Generic frames refer to frames that apply to different topics, time, and cultural contexts. This line of research relates more with Valkenburg, Semetko, and de Vreese (1999) who identified four of such generic news frames; conflict, human interest, attribution of responsibility, and economic consequences frames. To Valkenburg, Semetko, and de Vreese (1999) conflict frames highlights conflict between individuals, groups, institutions, or countries; human interest focuses on an individual’s story, or adds an emotional tone to the report to emphasise suffering or pain; attribution of responsibility frame presents the issue in a way that shows who is responsible for causing or resolving a problem; economic consequence frame emphasises how individuals, group or institutions are affected by the economy. While several researchers deploy different typologies of frame in examining either the same or different relationships, Scheufele (1999) suggests that each frame is conceptually defined and different from other types of frame. This means that even for the same issue different frames may have different effect on readers. Also, for different issue the same frame may have different effects on the readers. Scheufele (1999) adds that being cognisant of these differences does not only make it easy to classify and decide where framing studies must be placed, it is also an important step towards building an integrated model and theory. 1.4 Effects on Readers Framing studies show that frames differ in their effects on audience responses. Large majority of empirical results from previous studies shows that the type of frame that the news media uses influences opinion, attitudes, beliefs, and intentions of the audience of the news report (Cappella 7 generalizability of effects of framing in news across issues. Each participant was exposed to two news stories in one of the three news frames. Furthermore, empirical evidences from some framing studies (see e.g., Iyengar, 1991; Shen, 2004; Lecheler, de Vreese, & Slothuus, 2009; van Gorp, Hendriks Vettehen, & Beentjes, 2009) have shown that effects of frames can be affected by several factors such as how involved or interested people are in the issue, their previous level of knowledge, and the importance they assign to the issue. This means that the level of interest people have in the issue plays an important role in explaining the relationship between the news frame and audience responses. It is expected in the present study that people who have more interest in the issue and spend more time on the news will be more vulnerable to effects of the news frames. 1.6 Research questions and hypotheses The present study addressed four questions: Q1 Do news frames differ in their effects on readers’ responses? Q2 Is the effect in Q1 dependent on the moral basis of the news report? Q3 Is the effect in Q1 dependent on gender Q4 Is the effect in Q1 dependent on General Interest? With regard to the research questions, five hypotheses are tested. H1 In comparison with each other it is expected that: a. the human interest frame will score highest on text evaluation b. the conflict frame will score lowest on affective response c. the attribution of responsibility frame will score highest on persuasiveness H2 In comparison with men, women respond more positively to the human interest frame than to the conflict and attribution of responsibility frames. H3 In comparison with people with low interest, those with high interest respond more positively to the attribution of responsibility frame than to the human interest frame and conflict frame H4 In comparison with justified protest report, unjustified protest will score higher with conflict frame than human interest frame and attribution of responsibility frames. H5 Readers’ Word of Mouth will reflect the news frame more closely. Figure 1 Conceptual Model underlying the experimental design of the study Frame (Conflict, human interest, attribution of responsibility) Moral Basis (Justified, unjustified) General interest (Politics, economics, & social issues) Gender (Male, female) Readers’ responses - Evaluative (text appreciation & check on type of frame) -Affective (positive & negative emotions) -Persuasive (opinion, beliefs, intentions) -Conative (comments) 8 2 Method 2.1 Materials 2.1.1 Origin of materials Selection of topics and their reports Two news reports representing different instances of protest were selected, that is, they differed in their moral basis (justified vs unjustified protest). In the report on unjustified protest, South African natives were making troubles with the foreigners living in the country. There were severe riots and burning of properties. In the report on justified protest, doctors protesting for better working conditions and improvement in healthcare facilities were met with rough treatment from the police. Experimental versions of the two news report (see frame 3 and 4) were created from (1) and (2), which were parts of the original news report (see frame 1 and 2) posted on the official website of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), on 5th December, 2016, and 24th February, 2017. (1) “Police have fired tear gas to disperse hundreds of doctors striking in the Kenyan capital Nairobi. The medics, wearing white gowns and surgical caps, were demanding the government honor a 2013 deal to increase salaries. Dozens of mental health patients were said to have walked out of a hospital in Nairobi during the strike. Officials say the action is premature and negotiations should continue.” (“Nairobi striking doctors tear-gassed as patients 'walk out'”, 2016) (2) “South African police have used rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannon to disperse crowds at an anti-immigrant march in the capital, Pretoria. A low-flying police helicopter was deployed to break up a stand-off between local protesters and foreigners, with both groups armed with sticks, bricks, and knives. President Jacob Zuma said the protests were ‘anti-crime’ not ‘anti-foreigner’. Many unemployed South Africans accuse migrants of taking their jobs.” (“South Africa clashes at anti-foreigner protest in Pretoria”, 2017) 9 Frame 1. Example of original report (justified protest) Frame 2. Example of original report (unjustified protest) 12 Frame 5 presents experimental versions of reports on unjustified protest in South Africa. This contains the core text of the news report on the unjustified protest used in each version. Each participant saw only one of these versions. Frame 5 Experimental versions of reports on Unjustified protest in South Africa Conflict South African natives mount xenophobic attacks on foreign residents Earlier this week, a group of angry South African natives attacked and looted shops belonging to Nigerians, Somalis, Zimbabweans, Pakistani and other migrants in townships around Pretoria and parts of Johannesburg. It was a bloody show of violence as many foreigners in South Africa were beaten up by a group of angry protestors wielding wooden clubs. There were smokes all over in the major streets in Johannesburg and Pretoria. Many wounded people have been rushed to the hospital and are undergoing medical treatment. Police suspect damages could escalate unless extreme measures are taken quickly. Meanwhile, the mayor of Pretoria is reported to have incited the natives in a hate speech a night before the attack. Human Interest “Why do I deserve this?” a victim laments over severe loss Police said at least 50 shops, belonging to immigrants were looted in the nation’s capital overnight and several others burnt to ashes. A shop estimated to be worth several millions of dollars belonging to Fungai Wellington, a Zimbabwean automobile mechanic, who has been living in Johannesburg for over 20 years, was completely burnt to ashes. “I received an emergency call to come to my shop, when I got here, two of his workers were severely beaten by the angry protestors and had to be rushed to the hospital. What did I do wrong to deserve this? I have lost everything! All my life’s investment lost in a twinkle of an eye” Fungai lamented over loss. Attribution of responsibilities Pressure groups blame Government for unemployment in South Africa Daniel Bokamoso, the leader of a newly formed pressure group, Coalition of Civics Against Foreign Workers (CCAFW) has blamed the government for the increasing unemployment in South Africa. He claims the government has loosened the immigration rules for foreigners to come and live in South Africa. These foreigners are now taking over our jobs and women, and even selling drugs. The Department of Labor reported that as many as 25% of South Africans that is about some 11 million, are unemployed and the number keeps rising every day. We are not going to sit down till we start begging bread from them before we know things are already out of hands, he told our reporter. 13 Frame 6 presents experimental versions of reports on justified protest in South Africa. This contains the core text of the news report on the justified protest used in each version. Each participant saw only one of these versions. Frame6 Experimental versions of reports on justified protest in Kenya Conflict Human Interest Attribution of responsibility Kenyan Police ransack protests of Doctors on nationwide On Monday morning, a number of protesting medics gathered in the nation’s capital. The medics, wearing white gowns and surgical caps, were demanding the government honours a 2013 deal to increase their salaries. A group of heavily built and well-armed police officers ransacked the protest. The police fired tear gas on the doctors who were peacefully demonstrating. Several protestors sustained severe injuries from the police intervention. Protestors say that the police intervention was unnecessary and an infringement on their rights. Meanwhile, the county government has said that doctors participating in the strike will not receive their December salaries. The government is also reportedly planning to hire foreign doctors from Cuba to replace the striking doctors. “I feel so much pain”, cancer patients cries for attention Many cancer patients who are unable to afford private health care treatment have been left unattended as doctors go on strike. Mary Tinga, one of the cancer patient said “I started getting sick, three days before the doctors started their strike, and I visited one of the government hospital where I was diagnosed with cancer. I took the scans to know the extent of spread and was asked to return a week later for the result and also to see a specialist for my condition. When I returned, the doctors were on strike. I feel so much pain, don’t know how long I can hold on. I feel like I am dying each passing day”. Labor Union blames government for failing to meet negotiated agreements The medics were demanding that the government honor a 2013 deal to increase their salary and improve the dire state of the health delivery systems. President Uhuru Kenyatta said, the groups’ action is premature and negotiations should continue. He added that doctors have defied a court order suspending the strike until the end of the month to allow for more talks. However, the chairman of the Kenyan Medical Practitioners Pharmacists and Dentists’ Union (KMPDU), Gitau Kagona said they had run out of patience after government commitments became unsuccessful. There is also a big shortage of doctors and the current doctor patient ratio is one doctor to 16,000 patients. How can we provide good health care? 14 2.2 Instruments Personal Characteristics Participants’ age, gender, and educational level were measured. Proficiency in English was measured with two items (see (1)). Each item is answered on a 7-point disagree/agree-scale. Source of information was measured with four items (see (2)). General interest (GI) was measured with five items (see (3)). Each item was responded to on a 5-point scale (1-“never”, 5=”regularly”). Reputation of news media was measured with four items (see (4)). Each item was responded to on a 7-point disagree/agree-scale. (1) I am fluent in reading/speaking English text (2) I obtain my news information from print newspaper / television / radio / online sources (3) I look for information on politics / economics / social issues / sports / technology (4) I consider news sources such as the BBC website to be objective / up-to-date / reliable / diverse Check on type of frame Three items were used to measure whether readers recognize the type of frame used in the news report (see (6), (7), and (8)). Each item was responded to on a 7-point disagree/agree-scale. (6) This report illustrates how individuals may suffer (7) This report shows how the conflict is growing (8) This report clarifies who are responsible for the problem Text Appreciation Text appreciation was operationalized in terms of content and perspective. Three items each are used in measuring the content and perspectives, see 5(a) and (b). Each item is responded to on a 7- point disagree/agree-scale. (5) a This article is instructive / informative / explanatory b This article is biased / one-sided / prejudiced Emotions Emotional self-report scales were developed from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Four items each were used in measuring positive and negative emotions (see (9) and (10)). Each item was responded to on a 7-point disagree/agree-scale (9) a the news report made me feel relieved / tolerant b the news report made me rebellious / aggressive 17 Table 3 present educational background in relation with gender. There was no significant association between educational background and gender (χ² (2)=0.52, p=.77). Table 3 Educational background in relation with gender (in percentages) Overall (n=121) Male (n=62) Female (n=59) diploma 10 9 12 bachelor 69 69 68 masters 21 22 20 Table 4 present source of information in relations with gender. Source of Information showed a difference with gender for one medium only: radio (χ² (4)=11.91, p=.02; all other cases: χ²s <7.65, p>.10). Males reported somehow more often to listen to the radio. Table 4 Source of information for the entire sample in relation with gender (in percentages) Overall Male Female Print newspaper never 5 5 5 Sometimes 70 68 71 Half of the time 9 5 13 Often 14 22 7 regularly 2 0 4 Television never 1 0 2 Sometimes 29 30 28 Half of the time 12 14 9 Often 41 34 49 regularly 17 22 12 Radio never 4 4 4 Sometimes 36 32 41 Half of the time 14 7 20 Often 31 32 30 regularly 15 25 5 Online sources never 0 0 0 Sometimes 12 10 14 Half of the time 6 7 5 Often 39 36 42 regularly 43 47 39 18 Table 5 present for each news topic the distribution over interest in relation with gender. A difference between men and women showed up for sports/entertainment (χ²(4)=28.08, p<.001) and Economic news (χ²( (4)=13.56, p<.01). To a much lesser degree it did for Political news (χ²( (4)=9.00, p=.06) and Computers/technology (χ²( (4)=8.74, p=.07). Interest for Social issues did not differ with gender (χ²(4)=3.80, p=.43). The average of the five General Interest (GI) items was computed as a general index for interest in news. The midpoint of the scale (3.00) make two subgroups; low interest (≤ 3, n=49), and high interest (>3, n=70). Table 5 For each news topic interest in relation with gender (in percentages) Overall Male Female Politics never 6 5 7 Sometimes 33 34 32 Half of the time 15 12 18 Often 37 32 41 regularly 9 17 2 Economics never 8 9 7 Sometimes 45 48 43 Half of the time 22 12 32 Often 13 10 15 regularly 12 21 3 Social Issues never 1 0 2 Sometimes 12 14 10 Half of the time 12 16 8 Often 53 53 53 regularly 22 17 27 Sports/entertainment never 3 0 5 Sometimes 35 26 44 Half of the time 17 14 20 Often 20 14 25 regularly 25 46 5 Technology/computers never 4 2 7 Sometimes 34 28 40 Half of the time 24 22 26 Often 20 22 19 regularly 18 26 8 19 Table 6 present reputation of the news media (BBC) in relation with GI. There was an effect of GI on each of the reputation scales (objective: F(1, 108)=17.57, p<.001, ηp²=.14; diverse: F(1, 108)=19.80, p<.001, ηp²=.16; up-to-date: F(1, 108)=14.14, p<.001, ηp²=.12; reliable: F(1, 108)=5.79, p=.018, ηp²=.05). The group with high interest scored higher on each of the scales. Table 6 Reputation of the news media for the entire sample in relation with General Interest (score ranges from 1 to 5, standard deviation between brackets) General Interest Overall Low interest High interest objective 3.46 (1.05) 3.02 (1.20) 3.81 (0.85) diverse 3.29 (1.17) 2.77 (1.17) 3.69 (1.00 up-to-date 4.03 (0.88) 3.69 (1.08) 4.29 (0.58) reliable 4.03 (0.92) 3.79 (1.05) 4.21 (0.77) Note If gender differs significantly, background of highest score is shaded. 2.4 Design A mixed design was used with as within-factors Moral Basis (unjustified, justified), and as between-factors News Frame (conflict, human interest, attribution of responsibility), General Interest (high interest, low interest), and Gender (male, female). The description of the stimuli is presented in Figure 2. Each participant responded to both news reports presented with the same frame. Figure 2 Description of stimuli Conflict Framing in News Human Interest Attribution of responsibility Unjustified protest Justified protest Unjustified protest Justified protest Unjustified protest Justified protest 22 with gender (F(1,102) =5.53, p=.021, ηp²=.051), and ToF with GI (F(2,102) =4.45, p=.014, ηp²=.08; all other F’s<1.50, p>.16; all other interactions: F’s<1.50, p>.16). Men scored higher with justified protest than women but not with unjustified protest. Justified protest scored higher with attribution of responsibility frame for those with high interest in the news. ‘Explanatory’ showed no effects (Type of Frame: F<1; Moral Basis: F<1; Type of Frame*Moral Basis: F(2, 104)=1.91, p=.15; all other interactions: F’s<1.08, p>.29). ‘Biased’ showed no effects (Type of Frame: F<1; Moral Basis: F<1; Type of Frame and Moral Basis: F<1).There was an interaction between Type of Frame and GI (F(2, 103)=3.70, p=.028, ηp²=.07; all other interactions: F’s<2.18, p>.12). Those with high interest scored higher than those with low interest with conflict frame but not with attribution of responsibility and human interest frames. ‘One-sided’ showed an effect of Moral Basis (F(1, 99)=9.68, p=.002, ηp²=.09) and an interaction between Type of Frame and Moral Basis (F(2, 99)=3.09, p=.05, ηp²=.06 ; Type of Frame: F(2, 99)=2.41, p=.095; all other interactions: F’s<1.85, p>.16). It scored higher with unjustified protest than with justified protest. Figure 3 depicts the interaction. Unjustified protest scored higher than justified protest with conflict and attribution of responsibility frames but not with human interest frame. ‘Prejudiced’ showed no effects (Type of Frame: F(2, 99)=2.84, p=.06; Moral Basis: F<1; Type of Frame*Moral Basis: F<1, p=.41; all other interactions: F’s<1.68 p>.09). Table 8 Text Appreciation in relation with Type of Frame and Moral Basis (score ranges from low (=1) to high (=7), standard error between brackets) Type of Frame Moral Basis human interest conflict responsible unjustified justified Content instructive 5.09 (.20) 4.39 (.23) 5.01 (.22) 4.77 (.14) 4.89 (.15) informative 5.62 (.16) 5.47 (.16) 5.77 (.16) 5.54 (.13) 5.71 (.10) explanatory 5.35 (.14) 5.36 (.15) 5.46 (.15) 5.33 (.11) 5.45 (.11) Perspective biased 3.28 (.20) 3.44 (.21) 3.13 (.21) 3.29 (.15) 3.27 (.16) one-sided 3.70 (.25) 4.43 (.26) 3.79 (.25) 4.26 (.18) 3.69 (.17) prejudiced 3.40 (.20) 3.67 (.21) 2.98 (.20) 3.41 (.15) 3.29 (.15) Note: If levels of an experimental factor differ significantly, background of highest score is shaded; 23 Figure 3 Appreciation of perspective (one-sided) in relation with Type of Frame and Moral Basis 3.3 Emotions Table 9 presents emotions in relation with the Type of Frame and Moral basis. Positive Emotions showed no effects (Type of Frame: F<1; Moral Basis: F(1, 105)=2.29, p=.13; Type of Frame*Moral Basis: F(2, 105)=1.73, p=.18; all other interactions: F’s<1.72, p>.12). Negative Emotions showed no effects (Type of Frame: F(2, 102)=2.69, p=.07; Moral Basis: F<1; Type of Frame*Moral Basis: F<1; all other interactions: F’s<2.93, p>.09). Table 9 Emotions in relation with Type of Frame and Moral Basis (score ranges from low (=1) to high (=7), standard error between brackets) Type of frame Moral basis Human interest conflict responsible unjustified justified Positive Emotions 2.48 (.19) 2.64 (.20) 2.56 (.20) 2.63 (.13) 2.49 (.12) Negative Emotions 3.61 (.21) 4.29 (.23) 3.75 (.22) 3.84 (.13) 3.92 (.14) Note: If levels of an experimental factor differ significantly, background of highest score is shaded. 24 3.4 Persuasiveness 3.4.1 Opinion Table 10 presents opinions in relation with the Type of Frame and Moral basis. ‘Protesters fight for a just cause’ showed an effect of Moral Basis (F(1,104) =114.73, p<.001, ηp²=.58; Type of Frame: F(2,104)=1.49, p=.23; Type of Frame*Moral Basis: F(2,104)=1.19, p=.31; all other interactions: F’s<1.85, p>.07). Justified protest scored higher than unjustified protest. ‘Government is acting irresponsible’ showed an effect of Moral Basis (F(1, 101)=49.20, p<.001, ηp²=.33; Type of Frame: F<1;Type of Frame*Moral Basis: F(2, 101)=2.81, p=.065; all other interactions: F’s<1.55, p>.07). It scored higher on justified protest than unjustified protest. ‘Attack on the protestors is justified’ showed an effects of Moral Basis (F(1, 100)=61.95, p<.001, ηp²=.38; Type of Frame; F<1;Type of Frame*Moral Basis: F<1; all other interactions: F’s<2.30, p>.07)). It scored higher with unjustified protest than justified protest. ‘Police intervention is relevant’ showed an effects of Moral Basis (F(1, 102)=161.74, p<.001, ηp²=.61; Type of Frame: F(2, 102)=1.50, p=.23; Type of Frame*Moral Basis: F(2, 102)=2.69, p=.073; all other interactions: F’s<2.70, p>.07). It scored higher with unjustified protest than justified protest. ‘Problem requires an urgent action’ showed an effects of Type of Frame (F(2, 101)=3.94, p=.023, ηp²=.072; Moral Basis: F(1, 101)=3.34, p=.071; Type of Frame*Moral Basis: F(2, 101)=2.13, p=.13; all other interactions: F’s<1.75, p>.12). It scored highest with human interest frame than with conflict and attribution of responsibility frames. Table 10 Opinions in relation with Type of Frame and Moral Basis (score ranges from low (=1) to high (=7), standard error between brackets) Type of frame Moral basis human interest conflict responsible unjustified justified protesters fight for just cause 4.12 (.20) 4.43 (.21) 4.60 (.21) 2.92 (.20) 5.85 (.14) government is acting irresponsible 4.80 (.20) 4.84 (.20) 4.89 (.20) 4.10 (.17) 5.59 (.15) attack on protestors is justified 3.26 (.23) 3.12 (.23) 3.22 (.23) 4.24 (.21) 2.15 (.16) police intervention is relevant 4.41 (.18) 4.22 (.18) 4.66 (.18) 6.01 (.12) 2.85 (.19) Problem/issue requires urgent action 6.45 c (.15) 6.28 (.16) 5.86 a (.15) 6.34 (.10) 6.05 (.13) Note: If levels of an experimental factor differ significantly, background of highest score is shaded. a= differs from human interest, b= differs from conflict, c= differs from responsible 27 Moral Basis (F(1, 63)=29.43, p<.001, ηp²=.32; ToF*MB: (F<1). Unjustified protest scored higher than justified protest. High intensity words showed an effect of Type of Frame (F(2, 64)=7.12, p=.002, ηp²=.18). Conflict frame scored higher than the other two frames. HIW showed an effect of Moral Basis (F(1, 64)=8.29, p=.005, ηp²=.12; ToF*MB: (F<1). Unjustified protest scored higher than justified protest. Disapproval showed an effects of Moral Basis (F(1, 64)=4.18, p=.045, ηp²=.06; Type of Frame: F(2, 64)=2.48, p=.09; ToF*MB: F<1). Justified protest scored higher than unjustified protest. Responsibility showed an effect of Type of Frame (F(2, 64)=4.22, p=.019, ηp²=.12). Attribution of responsibility scored higher than the other two frames. Responsibility showed an effect of Moral Basis (F(1, 64)=6.37, p=.014, ηp²=.09; ToF*MB: F(2, 64)=1.14, p=.33). Justified protest scored higher than unjustified protest. Causation showed an effect of Moral Basis (F(1, 64)=11.52, p=.001, ηp²=.15; Type of Frame: F(2, 64)=2.42, p=.10; ToF*MB: F(2, 64)=1.0, p=.37). Justified protest scored higher than unjustified protest. Remembrance showed an effect of Moral Basis: (F(1, 64)=6.26, p=.015, ηp²=.09; Type of Frame: (F<1); ToF*MB: (F<1)). Justified protest scored higher than unjustified protest. Responsiveness showed an interaction: Type of Frame with Moral Basis (F(2, 64)=5.94, p=.004, ηp²=.16; Type of Frame (F<1); Moral Basis (F<1)). Justified protest scored higher than unjustified protest with conflict frame but not with human interest frame and attribution of responsibility frame. Number of words showed an effect of Type of Frame: (F(2, 62)=5.76, p=.005, ηp²=.16; Moral Basis: F(1, 62)=3.10, p=.08). Conflict frame scored higher than the other two frames. Type of Frame showed an interaction with Moral Basis: (F(2, 62)=3.49, p=.037, ηp²=.10). Justified protest scored higher with conflict frame than the other two frames, whereas unjustified protest showed no difference. In conclusion, with the exception of the human interest frame, the readers’ WoM reflected the other two news frames more closely. Conflict frame scored higher than the other two frames with negative words, negative emotions, high intensity words, and number of words. Attribution of responsibility frame scored higher than the other two frames with responsibility. Moral Basis made a difference: readers of the justified protest report scored higher on disapproval, causation, responsibility, and remembrance, while readers of the unjustified protest report scored highest on negative words, negative emotions and high intensity words. 28 Table 13 Sentiment analysis of the comments in relation with Type of Frame and Moral Basis (score ranges from 0 to 1, standard error between brackets) Type of Frame Moral Basis Category Definition Example Hum.In. Conflict Resp. unjustified justified Positive and Negative sentiments Words and phrases with positive or negative connotations and emotions Positive words (e.g. peace, equity, compensate, negotiate) .60 (.08) .45 (.08) .64 (.07) .44 (.06) .68 (.06) Negative words (e.g. disgrace, inhumane, great loss, fails, unjust) .60 (.08) .81 (.08) .41 (.07) .69 (.06) .52 (.06) Positive emotions (e.g. Surprise, interesting, satisfy astonished) .05 (.05) .17 (.05) .07 (.04) .08 (.03) .11 (.04) Negative Emotions (e.g. intolerance, pathetic, frustration) .48 (.07) .50 (.07) .18 (.06) .58 (.06) .19 (.05) Intensifiers Words or phrases used to give force or emphasis or extreme situations High intensity words (e.g. great loss, aggravates, violence, very bad) .35 (.08) .71 (.08) .34 (.07) .57 (.06) .36 (.06) Disapproval (e.g. stop this xenophobia, unacceptable, unfortunate) .60 (.08) .82 (.08) .63 (.06) .60 (.06) .76 (.05) Attribution Expresses who are responsible for the situation Responsibility (e.g. blaming, protesters are not acting civilized, government acting irresponsibly, blame) .43 (.09) .47 (.09) .73 (.08) .46 (.06) .63 (.06) Causation (e.g. laws are not working, create jobs, attitude change, lack of equity) .50 (.08) .58 (.09) .73 (.07) .48 (.06) .72 (.06) Recall Words paraphrased from news report Remembrance (e.g. burning down business, xenophobia, government, immigration) .60 (.09) .66 (.09) .68 (.07) .56 (.06) .73 (.06) Empathy Shared feelings Responsiveness (e.g. I feel so sad, this is disturbing) .63 (.07) .76 (.07) .68 (.06) .67 (.06) .71 (.05) Number of Words 10.20 (1.76) 18.12 (1.91) 10.88 (1.49) 12.21 (1.08) 13.92 (1.14) 29 4 DISCUSSION 4.1 Conclusions Each frame scored highest on the item that measured its core sentiment. Frames have been activated in the way they were intended to do. Framing showed hardly any effects. In three cases only, Human Interest appeared to elicit a somehow higher score than the other frames: with text appreciation for ‘instructive’ (H1a), with opinions for ‘problem requires urgent action’ (H1c), and with intention for “I sympathize with those affected by this crisis” (H1c). Readers’ WoM appeared to reflect the frame more closely. This happened most clearly for the conflict and attribution of responsibility frame (H5). Conflict frame scored higher than the other two frames: with negative words, negative emotions, high intensity words, and number of words. Attribution of responsibility frame scored higher than the other two frames: with responsibility. Moral Basis showed hardly any interaction with the news frames. The unjustified protest report showed a higher score with conflict frame than the other two frames: with text appreciation for ‘one-sided’ (H4). The justified protest report showed a higher score with conflict frame than the other two frames: with belief for “If the government meets the protesters’ demand, the situation will improve” (H4). Justified protest report showed higher scores for causation, responsibility, disapproval, and paraphrasing directly from the report. Unjustified protest scored higher on negative words, negative emotions, and high intensity words. General Interest showed a few interactions with the news frame. Readers with high interest responded more positively to the attribution of responsibility frame than the other two frames: with text appreciation for ‘instructive’ (H3) and with belief for ‘If the government meets the protesters’ demand, the situation will improve’ (H3). Also, readers with high interest responded more positively to conflict frame than the other two frames: with text appreciation for ‘biased’ (H3). No gender differences were found with regards to the news frames with one exception. Women responded more positively to conflict frame than men: with intentions ‘I sympathize with those affected by this crisis’ (H2). 4.2 Discussion of findings Framing effects The type of frame readers saw in this study did not have much influence on their appreciation of the text. It appears the linguistic features of the framing text was not a major contributor to how readers respond to the news. Indeed, only one out of the six items measuring text appreciation showed an effect of the news frame: Human interest frame scored highest on 32 General Interest General Interest had two interactions with the news frame for text appreciation. Readers with high interest evaluated the Attribution of responsibility frame as more instructive. Again, readers with high interest evaluated the conflict frame as more biased, however, this was contrary to what was expected. For each frame that showed an effect, the scores were higher among respondents with higher interest than for those with low interest. The influence of general interest on persuasiveness was very low. No effect was found for emotions, opinion, and intentions. However, general interest showed an interaction with the news frame for belief. Readers with high interest scored higher with attribution of responsibility frame than the conflict frame and human interest frame. Therefore, how interested the readers were in the news report moderate how they responded to the news frames. Gender No gender difference was found in relation with Type of Frame. Gender showed an interaction with Moral Basis for text evaluation but this effect was not influenced by the news frame. Comparatively, men evaluated the justified protest report as more informative than women. There was no effect of gender on emotions, opinions, and belief. Interestingly, gender changed in response to the news frame for intention: women were more likely to sympathize with those affected by the crisis in the conflict frame than men. It seems the conflict frame triggers some feeling of sorrow in the female participants for the victims of the protest. However, this observation was not in the expected direction. 4.3 Overall Discussions Framing theory posits that merely selecting and making certain aspects of a story more salient than others influences how the audience responds to news stories. This theory has been examined in this study using three news frames introduced by Valkenburg, Semetko, and de Vreese (1999). Three possible explanations for the outcomes of this study are provided. First, the findings from this study show that framing effects are not always present. For example, in only one instance did framing influence the readers’ intention. According to Zhang et al., (2017) this could be attributed to the fact that there is not a necessary relationship between the news frames and intentions, rather the news frame trigger certain emotional responses within the reader, which then influences their behaviour intentions. This means that for frames to influence readers’ intentions, it must first appeal to their emotional states. In another study, Schuck and de Vreese (2006) observed that framing effect does not work the same way for everyone and that, the influence that news frames have may be contingent on some moderators or other influencing factors (e.g. political knowledge, personal values, personality traits, involvement) that determines whether an observed effect is stronger or weaker for certain audiences and in certain contexts (Schuck & Feindholdt, 2015). As a result, people who have certain inclinations towards the news, prior opinions, or beliefs 33 towards the issue are less likely to be vulnerable to effects of news frames (Gross & D’Ambrosio, 2004). Scheufele (2000) therefore suggests that models used in examining framing effects should take into account the individual orientations and attitudes of media users existing prior to the exposure to certain news frames. By integrating Scheufele’s (2000) suggestion into this study, general interest made some remarkable differences. This indicates that effects of the news frames are not always independent (Schuck and de Vreese, 2006), and that it can be moderated by other factors. The findings showed that the more interested people were in the issue the more vulnerable they were to the news frame, but this conclusion is opposite to the observation by van Gorp, Hendriks Vettehen, and Beentjes (2009) and Valentino, Beckmann, and Buhr, (2001), who found that the less involved the readers were in the news, the more vulnerable they were to the effects of the frames. Further studies are needed to arrive at a more definitive position on the influence of involvement or interest in the news. Second, Valkenburg, Semetko, and de Vreese (1999) found consistent results across the issues (i.e. Euro vs Crime story), indicating that their claims concerning framing effects can indeed be generalized across issues. However, the findings from this study did not show much consistency across the issues, indicating that framing effect cannot always be generalized across issues. Valkenburg, Semetko, and de Vreese (1999) found consistently that the type of news frame that readers are exposed to reflects their cognitive responses. In the current study, only the conflict frame and the attribution of responsibility made a difference. Although these observations provide some support for earlier hypothesis (e.g., Entman 1993) suggesting that the news media have the capacity to both tell the audience what issues to think about and how to think of the issues, this might not always be the situation with all the news frames. This suggestion deserves further investigations. Third, the changes made in the experimental materials and contents could also contribute to the milder outcome observed in this study. Although, the experimental materials in both studies were developed from real news items which enhance the ecological validity, Valkenburg, Semetko, and de Vreese (1999) localized the news story while the current study used news stories which are not local to the readers. DeLung et al., (2012) found that news stories that are localized, create a sense of connection with the readers who perceived them to be more credible than those that are not. Thus, when people are reading about news events that are occurring in other places, they may not assign much connection with the news story as they would if the news story was about a local event. This suggestion needs to be investigated further. 4.4 Suggestions for Future Study The experimental procedures used in this study has proven to be a useful way of examining framing effects, some adjustments can still be made. First it is important for prospective studies to take into account several personal characteristics of the study subjects such as gender, general 34 interest, and educational background because it might moderate the effect of framing. Therefore, the sample needs to be more diverse so that the findings become clear with respect to the personal characteristics. Another suggestion that can be taken into account in subsequent studies concerns the number of words used in developing the news frame. The current study used as little as one hundred and fifteen (115) words in developing the core text. This meant that several vital information that could make the report more detailed had to be omitted. However, real news reports usually include a bit more information while highlighting the salient aspect of the events. Therefore, future studies need to take into account how much information to include in the report and how much words to use in developing the news report.