The effects of photographic and textual framing on public support and risk perception of controversial and non-controversial sciences

• Main Author: Lee, Edmund Wei Jian
• Other Authors: Shirley Ho Soo Yee
• Format: Theses and Dissertations
• Language: English
• Published: 2014
• Subjects: DRNTU::Social sciences; DRNTU::Social sciences::Communication::Visual communication; DRNTU::Social sciences::Communication::Public opinion
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/10356/61657
• Institution: Nanyang Technological University

Studies on framing have shown that how the media frame an issue can significantly impact public perception and acceptance of science and emerging technologies. However, many of these studies have examined textual framing without considering the role of photographs in the framing process. This study seeks to fill the research gap by laying a conceptual framework for photographic framing and test the impact of either framing types on public support and risk perception of a controversial (nuclear energy) and a non-controversial science topic (nanotechnology) in Singapore. Using a 2 X 2 X 2 between-subject factorial experimental design, the study showed that exposure to controversial science resulted in a lower level of support and higher risk perception as compared to exposure to non-controversial science. The results also showed that participants paid a statistically higher level of attention to photographic frames than they did to textual frames. Participants in the risk frame condition registered lower level of public support for sciences and higher level of risk perception compared to those exposed to the benefit frame. A significant two-way interaction between photographic-textual frames and risk-benefit frames on public support for sciences was found, with gaps in public support amplified among participants in the photographic-risk and textual-risk frame. The results also showed significant three-way interaction between science topics, photographic-textual, and risk-benefit frames on public support and risk perception. Implications for theory and practice were discussed.