Frame competition and climate change communication
This study examined complementary and competitive framing environments to distill the effects of frame direction (pro- and/or anti- positions), frame emphases (economic and/or survival frames), and the two types of frame competition on support for and attitudes toward pro-environmental behaviours an...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| 其他作者: | |
| 格式: | Final Year Project |
| 語言: | English |
| 出版: |
2015
|
| 主題: | |
| 在線閱讀: | http://hdl.handle.net/10356/62499 |
| 標簽: |
添加標簽
沒有標簽, 成為第一個標記此記錄!
|
| 機構: | Nanyang Technological University |
| 語言: | English |
| 總結: | This study examined complementary and competitive framing environments to distill the effects of frame direction (pro- and/or anti- positions), frame emphases (economic and/or survival frames), and the two types of frame competition on support for and attitudes toward pro-environmental behaviours and green energy technologies. Results derived from a purposive sample of university students (N = 525) suggest that frames are more effective in shifting participants’ attitudes than support — evidence of the attitude-behaviour gap. Frame direction led individuals to have attitudes that are in line with the frames’ positions. Relative to the control group, complementary anti-frames were found to significantly lower attitudes towards PEBs and GETs. Individuals in the competitive condition reported middle ground positions that were significantly higher than the complementary anti-frame condition and lower than the complementary pro-condition on attitudes towards GETs. On the support level, significant results were found between the complementary pro- and complementary anti-positions, as well as between the competitive and complementary pro-conditions for PEBs. Frame emphases had non-significant effects on the dependent variables, which suggest that there are no significant differences in terms of effects, between the two types of competitive framing environments. In general, complementary frames produced classic framing effects, while competitive frames produced middle ground positions, which is consistent with current literature. Findings suggest the limited ability of communication frames in competitive environments to effectively engage and drive change beyond the attitudinal level. Keywords: complementary framing, competitive framing, climate change communication, pro-environmental behavior, green energy technology |
|---|