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: | , , , |
---|---|
Other Authors: | |
Format: | Final Year Project |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2015
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10356/62499 |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Nanyang Technological University |
Language: | English |
id |
sg-ntu-dr.10356-62499 |
---|---|
record_format |
dspace |
spelling |
sg-ntu-dr.10356-624992019-12-10T13:41:28Z Frame competition and climate change communication Ong, Adeline Huilin Neo, Eileen Hui Yan Lim, Nigel Wen Bin Loh, Clara Yi Jin Benjamin Hill Detenber Shirley Ho Soo Yee Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information DRNTU::Social sciences::Communication::Communication theories and models 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 Bachelor of Communication Studies 2015-04-09T07:37:19Z 2015-04-09T07:37:19Z 2015 2015 Final Year Project (FYP) http://hdl.handle.net/10356/62499 en Nanyang Technological University 58 p. application/pdf |
institution |
Nanyang Technological University |
building |
NTU Library |
country |
Singapore |
collection |
DR-NTU |
language |
English |
topic |
DRNTU::Social sciences::Communication::Communication theories and models |
spellingShingle |
DRNTU::Social sciences::Communication::Communication theories and models Ong, Adeline Huilin Neo, Eileen Hui Yan Lim, Nigel Wen Bin Loh, Clara Yi Jin Frame competition and climate change communication |
description |
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 |
author2 |
Benjamin Hill Detenber |
author_facet |
Benjamin Hill Detenber Ong, Adeline Huilin Neo, Eileen Hui Yan Lim, Nigel Wen Bin Loh, Clara Yi Jin |
format |
Final Year Project |
author |
Ong, Adeline Huilin Neo, Eileen Hui Yan Lim, Nigel Wen Bin Loh, Clara Yi Jin |
author_sort |
Ong, Adeline Huilin |
title |
Frame competition and climate change communication |
title_short |
Frame competition and climate change communication |
title_full |
Frame competition and climate change communication |
title_fullStr |
Frame competition and climate change communication |
title_full_unstemmed |
Frame competition and climate change communication |
title_sort |
frame competition and climate change communication |
publishDate |
2015 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10356/62499 |
_version_ |
1681048229676843008 |