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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ong, Adeline Huilin, Neo, Eileen Hui Yan, Lim, Nigel Wen Bin, Loh, Clara Yi Jin
Other Authors: Benjamin Hill Detenber
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