Equivalence and Issue Framing Effects in

the News Media and their Effect on Preferences Regarding Climate Change

Ben Schifman

AN UNDERGRADUATE THESIS

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a

Bachelor of Arts Degree

in

Environmental Studies

Lewis & Clark College

Portland, Oregon

2007

1

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Global Climate Change and the Framing Effects of the News Media

III. Methodology

A. Frame Determination

B. Experiment

IV. Data

V. Conclusion

VI. Appendix

A. Frames

B. Survey Questions

C. Chi Squared Calculations

VII. Bibliography

2

Abstract The media’s focus on and presentation of an issue can influence individuals’ attitudes and policy preferences. My research explores one aspect of media effects—framing—and evaluates how and to what degree it influences individuals’ policy preferences regarding global climate change. Specifically, I address the interaction between the equivalence and issue frames in this policy area. This is done first through an analysis of the frames within the media which reveals that climate change was framed primarily in terms of (1) its costs and harms, (2) the costs of addressing or mitigating its effects, or (3) as a scientific issue in which various experts offered their opinions or critiqued those of other experts. After identifying the dominant frames, an experimental design was conducted to determine the effect which exposure to these frames has on individuals’ policy preferences as examined through equivalence frames. The data reveal that exposure to the “costs of climate change” frame does not lead to a statistically significant change in preferences. Exposure to either of the other two frames, however, results in a preference for more risk-seeking policy. I. Introduction

In the public discourse there exists debate about the implications of climate

change, the appropriate governmental action, and even the existence of the

phenomenon itself.1 This public debate is reflected in the news media. Climate

change is in part a scientific issue, and the general public has been shown to garner

most of its knowledge about science from the mass media (Nelkin, 1987; Wilson,

1995). Because the media are such a significant source of knowledge, the way they

describe issues is important. Boykoff (2003) argues that the journalistic desire for

“balance” and frequent inclusion of scientific skeptics gives a misleading picture of

a lack of scientific consensus regarding climate change. In addition to the way the

scientific aspects of this issue are portrayed, the news media also report upon the

desirability of various policy options for addressing climate change. A Pew Global

Attitudes Project survey (2006) showed that only 19% of Americans expressed a

great deal of personal concern about global warming—significantly less than in all 1 For a discussion of the media’s presentation of the controversy surrounding climate change see Boykoff, (2003).

3

other countries surveyed but China. This lack of concern for climate change among

Americans has led some to speculate that it is the news media that are to some

extent responsible for the policy preferences individuals demonstrate with regard to

this phenomenon.2 Framing climate change and other environmental issues in an

overly catastrophic manner has been speculated by Michael Shellenberger to “create

feelings of helplessness and isolation among would-be supporters.” He continues,

“Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech is famous because it put forward

an inspiring, positive vision. . .[i]magine how history would have turned out had

King given an ‘I Have a Nightmare’ speech instead.” (The Oregonian, March 27,

2005). As Shellenberger suggests the way issues are framed—by advocates and by the

news media alike—would seem to influence individuals’ policy preferences.

This paper will explore the framing effects of the news media regarding climate

change and evaluate how and to what degree they influences individuals’ policy

preferences. Specifically, this paper will explore the relationship between equivalence

framing effects and issue framing effects. It is my hypothesis that the issue framing

effects will exacerbate equivalence framing effects, hence supporting the conclusion that

the way the news media frames climate change plays a role in shaping policy preferences

in this area.

A. Global Climate Change

2 See Adbusters magazine, The Big Ideas of 2005. 2005.

4

Global climate change refers to the climatic impacts of the enhanced

greenhouse effect resulting from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases

(GHGs). The Earth receives radiation from the sun in various wavelengths

(Manahan 2005). The Earth absorbs approximately 70% of this radiation directly,

and the remaining 30% is reflected away from the earth (Ibid). Clouds reflect 17%

back into space, 8% is scattered back by air molecules, and 6% is directly reflected

off the surface of the Earth (Seinfeld et al. 1998). This total reflection is known as

an Albedo (Manahan 2005). If this Albedo was lost into space and not reradiated

back to Earth, the average temperature of the Earth would be -18° Celsius as

opposed to its current 15° Celsius (Ibid). Earth’s current pleasant temperature is a

result of GHGs such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane present in the

atmosphere. Because of their chemical properties, these gasses are able to change

the energy balance of the planet by absorbing the longwave radiation which is

emitted from the Earth’s surface (Ibid). This radiation absorption by GHGs within

the atmosphere causes heat energy to be added to the atmosphere, and eventually to

the surface of Earth. This so-called greenhouse effect is a natural process and is

responsible for creating the climate that humans enjoy. However, human actions

have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, escalating the

greenhouse effect, and resulting in climate change.

Since the industrial revolution, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere have increased greatly (IPCC 2007). This increased concentration of

carbon dioxide is causing changes in climate, and is expected to continue to cause

them (Ibid). By 2002, carbon dioxide concentrations had risen approximately 33%

5

from pre-industrial levels to nearly 373 parts per million (Keeling and Whorf 2003).

This increase in concentration of carbon dioxide is the result of burning fossil fuels,

deforestation, and other human activities (Ibid). Burning fossil fuels is the primary

source of anthropogenic carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. The burning

of these fuels is significant because they contain carbon which was sequestered

within the earth and therefore not contributing to the greenhouse effect before

humans began to use them. The present atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is

the highest in at least the past 420,000 years (Falkowski 2000; Petit et al. 1999) and

probably the past 20 million years (Pagani et al. 1999). The Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2007) projects that by the year 2100, CO2

concentrations may increase by as much as 350% and the average global temperature

may rise by as much as 11° F under “business-as-usual” scenarios.

That the climate is changing, and that humans are the primary cause has been

called a scientific consensus.3 However, the extent of the climatic, economic and

social implications of climate change is inherently more speculative, and has been

subject to more debate. There is also a significant debate regarding the proper

policy responses to climate change. The policy questions include whether climate

change should be a significant priority, whether efforts should focus on preparing

for the effects of climate change or reducing the emissions, and to what degree a

3 A study by Oreskes (2006) suggests the degree of agreement among scientists of climate change. Oreskes surveyed the abstracts of peer reviewed scientific journals dealing with climate change published between 1993 and 2003. She then divided the papers into six categories: (1) explicit endorsement of the consensus position, (2) evaluation of impacts, (3) mitigation proposals, (4) methods, (5) paleoclimate analysis, and (6) rejection of the consensus position. Oreskes found that none of the papers fell into the last category, while 75% fell into the first three categories.

6

country should sacrifice economic growth for efforts to combat climate change.4

The political process by which policy is decided is influenced by individuals’ policy

preferences and by the news media.

B. The Framing Effects of the News Media

More than 50 million people in the United States watch network news on an

average evening, and an even greater number watch some portion of a local news

broadcast (Ansolabehere, Behr, Iyengar 1993). The US Census Bureau (2005)

estimates that there are 1,452,000 English-language newspapers in circulation in the

United States which are read by tens of millions of people daily (Ibid). Simply by

deciding which issues to cover, the news media set the public agenda and this can

influence the importance which individuals ascribe to given issues (Iyengar and

Kinder 1987). By elevating one issue over another—a phenomenon known as

priming—the media can influence voters’ evaluation of political actors (Krosnick

and Brannon 1993). These agenda setting and priming affects demonstrate that

media focus on an issue alone can affect opinion (Krosnick and Kinder 1990).

However, issues which are brought to the public agenda by the media can be

presented—or framed—in a variety of ways, and these frames can affect perception

and preferences. The term framing has been defined and used in many different

ways.5 Framing can be described as the process of communicating some aspects of a

perceived reality which promotes a particular problem definition, causal

interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation (Haider-Markel

4 Schneider, Rosencranz and Niles (2002) offer a broad overview of the policy questions posed by climate change. 5 Druckman (2001a) surveys the uses of the term “frame” in the literature, and explains its different uses.

7

and Joslyn 2001). Framing can cause “framing effects” which are generally divided

into “issue” framing effects and “equivalence” framing effects.

Issue framing effects occur in situations where, by emphasizing a subset of

potentially relevant considerations, a communicated message leads individuals to

focus on these considerations when constructing their opinions (Druckman 2001a).

A concrete example of issue framing effects is demonstrated by Nelson et al. (1997)

in a study where individuals were presented with information and expressed their

preferences regarding a rally by the Ku Klux Klan. When the rally was framed as a

free speech issue, individuals expressed tolerance of the rally; the opposite was true

when it was framed as an issue of public order. “Equivalence” framing effects

occur when logically equivalent but distinct words or phrases elicit different

preferences. For example, Quattrone and Tversky (1988) demonstrate that when

presented with a choice between employment and inflation, individuals express a

favorable preference for a policy which would ensure 90% employment and 10%

inflation but express disfavor towards the same policy when described as ensuring

10% unemployment and 10% inflation. Scholars have documented framing effects

in a great number of circumstances using students, non-students, and even samples

made up of experts such as mathematicians or judges (Kuhberger, Schulte-

Mecklenbeck, and Perner 1999; Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth 1998). Levy (2002,

273) describes the evidence for framing effects as “quite robust,” noting that “the

same patterns have been confirmed by experimental economists who were

determined to (and expecting to) demonstrate that the findings were artifacts of

flawed experimental designs . . .” Levy’s findings support the conclusion that

8

framing effects are demonstrably significant, and frames can measurably affect the

preferences of those exposed to them.

Issue frames and equivalence frames can originate from elites and be

consciously spread through the media, or can be an effect of how the media present

information absent elite direction (Iyengar 1996; Druckman and Nelson 2003).

Though framing effects have been demonstrated to be significant, they are neither

permanent nor irreversible. Framing effects have been demonstrated to be

moderated by interactions with opposing frames as well as by the credibility of the

person presenting the frame (Druckman 2001b; Druckman and Nelson 2003).

Druckman (2004) further demonstrates a variety of factors—including interpersonal

discussions and individual knowledge—can also condition framing effects. The

framing literature has principally centered on welfare (Smith 1987), affirmative

action (Kinder and Sanders 1990), government spending (Jacoby 2000; Nelson and

Kinder 1996), and civil liberties (Chong 1996; Nelson, Clawson and Oxley 1997).

How the news media frame environmental issues appears to be understudied, and

can prove an interesting test case for analyzing the effect of frames.

III. Methodology

A. Frame Determination

In order to determine the effects of news media frames on preferences, I

identified the dominant frames in the media and then conducted an experimental

study of their effects on preferences. To begin I analyzed the various frames used

by the news media in discussions of climate change. I analyzed articles from The

9

New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today, Time and Newsweek. These

newspapers and magazines were selected because they are generally reflective of

national policy issues as well as have broad coverage and circulation (Ulrich's

Periodicals Directory, 2007). Using Lexis Nexis, articles from December 2005

through December 2006 which contained “global warming,” or “climate change” in

the headline, lead paragraph or terms were initially selected. There were a total of

2,143 which matched this criterion. Time constraints required that I read

approximately 30% of these articles. To select the articles I used the website

http://www.random.org to create a random sequence of numbers for each source,

and I selected the first 30% of these numbers. I found, however, that a large

proportion of these articles (the majority) were not primarily about climate change.6

Because of this, I elected to code all of the 160 articles from the sample which

contained “global warming” or “climate change” in the headline. These articles

were almost all focused primarily on climate change.

To code an article I read it and then wrote down the theme, or central focus

(see Terkildsen and Schnell 1997; Haider-Markel et al. 2006). I also identified

prominent words of phrases associated with this focus. In the cases where there

were two or more equally prominent frames, each was coded as one frame (see

Terkildsen and Schnell 1997). This analysis of the frames used in the media

revealed that generally, climate change was framed either in terms of (1) its costs

and harms (general or specific), (2) the costs of addressing or mitigating its effects,

6 Some articles contained the terms I was searching for but were not actually about climate change. For example, “The political climate changed significantly after the midterms held last Tuesday. . .” Other articles contained the phrases “global warming” or “climate change” but the mention was incidental to the article’s main focus. For example: “The Court will also consider cases dealing with the EPA response to global warming. . . this term.”

10

or (3) as a scientific issue in which various experts offered their opinions or

critiqued those of other experts. It further revealed that while there were

significantly more articles which referred to “global warming” as opposed to

“climate change,”7 these terms were used basically interchangeably. There was no

statistically significant relationship between the term used and the frame. That is to

say that when climate change was framed as costly to address, for example, it was

just as likely to be called “global warming” as “climate change.” What follows is a

discussion of the characteristics of the most common frames within the sample.

Cost of Climate Change

This frame is by far the most common; the many different costs associated

with climate change are discussed to a great extent within my sample. Initially I

divided articles which discussed cost into those which discussed “general” and

“specific” costs, however, the difference ultimately proved to be analytically

unimportant. What I initially coded as a “general costs” frame would focus on the

wide ranging negative implications of global warming, whereas a “specific costs”

frame would focus on the harms to a specific group, organization or interest. For

example, an article in Time (January 23, 2006) titled “Why Are These Frogs

Croaking?; Massive die-offs in the American tropics are an early warning of the

effects of global warming” focuses primarily upon global warming’s effect upon

frogs. The cost described most is “specific,” (to frogs, in this case). However, as

7 The total number of articles in my sample with “Global Warming” in the headline, lead paragraph or terms was 1,374. The total number with “Climate Change” in the headline, lead paragraph or terms was 769.

11

frequently occurred, the article also addressed the larger more “general” costs which

were not unique to frogs.

Costs of Addressing Climate Change

This frame highlights the difficulty and expense of addressing climate

change. Focus is placed upon the complexity and cost of switching from a carbon

based economy or mitigating the effects of climate change. Other issues often

highlighted in this frame are the economic implications of addressing climate

change and the difficulty and cost of finding alternative energy sources. Addressing

climate change is often referred to as a “cost” to be borne in order to garner

uncertain future benefits. For example, an opinion editorial in the Washington Post

(April 2, 2005) asks “. . .are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from

whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth

and spending trillions?”

Scientific Issue/Debate

This frame focuses primarily on the scientific elements of climate change and

the various scientific opinions regarding this phenomenon. Stories which contain

this frame often are about new studies which address an element of climate change:

its causes, effects or both. Consistent with the findings of Boykoff (2003), in many

articles which describe the scientific aspect of climate change, individuals who

questioned elements of the scientific basis of climate change are featured

alongside—and in contrast to—the “consensus view” of groups such as the IPCC.

This juxtaposition is significant. Boykoff (2003) and others speculate that a

consistent framing of climate change as an issue over which there is scientific

12

disunity causes individuals to question the scientific consensus on this issue and

formulate their opinions accordingly.

Politics

A percentage of articles which dealt with climate change framed it primarily

as a political issue. However, in many cases articles which dealt with the issue in

this way were not truly focused upon climate change, but rather politics. Articles

often mentioned climate change as one of many priorities of a given congressperson

or party (Washington Post, September 21, 2006). In other cases, climate change

was used as an example to highlight differences between the state and federal

government (USA Today, August 25, 2006).

Other Frames

These frames were not the only ones I encountered. Many other frames

existed to various degrees. Several articles framed climate change in terms of the

benefits it would garner certain individuals, such as farmers in northern latitudes.

Other articles discussed climate change primarily as part of a discussion of

movements and constituents seeking to address climate change politically.

However, the frames identified above were the most prevalent, and time and

resource constraints required that I pick only three to analyze. Because of the

incidental nature in which global warming was discussed in most cases of the

Politics frame, I chose to not include it in my study. In addition, the similarities

between the “general” and “specific” harms frame, and their frequent combination

in the articles I read lead me to combine them when I conducted the study.

13

Frame Frequency

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

New

Yor

k Tim

es

Was

hing

ton Pos

t

USA T

oday

Time

New

swee

ktotal

Politics

Costs of Addressing Global Warming

Specific Costs of Global Warming

General Costs of Global Warming

Science/Dispute

Other

Benefits

Figure 1: The Frames present and their frequency

B. Study

Once I had determined what the prevalent frames within the media were, I

conducted an experiment to determine how these frames affect individuals’

preferences. To solicit individuals to participate in my experiment I put up posters

at Lewis & Clark College, purchased an ad in the Pioneer Log student newspaper

and advertised to college students using the social networking site

http://www.facebook.com. Individuals were offered a chance to win a variety of

prizes for participating. There were 235 individuals who took the survey: 85 men,

149 women and one individual who identified as “other.” Most people who took the

survey were undergraduates. The majority of participants stated that they read,

watched, or listened to the news at least once a week. Those who elected to take the

survey were directed to a website which used a javascript-based random number

14

generator to present them with a hyperlink to one of four different surveys. Each

survey began with the reading of one of four different articles. Three fourths of the

articles—in the introduction and conclusion—framed the issue in one of the three

ways described above. After the introduction and before the conclusion, the bodies

of all the articles were identical. One fourth of the participants were given an article

which contained just the body, without an introduction or conclusion.

The frames used in the study were based in part upon passages from actual

articles read during coding. However, these passages were edited so that they were

all approximately the same size. See the appendix for the actual frames used in the

study. The article body alone (the control) was edited so that it lacks an overt issue

frame as much as this is possible. It does not overtly communicate some aspects of

a perceived reality which promotes a particular problem definition, causal

interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation (Haider-Markel

and Joslyn 2001). The body discusses only factual statements which were drawn

primarily from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s summary for

policymakers and other sources (see the appendix to read the body as it appeared in

the study.) The article body is agnostic as to whether humans or natural cycles are

the primary drivers of climate change, it is agnostic as to whether action should be

taken to combat climate change, and also as to whether climate change is or is not a

“problem.”

After reading an article—either just the article body or the article body with

one of three frames in the introduction and conclusion—individuals answered a

series of questions regarding their degree of concern regarding climate change, and

15

whether or not they felt the government should act in this policy area. They were then

exposed to an equivalence frame based upon frames used by Tversky and Kahneman

(1987). After reading one of the four articles described above individuals were given one

of the two following questions:

1. Equivalence Frame A:

Imagine that the federal government is considering action to combat the effects of climate change. Two alternative programs have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If Program A is adopted 200 miles of coastline will be saved. If Program B is adopted there is 1/3 probability that 600 miles will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no coastline will be saved. Which program would you prefer?

Another group of respondents responded instead to the following question:

2. Equivalence Frame B:

Imagine that the federal government is considering action to combat the effects of climate change. Two alternative programs have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If Program C is adopted 400 miles of coastline will be lost. If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that no coastline will be lost, and 2/3 probability that 600 miles will be lost. Which program would you prefer?

These programs in question 2 are exactly equivalent to those offered in question 1 except

they are framed in terms of the miles of coastline lost instead of the miles of coastline

saved (e.g., 400 of 600 lost = 200 of 600 saved). The two programs in each case have the

same expected value of saving 200 miles of coastline. However, programs A and C

16

constitute risk-averse choices as the outcome is certain, whereas programs B and D are

risk-seeking choices because the outcome is uncertain.

IV. Data

I hypothesized that individuals’ responses to the equivalence frames described

above would differ depending upon which issue frame they were exposed to, and the data

provide support for this hypothesis. This result reveals that equivalence and issue framing

effects are related and, indeed, issue frames can influence the effect of equivalence

frames.

The data demonstrate that individuals exposed to the control exhibited significant

framing effects, as would be expected. As was the case with Tversky and Kahneman’s

(1987) initial study, individuals were significantly more included to favor a risk-averse

option when the question was framed as “saving” coastline as opposed to “losing”

coastline.

Equivalence Framing Effect

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

"Saved" Frame "Lost" Frame

Resp

on

ses

Programs A/C

Programs B/D

Figure 2: Equivalence framing effects present in the control.

17

In order to determine whether the differences observed between the control and the other

frames were statistically significant, I conducted a chi squared test. A typical chi squared

test compares the observed results with results which would be expected if the data were

distributed according only to chance. This version of the test would not be appropriate;

instead, I used the results from the control for the “expected” value, and the observed

results for the “actual” values. This process allowed for a comparison between the

control, in which there was no frame, and the three prominent frames discussed above.

Therefore, any observed statistically significant difference between the frame used and

the control would be due only to the effect of the frame. See the appendix for specific chi

squared calculations. The data revealed that there was a statistically significant

relationship between both the cost of addressing issue and science issue frame, and the

equivalence framing effects. There was not, however, a statistically significant

relationship between the costs of global warming issue frame and the equivalence

framing effect.

Framing Effects: "Costs of Addressing" Frame

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

costs of

addressing issue

frame; saved

equivalence

frame

costs of

addressing issue

frame; lost

equivalence

frame

control; saved

equivalence

frame

control; lost

equivalence

frame

Resp

on

ses

risk averse option

risky option

Figure 3: Equivalence and issue framing effects with the “costs of addressing” frame

18

Framing Effects: "Science" Frame

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

science issue

frame; saved

equivalence

frame

science issue

frame; lost

equivalence

frame

control; saved

equivalence

frame

control; lost

equivalence

frame

Resp

on

ses

risk averse option

risky option

Figure 4: Equivalence and issue framing effects with the “science” frame

The data reveal that individuals who were exposed to the science frame were

more likely to favor a risk-seeking option (program D described above), when the

question is framed as coastline “lost.” The same was true—to an even greater extent—for

the costs of addressing frame. However, individuals exposed to the costs frame were as

likely as those not exposed to any frame to favor either a risk-seeking or risk-averse

program. This suggests that framing climate change as costly to address or as an issue

that is being debated by scientists makes individuals prefer relatively riskier policy. This

could be because individuals responding to the equivalence frame after exposure to either

of these issue frames do not see the chance of saving no coastline at all as significant as

those who were exposed to the costs frame or control. These results adds nuance to the

conclusions of Boykoff (2003) which suggest that the presentation of climate change as

an issue in which scientists disagree discourages policy action. My data reveal that

exposure to the science issue frame actually creates a preference for more risk-seeking

19

government policy. If scientists are unsure, respondents may conclude, coastline will be

lost regardless and therefore a risk-seeking policy has less of a downside.

There was no statistically significant relationship between the costs issue frame

and the equivalence frames. That individuals exposed to no issue frame and the costs

issue frame are equally likely to favor risk-averse or risk-seeking policy indicates that

framing climate change in terms of it’s costs does not affect individuals’ preferences.

Perhaps individuals are predisposed to view climate change as costly and harmful, and

therefore an issue frame which re-enforces this conception would not affect preferences.

However, this result could also be the result of a sampling bias because the sample

consisted primarily of undergraduates at a liberal arts college. Students at liberal arts

colleges would logically be expected to favor different governmental responses to

climate change than other groups within the United States due to a number of

factors including their youth and political orientation. Public attitude surveys have

consistently shown that younger, more Democratic leaning individuals—and

particularly college students—are more likely to be concerned about global warming

(see Pew 2006). It is possible that different groups of individuals would have reacted

differently to the issue and equivalence frames present in this study, leading to a different

result.

VI. Conclusion

The data revealed here suggest that public perception and policy preferences

regarding climate change are influenced by the news media and the frames employed

therein. Future research could focus on the mediating effects of frames associate with

20

elites or mediate via interpersonal interaction as identified by Druckman (2001a; 2004).

Future research could also address the interplay between framing and priming; might one

take precedence over the other? Comparative research could also indicate the extent to

which the framing effects of the news media with regard to climate change are unique to

the United States. Though a sampling bias could undermine the generalizability of

the data (as undergraduates were the primary participants), the data are nonetheless

consistent with the framing literature which predicts that issue framing effects

should occur with the issue of climate change as with other issues.

My research has implications as well for those who are not scholars. Advocacy

groups should note the significance of framing effects—with the issue of climate

change and in general—and tailor their rhetoric accordingly. Likewise, policy

makers that seek to win support for their policies could describe them with the

effect of various frames in mind. Framing has been advocated as a tool of

policymakers for some time (see Lakoff 1980, 2003; Swaffield 1998; Shellenberger

and Nordhaus 2005), and an understanding of the framing effects in this area could

guide the rhetoric used in upcoming political deliberations dealing with climate

change policy. Of particular utility to policymakers or advocates would be the

information from my research regarding the impact of issue frames on risk-seeking

behavior. The issue frame employed significantly altered individuals desires for

risk-seeking or risk-averse policy options. This knowledge could serve to inform the

rhetoric policymakers or advocates use; when pushing for adoption of a relatively

riskier policy they could use the issue frames likely to cause risk-seeking-seeking

behavior and vice versa.

21

My research has taken the test case of global climate change and analyzed

the primary ways it is framed within the media and how the framing effects

present—both equivalence and issue—influence individuals’ preferences. The

media are an important source of public knowledge, and therefore the way the

describe issues is significant. My examination of the one aspect of media effects—

framing—explored here has revealed that the media’s presentation of climate

change does have significant effects on individuals’ preferences. Global climate

change is an issue with a plethora of political, scientific and social implications. An

understanding of how the news media shape public opinion in this topical area can

serve to highlight to role of the media in a democracy, as well as to examine the

depth and role of framing effects.

VII. Bibliography

Ansolabehere, S., R. L. Behr, and S. Iyengar. 1993. The Media Game: American Politics in the Television Age. Maxwell Macmillan. Canada.

Bartels, L. M. 1993. "Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure." The American Political Science Review 87 (2): 267-85.

Berinsky, A. J., and D. R. Kinder. 2006. "Making Sense of Issues through Media Frames: Understanding the Kosovo Crisis." Journal of Politics 68 : 640.

Boykoff, M. T., and J. M. Boykoff. 2004. "Balance as Bias: Global Warming And the US Prestige Press." Global Environmental Change 14 : 125-36.

Cappella, J. N., and K. H. Jamieson. 1996. "News Frames, Political Cynicism, and Media Cynicism." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546 : 71-84.

Chong, D. 1993. "How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties." American Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 867-99.

22

Druckman, J.N, Z. Hajnal, D. King, J. Kuklinski, A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, T. Nelson, R. Oldendick, and S. Popkin. 2001. "On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who can Frame?" The Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1041-66.

Druckman, J. N. 2001. "The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence." Political Behavior 23 (3): 225-56.

Druckman, J. N. 2004. "Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir) Relevance of Framing Effects." American Political Science Review 98 (04): 671-86.

Druckman, J. N., and K. R. Nelson. 2003. "Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence." American Journal of Political Science 47 (4): 729-45.

Druckman, JN. 2001. "Evaluating Framing Effects." Journal of Economic Psychology 22 (1): 91-101.

Falkowski, P., R. J. Scholes, E. Boyle, J. Canadell, D. Canfield, J. Elser, N. Gruber, K. Hibbard, P. Hogberg, S. Linder, F. T. Mackenzie, B. Moore 3rd, T. Pedersen, Y. Rosenthal, S. Seitzinger, V. Smetacek, and W. Steffen. 2000. "The Global Carbon Cycle: A Test of our Knowledge of Earth as a System." Science 290 (5490): 291-6.

Haider-Markel, D. P., and M. R. Joslyn. 2001. "Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution: The Conditional Influence of Issue Frames." The Journal of Politics 63 (2): 520-43.

Haider-Markel, D. P., M. R. Joslyn, and M. T. Al-Baghal. 2006. "Can we Frame the Terrorist Threat? Issue Frames, the Perception of Threat, and Opinions on Counterterrorism Policies." Terrorism and Political Violence 18 (4): 545-59.

IPCC. 2007. "The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers." Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Iyengar, S. 1987. "Television News and Citizens' Explanations of National Affairs." The American Political Science Review 81 (3): 815-32.

Iyengar, S. 1990. "Framing Responsibility for Political Issues: The Case of Poverty." Political Behavior 12 (1): 19-40.

Iyengar, S. 1996. "Framing Responsibility for Political Issues." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546 : 59-70.

Iyengar, S., and D. R. Kinder. 1987. News that matters. University of Chicago Press Chicago.

23

Jacoby, W. G. 2000. "Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending." American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 750-67.

Keeling, CD, and TP Whorf. 2003. "The Carbon Dioxide Research Group Report." Scripts Institute of Oceanography: 92093-0444.

Kluger, Jeffery. 2006. "Why are these Frogs Croaking?; Massive Die-Offs in the American Tropics are an Early Warning of the Effects of Global Warming." Time. Jan. 15, 2006.

Krosnick, J. A., and L. A. Brannon. 1993. "The Impact of the Gulf War on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Multidimensional Effects of Political Involvement." The American Political Science Review 87 (4): 963-75.

Krosnick, J. A., and D. R. Kinder. 1990. "Altering the Foundations of Support for the President through Priming." The American Political Science Review 84 (2): 497-512.

Kühberger, A., M. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, and J. Perner. 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks." Organizational behavior and human decision processes 78 (3): 204-31.

Lakoff, G. 2003. "Framing the Dems." American Prospect, September 32

Lakoff, G., and M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press Chicago.

Levin, I. P., S. L. Schneider, and G. J. Gaeth. 1998. "All Frames are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects." Organizational behavior and human decision processes 76 (2): 149-88.

Levy, J. S. 2002. "Daniel Kahneman: Judgment, Decision, and Rationality." PS: Political Science and Politics 35 (02): 271-3.

Richard Louv, "Replanting the Environmental Garden," The Oregonian, March 27, 2005.

MacGuffie, K., and A. Henderson-Sellers. 2005. A Climate Modeling Primer. John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Manahan, S. E. 2005. Environmental Chemistry. CRC Press.

Nelkin, D. 1987. "Selling Science. how the Press Covers Science and Technology." New York: Freeman, 1987.

Nelson, T. E., and D. R. Kinder. 1996. "Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion." The Journal of Politics 58 (4): 1055-78.

24

Nelson, T. E., and Z. M. Oxley. 1999. "Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion." The Journal of Politics 61 (4): 1040-67.

Oreskes, N. 2004. "Beyond the Ivory Tower. the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." Science 306 (5702): 1686.

Petit, JR, J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, NI Barkov, J. M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, and G. Delaygue. 1999. "Climate and Atmospheric History of the Past 420,000 Years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica." Nature 399 : 429-36.

Pew Inc. 2006. Pew Global Attitudes Project Report 2006.

Quattrone, G. A., and A. Tversky. 1988. "Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice." The American Political Science Review 82 (3): 719-36.

Schneider, S. H., A. Rosencranz, and J. O. Niles. 2002. Climate Change Policy: A Survey. Island Press.

Seinfeld, J. H., and S. N. Pandis. 1998. "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change." Atmospheric chemistry and physics.

Smith, T. W. 1987. "That which we Call Welfare by any Other Name would Smell Sweeter an Analysis of the Impact of Question Wording on Response Patterns." Public opinion quarterly 51 (1): 75.

Stern, N. 2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge University Press.

Swaffield, S. 1998. "Frames of Reference: A Metaphor for Analyzing and Interpreting Attitudes of Environmental Policy Makers and Policy Influencers." Environmental management 22 (4): 495-504.

Terkildsen, N., and F. Schnell. 1997. "How Media Frames Move Public Opinion: An Analysis of the Women's Movement." Political Research Quarterly 50 (4): 879-900.

Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions." The Journal of Business 59 (4): 251-78.

Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/

Will, George "Let Cooler Heads Prevail," Washington Post, April 2 2005.

25

Wilson, K. M. 1995. "Mass Media as Sources of Global Warming Knowledge." Mass Communications Review 22 (1): 75-89.

VIII. Appendix

A. Frames

1. Body of article with no frame: the control

Information about climate change Relative to the period 1860–1900, global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F), according to the instrumental temperature record. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C/decade against 0.13 °C/decade). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Over the one or two thousand years before 1850, temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. The attribution of recent climate change is clearest for the most recent period of the last 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. The climate system varies through natural, internal processes and in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and natural causes. These forcing factors include solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases. Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer. Greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, so that Earth would be uninhabitable.

2. “Costs” frame

Climate report warns of drought, disease

26

WASHINGTON - The harmful effects of global warming on daily life are already showing up, and within a couple of decades hundreds of millions of people won't have enough water, top scientists will say next month at a meeting in Belgium.

At the same time, tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the Earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels, according to portions of a draft of an international scientific report obtained by The Associated Press.

Tropical diseases like malaria will spread. By 2050, polar bears will mostly be found in zoos, their habitats gone. Pests like fire ants will thrive.

For a time, food will be plentiful because of the longer growing season in northern regions. But by 2080, hundreds of millions of people could face starvation, according to the report, which is still being revised.

The draft document says scientists are highly confident that many current problems - change in species' habits and habitats, more acidified oceans, loss of wetlands, bleaching of coral reefs, and increases in allergy-inducing pollen - can be blamed on global warming.

Relative to the period 1860–1900, global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F), according to the instrumental temperature record. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C/decade against 0.13 °C/decade). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Over the one or two thousand years before 1850, temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. The attribution of recent climate change is clearest for the most recent period of the last 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. The climate system varies through natural, internal processes and in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and natural causes. These forcing factors include solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases. Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer. Greenhouse gases create a

27

natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, so that Earth would be uninhabitable.

Global warming soon will "affect everyone's life ... it's the poor sectors that will be most affected," said Patricia Romero Lankao of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., one of the many co-authors of the new report.

And co-author Terry Root of Stanford University said: "We truly are standing at the edge of mass extinction" of species.

3. “Cost of addressing global warming” frame

Cost of addressing global warming “high,” says analyst LONDON – Bringing global warming to an end would cost almost half global GDP one London analyst has calculated. Charles Dumas of Lombard Street Research says this is many times the cost of dealing with the damaging effects of global warming. Mr. Dumas says that actually halting global warming would mean going well beyond even the provisions of the Kyoto Treaty. Global oil consumption would have to be cut by large amounts, and quickly. The cost of addressing global warming was cited by the Bush administration in its opposition to the Kyoto protocol. It favors relatively less costly voluntary caps on emissions of greenhouse gasses. "The cost of any serious measures would be orders of magnitude greater than whatever is needed by way of defenses against a 15-foot rise in sea levels and freak weather insurance,” argues Dumas.

Relative to the period 1860–1900, global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F), according to the instrumental temperature record. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C/decade against 0.13 °C/decade). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Over the one or two thousand years before 1850, temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age.

28

Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. The attribution of recent climate change is clearest for the most recent period of the last 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. The climate system varies through natural, internal processes and in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and natural causes. These forcing factors include solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases. Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer. Greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, so that Earth would be uninhabitable. "In reality, no-one seriously proposes a cure for global warming, because adequate measures would cause economic catastrophe and probably world war. We are going to have to live with it," Mr Dumas says.

4. “Science/various experts” frame

UN acknowledges climate change; skeptics unconvinced

PARIS -- A United Nations panel on climate change has noted for the first time the likelihood that global warming resulting from human activities is causing heat waves and other abnormal weather phenomena as well as Arctic ice mass loss.

"It's very likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed warming of globally averaged temperatures in the last 50 years," says the draft fourth assessment report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Compared with the third assessment report in 2001, the latest report by a sub-panel argues for clearer links between human activities and the warming.

The IPCC reports, produced by experts on warming from various countries, serve as a base for measures taken by respective governments.

An increasing body of evidence, including sea ice, heat waves, and heavy precipitation, suggests a discernible human influence on climate, the draft report says.

29

Although the IPCC represents the views of many experts, not all scientists agree with it’s conclusions.

Prominent warming skeptics include climatologist giant Dr. Richard Lindzen at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, noted hurricane expert Dr. William Gray at Colorado State University, and Dr. Timothy Ball of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project in Canada. “The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979.” Argues Lindzenof. “We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change,” He continues. “Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise.” According to Dr. Ball, the changes in climate that have been observed so far have not deviated from what can be expected as part of natural variation. Ball states, “these climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.”

Relative to the period 1860–1900, global temperatures on both land and sea have increased by 0.75 °C (1.4 °F), according to the instrumental temperature record. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C/decade against 0.13 °C/decade). Temperatures in the lower troposphere have increased between 0.12 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according to satellite temperature measurements. Over the one or two thousand years before 1850, temperature is believed to have been relatively stable, with possibly regional fluctuations such as the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age. Based on estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental measurements became available in the late 1800s, exceeding the previous record set in 1998 by a few hundredths of a degree. The attribution of recent climate change is clearest for the most recent period of the last 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. The climate system varies through natural, internal processes and in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and natural causes. These forcing factors include solar activity, volcanic emissions, variations in the earth's orbit (orbital forcing) and greenhouse gases. Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer. Greenhouse gases create a

30

natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, so that Earth would be uninhabitable.

B. Survey Questions

. What is your gender? A. M B. F . What is your age? _____ . Are you a College student? A. Y B. N . How often do you read the newspaper? A. Every day B. Every few days C. Less than once a month D. Never . How often do listen to the news on the radio? A. Every day B. Every few days C. Less than once a month D. Never . How often do watch news on TV? A. Every day B. Every few days C. Less than once a month D. Never . From what you’ve read and heard, is there solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades, or not? A. Absolutely solid evidence B. Some solid evidence C. Not much solid evidence D. Absolutely no solid evidence . [if yes on previous ?] is the earth warming A. Mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, OR B. Mostly because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment? . In your view, is global warming a very serious problem, somewhat serious, not too serious, or not a problem? A. Very serious B. Somewhat serious C. Not too serious D. Not a problem . How concerned are you about climate change? A. Very concerned B. Somewhat concerned C. Not too concerned D. Not concerned . Should the US federal government take significant action to combat global warming? A. Definitely yes B. probably yes C. probably not D. Definitely not . Should the US federal government make addressing climate change a significant priority? A. Definitely yes B. probably yes C. probably not D. Definitely not

31

. Imagine that the federal government is considering action to combat the effects of climate change. Two alternative programs have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If Program A is adopted 200 miles of coastline will be saved. If Program B is adopted there is 1/3 probability that 600 miles will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no coastline will be saved. Which program would you prefer?

OR

. Imagine that the federal government is considering action to combat the effects of climate change. Two alternative programs have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If Program C is adopted 400 miles of coastline will be lost. If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that no coastline will be lost, and 2/3 probability that 600 miles will be lost. Which program would you prefer?

C. Chi squared Calculations

chi2 Observed A/C* Observed B/D Control A/C Control B/D costs issue frame; saved equivalence frame 27 1 26 2 0.09859 costs issue frame; lost equivalence frame 13 18 15 13 Observed A/C Observed B/D Control A/C Control B/D costs of addressing issue frame; saved equivalence frame 27 3 26 2 0.024827 costs of addressing issue frame; lost equivalence frame 8 17 15 13 Observed A/C Observed B/D Control A/C Control B/D science issue frame; saved equivalence frame 22 5 26 2 0.017064 science issue frame; lost equivalence frame 13 15 15 13 Note: Programs A and C represent the risk-averse option, whereas programs B and D represent the

32

risk-seeking option.