Associative Framing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Associative Framing A uni¯ed method for measuring media frames and the media agenda Wouter van Atteveldt1, Nel Ruigrok2, and Jan Kleinnijenhuis1 1 Department of Communication Science, Free University Amsterdam, [email protected], [email protected] 2 Department of Communication Science, University of Amsterdam, [email protected] Abstract. Communication Theory, such as Framing, is using increas- ingly sophisticated models for message content and transfer. To support this theoretical work it is needed to also devise more sophisticated meth- ods of content analysis, as the manual thematic content analysis often practised is too expensive and speci¯c to a single theory to provide for the large corpora needed to test sophisticated communication models. This paper proposes Associative Framing, a Relational Content Anal- ysis method based on the marginal and conditional reading chance of concepts. This provides a Communication Theoretic interpretation of linguistic co-occurrence analysis, and can help communication research by increasing the reach of automatic analyses and create more generic data sets, allowing for the simultaneous testing of di®erent theories. We illustrate this method with a case study on the associations of Islam and Terror in newspapers from three countries. Keywords: Content Analysis, Computer Content Analysis, Relational Content Analysis, Framing, Agenda Setting, Co-occurrence Introduction Theoretical progress in Communication Science depends largely on empirical evidence to test and sharpen theories. Such empirical evidence often consists wholly or partially of media content, making Content Analysis an important technique for progress in Communication Science. The last decades have seen a sharp increase in the number and complexity of communication theories, among which Framing takes a prominent place. This increased theoretical complexity has not been fully accompanied with increased sophistication of Content Analysis methods. In particular, content is generally analyzed using manual Content Analysis speci¯cally aimed at extracting infor- mation for a particular research question. Such often expensive types of research rely on one o® coding schemes leading to relatively small data sets that are very di±cult to combine. This makes it very di±cult to compare the explanatory power of competing theories, hindering theoretical progress. This article proposes Associative Framing, a probabilistic Relational Con- tent Analysis approach. In this approach, we extract connections between con- cepts based on textual proximity. These concepts are relatively close to the text, making automated extraction feasible. Theoretically relevant variables, such as frames, are then de¯ned as patterns or features over the graph. By introducing this layer between the actual text analysis (nodes and edges) and the theoretical concepts (frames), it is easier to combine data sets and test di®erent theories on the same coded texts. Presenting associative frames we rely on a method for extracting asymmetric association patterns based on calculating the conditional reading chance. This method is similar to existing methods, but using a probabilistic approach allows for easier extensions and combination with existing work. In taking this approach, this article makes two contributions. Firstly, we pro- vide an interpretation of co-occurrence graphs in terms of recent theoretical work in Communication Science, decreasing the gap between theory and measurement. Secondly, we propose a probabilistic operationalization of co-occurrence, give a substantive interpretation to the edge weights of the co-occurrence graph and suggest ways for extensions based on more thorough linguistic analysis. The next section will discuss the Communication Theories that this method aims at. This is followed by a conceptual de¯nition of Associative Framing in the third section and a concrete operationalization using a probabilistic model of co-occurrence in section 4. The ¯fth section will give an extended example, showing some of the information that can be extracted using this method. The ¯nal two sections o®er a brief discussion of other potential uses and extensions to this method and the conclusions. Theoretical Framework Within the communication literature we can distinguish a number of theories dealing with the transfer of salience on di®erent levels. The most general level looks at the transfer of salience of concepts in media messages to the concepts in the public mind. This is the core idea of the Agenda Setting theory. A more speci¯c level focuses on the transfer of salience of concept-attribute pairs. This is the core idea of both the second level of Agenda Setting and some research into Framing, such as Issue Framing. Framing research, however, also includes dif- ferent views about the process of Framing. Both ¯rst and second order Agenda Setting originate from a linear model of influence stating that there is a lin- ear relationship between the messages sent and the reception of those messages by the public. Other researchers focusing on Framing theories look at the pro- cess di®erently, stating that it is a more complex process than just a transfer of salience. In fact they argue that a certain frame can strengthen particular frames in the audience's mind. Moreover, they argue that only one concept, for example the picture of the Omarska detention camps in Bosnia, can trigger prior estab- 2 lished associations in people's minds, such as associations with the Holocaust. In the next sections we will discuss these theories in more detail, ¯nishing with a theoretical argumentation for associative frames as the common denominator. Agenda Setting The core of Agenda Setting research was stated years before the actual term was coined by Bernard Cohen stating that the mass media `may not be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling its readers what to think about' (Cohen, 1963, p.13). In their seminal Chapel Hill study McCombs and Shaw (1972) introduced the term Agenda Set- ting to describe this influence after ¯nding a nearly perfect correlation between the public agenda and issue visibility in the media. If Agenda Setting occurs, people come to believe an issue is more important after exposure to the issue through the mass media than before. In the years since this ¯rst study, Agenda Setting has turned out a robust and conceptually clear theory, with numerous studies reproducing these e®ects and elaborating on the theory (see for example Dearing and Rogers, 1996; McCombs and Bell, 1996; Rogers et al., 1993). Dearing and Rogers (1996, p.22) formulated a three-component model of the Agenda Setting process, consisting of (a) the media agenda, which influences (b) the public agenda, which in turn may influ- ence (c) the policy agenda. Expanding the original model with influences on the media agenda, researchers divided the theory into Agenda Building and Agenda Setting processes, with the media agenda being the dependent variable in the building phase and the audience as the dependent variable in the setting phase (see Scheufele, 1999). The common theoretical base underlying the large variety of Agenda Building and Agenda Setting studies is the transfer of salience, with salience interpreted as the \degree to which an issue on the agenda is perceived as relatively important" (Dearing and Rogers, 1996, p.22). Second Level Agenda Setting Elaborating on the original Agenda Setting hypothesis, McCombs and Shaw (1993, p.62) argue that Agenda Setting \is a theory about the transfer of salience, both the salience of objects and the salience of their attributes." McCombs and Ghanem (2001) speak about a second level of Agenda Setting. They argue a divi- sion between objects and their attributes. \Beyond the agenda of objects there is another aspect to consider. Each of these objects has numerous attributes, those characteristics and properties that ¯ll out the picture of each object" (p.68). The attributes connected to the objects form the central part of this Second Level Agenda Setting, or Attribute Agenda Setting. According to the researchers `these attributes suggests that the media also tells us how to think about some objects' (p.69). 3 Framing During the last decades, the study of Framing gained an important place in the ¯eld of communication research. Similarly to the second level of Agenda Setting, Framing theory also deals with the influence on how to think about objects. This becomes clear in the seminal de¯nition of Framing by Entman (1993) who de¯nes the concept as selecting \some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem de¯nition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described." (p.52) Entman's de¯nition shows the multi-faceted nature and complexity of Fram- ing research. Besides a transfer of salience it is about selection, and recommen- dation, including not only the communicator but also the audience. In the same line as Agenda building and Agenda Setting, researchers distinguish a frame building process with the media as the dependent variable and a frame setting process where the audience is the dependent variable (Scheufele, 1999; De Vreese, 2002), as presented in Figure 1. Agenda Building Agenda Setting Sender Receiver External Influences Media Agenda Message Audience Agenda (Elite, Real World, …) Media Frames Audience Frames Frame