Framing in Political Discourse: Responding to Politicians As Parents

FRAMING IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: RESPONDING TO POLITICIANS AS PARENTS

AUDREY Y. BUEHRING

A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2006

Audrey Y. Buehring

For my parents who built the foundation for my every success and who stuck by me through the years of indecision—thank you.

I would have never made it without your sacrifices.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the participants in this study, for their open and honest responses, and my parents who deserve all the credit in the world for my accomplishments.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

TABLE...... vii

FIGURES...... viii

ABSTRACT...... ix

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Operationalizing Frames and Framing ...... 4 Political Metaphor System...... 5 Competing Worldviews...... 6 Strict Father Model...... 7 Nurturant Parent Model...... 8 An Analysis of Framing in the Real World...... 8 Dean Speeches...... 10 Kerry Speeches...... 12 Side-by-Side Comparison...... 13 Frequency of Framing ...... 13 Application of the Nurturant Parent Model...... 14 Relation to Polling Results ...... 14 Analysis Summary...... 15 Building a Frame ...... 15 Research Questions...... 17

METHODOLOGY ...... 19

Participants ...... 19 Materials ...... 19 Procedure ...... 20 Coding...... 21

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...... 22

Research Question 1 ...... 22 Research Question 2 ...... 22 Discussion...... 24

v CONCLUSION...... 26

Summary...... 26 Future Research ...... 26

APPENDIX

A EXCERPT FROM RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP: A NEW DIRECTION FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH TO THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 25, 2003 GIVEN BY GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN...... 28

B EXCERPT FROM THE CREATING A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT FOR AMERICA’S WORKING FAMILIES SPEECH, MANCHESTER, NH, DECEMBER 19, 2003 GIVEN BY GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN ...... 30

C EXCERPT FROM THE IOWA CAUCUS SPEECH, DES MOINES, IA, JANUARY 19, 2004 GIVEN BY GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN ...... 32

D EXCERPT FROM THE WORKERS’ BILL OF RIGHTS SPEECH, CONCORD, NH, JANUARY 8, 2004 GIVEN BY SENATOR JOHN KERRY...... 33

E EXCERPT FROM THE FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH, DES MOINES, IA, DECEMBER 16, 2003 GIVEN BY SENATOR JOHN KERRY ...... 34

F EXCERPT FROM SENATOR JOHN KERRY’S SPEECH TO HIS SUPPORTERS, DES MOINES, IA, JANUARY 19, 2004 ...... 36

G DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 37

H PRESENTATION SLIDE INFORMATION...... 38

I PARENTING SURVEY...... 39

REFERENCES ...... 41

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 43

TABLE

Table page

1-1 Comparison of framing used in speeches by Governor Howard Dean and Senator John Kerry during the 2004 U.S. presidential primary race...... 13

vii

FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 Campaign timeline for the 2004 U.S. presidential primary race between Governor Howard Dean and Senator John Kerry...... 10

3-1 Results for the individual parenting style-frame relationship ...... 22

3-2 Expected results for the family parenting style-frame relationship...... 23

3-3 Results for the family parenting style-frame relationship ...... 24

viii

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

FRAMING IN POLITICAL DISCOURSE: RESPONDING TO POLITICIANS AS PARENTS

Audrey Y. Buehring

December 2006

Chair: Virginia LoCastro Major Department: Linguistics

Frames are used by psychologists, cognitive scientists, and linguists. Generally, frames are defined as mental images that aid cognitive processes by providing a structure for thoughts. Framing refers to the process that one uses to categorize these frames as positive or negative ideas. Frames are based on the notion that people understand complex situations using a more basic system of metaphors. For example, one may understand financial matters in a frame of baseball. One might balk at an unfavorable

price tag, hit a home run when conducting a successful business transaction, or foul out if

the transaction goes sour.

Within this system of metaphors, researchers have begun to develop models of the

United States political party system. The U.S., as a whole, can be thought of as one large

family where the government is the parent. Republicans lead with an authoritarian or

Strict Father mentality, while Democrats use an authoritative or Nurturant Parent

ix mentality. Until now, research has been primarily focused on theory, rather than

empirical data.

This study addressed the lack of empirical data by examining the link between

parenting styles and framing. Participants answered a parenting survey that classifies both their own parenting style and their family’s parenting style. They then listened to two speeches on the current issue of tort law or reform, where each speech used a frame within the Strict Father or Nurturant Parent Model. Finally, based on their values, participants selected the speech that they relate to the most.

This study supports the claim that individuals respond to the frames with the

Strict Father Model if they have been raised by parents who use an authoritarian style,

and they respond to frames within the Nurturant Parent Model if they have been raised

under an authoritative style.

x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Since the emergence of the Democratic and Republican parties in the 19th century, the Unites States government has utilized a two-party system. Although other parties compete, elections are dominated by these two parties, and most voters identify with one or the other. For 26 of the last 38 years, the Republican Party has controlled the White

House. Since 1994, the Republicans have held both houses of Congress (barring one 18- month period in the Senate in which the majority was based on a one-member difference). The strong Republican showing for the national elected offices has stirred up much debate regarding the reason for this dominance.

Framing in political discourse is one of the factors that has recently surfaced as a possible force behind the Republican success. While framing is not a new concept in linguistics, the study of framing within the confines of political discourse is a relatively

uncharted territory. To date, much of the research in the field has consisted of theory and

model-building. The lack of empirical research leaves room for speculation on the merits

of framing in politics.

Frames are used by psychologists, cognitive scientists, and linguists. They

generally define frames as mental structures that aid cognitive processes by providing

categories and structure to thoughts. A very famous example of a frame is presented by

cognitive linguist, George Lakoff. In Lakoff’s (2004) “Don’t Think of an Elephant,”

Lakoff states that when presented with the terms peanuts and trunk, one immediately

thinks of an elephant because one associates the terms to that image.

1 2

Framing is a tool used by linguists and cognitive scientists to analyze terms or groups of terms that evoke a particular image or idea. This idea is typically associated with a predetermined cultural metaphor. For example, according to Lakoff, the political term tax relief is a successful framing device because the frame relates to the positive metaphor of being rescued. Relief is defined by Merriam Webster’s Dictionary as “the removal or lightening of something oppressive, painful, or distressing.” One who brings about oppression, pain, or distress is an afflicter or villain. One who relieves oppression, pain, or distress is a hero. Lakoff notes the salience of this concept in affecting those who hear the frame:

Taxes are an affliction, proponents of taxes are the causes of affliction (the villains), the taxpayer is the afflicted (the victim) and the proponents of tax relief are the heroes who deserve the taxpayers' gratitude. Those who oppose tax relief are bad guys who want to keep relief from the victim of the affliction, the taxpayer. Every time the phrase tax relief is used, and heard or read by millions of people, this view of taxation as an affliction and conservatives as heroes gets reinforced.

The framing used by linguists and cognitive scientists can be compared to the framing that is used by mass media and communication studies. Framing in that realm is defined to be the way in which rhetoric is packaged together to produce a desired interpretation. This framing is similar to that used by linguists in that it acknowledges that people categorize ideas by their negative and positive attributes. In his media framing research, Joslyn (2003) demonstrated a link between framing and public opinion.

Participants were presented with a brief news article about the Clinton-Lewinsky incident in various media frames: sex, law, partisan blame, and Clinton blame. The law frame discussed the incident as a breach of law and uses legal facts, while the sex frame discussed the incident as a scandalous social act. The participants then answered a survey that questioned influence levels of themselves and the public, as well as

evaluations of the media, media fairness, and Clinton. The results showed that

participants felt more positively influenced by the Clinton blame and law frames than by

the sex and partisan blame frames. Most likely, their sense of unfairness was triggered

by the sex and partisan blame frames and thus, they reacted negatively. Media framing has long been considered to be an effective communication tool. Linguists are now using

framing as tools to analyze discourse.

However, not everyone is a proponent of framework and its potential worth. The

following author presents an example of the opposing viewpoint on the value of framing

in political speech. Herbert (2006), an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, finds

framing to be an abstract concept that cannot compare to “straight talk.” Herbert asserts that theories and models with their lack of a factual foundation do not incite change.

Herbert opines that the old-fashioned method of telling the truth and talking directly about the issues would bring about the desired voter response. This stance appeals to a commonsensical way of thinking; however, it neglects the complexities of cognitive behavior and discourse.

On the contrary, Lakoff (2004) and advocates of the benefits of framing speculate that the use of framing over decades by the Republican Party has strengthened their platform while shaping American politics. According to Lakoff, framing has the potential to help the Democrats win back the public vote. Lakoff supports his claim with

extensive research drawn from cognitive science studies. Furthermore, he builds a model

of framing in political discourse based on morality. Nonetheless, the abstract nature leaves room for naysayers like Herbert.

As the opposing stances demonstrate, not enough evidence exists to clearly advocate either side. To address the absence of empirical data in the field, this study will apply Lakoff’s morality model of political discourse to determine whether a correlation exists between moral values and discourse framing.

Operationalizing Frames and Framing

Early cognitive scientists Bateson (1972) and Goffman (1974) presented the first definitions of framing, characterizing it as a psychological concept that individuals use to help interpret each other’s behavior. In other words, frames are basic cognitive structures which guide the perception and representation of reality. On the whole, frames are not consciously manufactured but are unconsciously adopted in the course of communicative processes. On a very banal level, frames structure which parts of reality become noticed.

Fillmore (1975) brought the definition of framing into the linguistic world by associating frames with linguistic choices that are made based on human culture. All of these researchers agree that frames are used to predict or interpret information based on one’s experience of the world.

Fillmore further describes language as consisting of terms and ideas that obtain meaning from frames. Johnson (1993) ties the definition to morality with his example of fetus. If one frame outlines a fetus as a human while another outlines a fetus as a biological entity, the moral constraint would be quite different for each frame. In other words, one could understand murder to apply to the first frame of “fetus as a human,” but not apply to the second frame of “fetus as a biological entity.” Johnson continues on to describe frames as being part of a system of metaphorical mappings. Individuals are able to understand ideas by creating analogies to relate abstract notions to prior experiences or concrete objects. For example, if one were to describe a buyer as having balked at the

price of a car, the “transaction as a baseball game” frame is invoked. The word balk is associated with the baseball term in which a player begins a motion and fails to complete it. As an emotion in the example, balk can then be understood as the buyer having started a purchase and then not going through with it. Moreover, when a player balks in

baseball, a penalty is assigned. So, now the buyer is associated with performing a

negative action. For the purposes of this study, frames refer to these mental images and

framing refers to the process that one uses to categorize these mental images as positive or negative ideas.

Political Metaphor System

Lakoff (2004, 2006) extended the concepts of metaphor mapping, framing, and morality into political discourse. Drawing from Johnson, Lakoff states that politics is based on a metaphor system that conceptualizes morality in the listener’s mind. His example of the conservative term tax relief illustrates this metaphor system. Relief is the elimination of something that is oppressive or painful. This means that whoever is receiving relief is the victim of oppression or pain. The implications are that a malevolent force is causing the pain, and in turn, a hero saves the victim to provide this relief.

Redefining the players within the political realm, the victim is the taxpayer. The crime is forcing the citizens to pay taxes. The oppressor is the group in favor of taxes or the liberals. Finally, the hero is the provider of relief, or in this case, the conservatives.

The entire system revolves around human morality and the belief system of good versus evil.

The system of metaphors creates frames. For example, someone might say, “Bill shook his mane, whinnied, and returned to eating his oats.” The words mane, whinnied,

and oats build the image of a horse in one’s mind. In the case of tax relief, the frame is

more complex than the single image of a horse. Rather, tax relief builds an entire frame

of a rescue operation.

Lakoff speculates that the Democratic Party is not experienced in the linguistic art of framing. He states that the conservative framing of the Republican Party has been evident in political language for at least 30 years, while liberal framing has been almost nonexistent. According to Lakoff, the key to the Republican Party success is that they

have identified their unified worldview, and they have used the appropriate language to

bind their party together.

Competing Worldviews

In his model, Lakoff (2004) represents the nation as a family, in which the government serves as its parent. Republicans and Democrats are competing parents, and

the voters are their children. In the Republican or conservative view, children are born

bad, and they require discipline to flourish. In this competitive world, children must have

moral strength to succeed. Lakoff calls this the Strict Father Model. Conversely, the

Democrats or liberals see an equal world in which their children are born good. If one

child is weaker than another, the strong child must help the weak child. All children

should succeed. This is the Nurturant Parent Model. Lakoff’s model is based on the

parenting styles introduced by Baumrind (1980).

Baumrind’s well-known parenting typology identifies three styles of parental

authority based on variations in levels of demandingness and responsiveness in parents.

A parent with a high level of demandingness and low level of responsiveness is classified

as authoritarian parent. Authoritarian parents instill obedience, order, and respect for

authority in their children. These parents require their children to follow a strict set of

rules, and they do not encourage dialogue from the children. Rather, they expect their

children to follow the rules without question.

A parent who balances a high level of demandingness and a high level of

responsiveness is categorized as an authoritative parent. Authoritative parents, like

authoritarian parents, establish rules that they expect their children to follow. However,

authoritative parents recognize the rights of both parent and child, and they allow their children to develop their own points of view. Unlike the parent-child relationship in authoritarian families, the relationship between authoritative parents and their children is two-sided.

The third parental type is the permissive parent. This kind of parent has a low level of demandingness. These parents can be either indulgent or neglectful with their children. They do not require their children to adhere to a set of standards or rules, and

they are often disengaged and uninvolved in their children’s lives.

Strict Father Model

The Strict Father Model corresponds to the authoritarian parenting style.

Authoritarian parents “are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be

obeyed without explanation” (Baumrind, 1991). They provide an environment which is

orderly and structured. Authoritarian parents demand that their children follow a set of

rules, and the parents require the children to operate within the hierarchy that is taught to

them. In the Strict Father Model, the government should act as an authoritarian parent.

In terms of morality, the Strict Father values self-reliance, order, structure, and discipline.

In this system, a self-made millionaire should be rewarded for attaining success and being

a “good child.” Hence, the Republicans, under the Strict Father Model, might be in

favor of tax cuts for the wealthy.

Nurturant Parent Model

Authoritative parents are both demanding and responsive. “They monitor and impart clear standards for their children’s conduct. They are assertive, but not intrusive and restrictive. Their disciplinary methods are supportive, rather than punitive. They want their children to be assertive as well as socially responsible, and self-regulated as well as cooperative” (Baumrind, 1991). Under the Nurturant Parent Model, empathy, restitution, and equality are highly rated. Rather than holding the “survival of the fittest” position of the Strict Father Model, Democrats take on a “nurture over nature” stance. Thus, they favor social programs such as affirmative action.

An Analysis of Framing in the Real World

It is important to note the function of framing and its applications in the real world.

Framing could very well be the key to winning or losing an election. An analysis of framing in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary race will help to further one’s understanding of the real world applications of framing, as well as provide an example of framing in action.

In the 2004 Democratic primary election race, four candidates remained competitive throughout the entire process: Howard Dean, Wesley Clark, John Kerry, and

John Edwards. However, it was the performance of two candidates that proved notable.

The first, Howard Dean, started his formal campaign early and hit the trail in June 2003.

Dean became famous for his grassroots campaigning. By late summer, he rose to the top of the pack. The second, John Kerry, informally campaigned until September 2003.

Kerry consistently was polled in fifth position throughout the summer, and it was not until late December and early January that he rose into third position. These two

9 candidates showed significant variation in their poll results during the primary race, whereas the remaining candidates demonstrated a fairly constant presence.

In 2003, Dean and Kerry moved across the country delivering their stump speeches. The term “stump speech” originates from earlier campaigns in which politicians would stand on tree stumps to deliver their message to the voters. Stump speeches are the most important element in the campaigning process because they allow politicians to procure face time with their constituents, whether through live interaction with a small group or by way of taped broadcasts to the nation. Politicians are able deliver their stances on the current issues that will shape their election race.

Since stump speeches are such a crucial element in the campaigning, one can hypothesize that the content of the stump speeches has a significant impact on the polling results. Indeed, Lakoff (2002) has shown that framing in political speech directly influences cognitive processes. Although there is a lack of research and literature on political framing, many studies have been done within the realm of media framing that also lend themselves to such a hypothesis.

The trends shown in the polling may very well be attributed to the framework of the two candidates’ stump speeches. To be fair, it is impossible to control for the majority of the variables involved in the campaign effort, such as the frequency and form of media coverage. However, it is likely that the stump speeches had a significant influence on the voting results.

An analysis of three speeches from each candidate examined the idea that framing has an impact on public opinion. The parallel speeches covered worker’s rights, foreign policy, and the post-Iowa caucus. The frequency of framing, type of framing, and

framing in relation to the Nurturant Parent Model were studied, and the results were then

compared to the poll timeline to determine the relationship between the two.

Figure 1-1. Campaign timeline for the 2004 U.S. presidential primary race between Governor Howard Dean and Senator John Kerry.

Dean Speeches

According to the timeline (Figure 1-1), Howard Dean gave his stump speech on foreign policy on June 25, 2003 (Appendix A). He set up a frame to distinguish a

Democrat administration from a Republican administration. This frame used terms like inspiration, set an example, strongest pillar of freedom, train, and equip to describe the

U.S. and its role in the world. These terms are associated with teaching and education, such that the U.S. can be seen as a teacher to the rest of the world. This Teacher frame fits within the values of a liberal worldview in that it is metaphorical for the strong helping the weak or lesser inclined. Dean continued on to use terms like empire, threat to peace, and law unto itself to remind us of the current state of the nation under the

Republican administration. These terms negate the Teacher frame in that it evokes an

image of the world as a dictatorship with the U.S. at the helm. This negation frame

neatly implies the opposite values or the Strict Father Model in which the world is

competitive and the U.S. must win the game.

In the foreign policy speech, Dean also established a new frame. This new frame,

or Alliance frame, is set up by terms like Cooperative Threat Reduction program, benefit of their intelligence, assistance, collaboration, and alliances to further the liberal values

of world equality. In addition, he introduced hostile have-nots, foreign policy by posse,

unparalleled arrogance, and disregard for the concerns of others to describe the

conservative state.

In his December 18, 2003 speech on worker’s rights (Appendix B), Dean set up

two more frames: the Bush Tax frame and the Social Contract frame. Under his Bush

Tax frame, he connected concepts like the national debt, rising property taxes, crisis,

fewer services, and consequences to the Bush administration. Within the Bush Tax

frame, Dean pit corporations against individuals. He talked about stricter accountability

for corporations, corporate misconduct, and full disclosure to reveal the conservative values of competition in a negative light.

His Social Contract frame evokes a binding agreement between the government and the American people. Terms like promise, pledge, fulfill, and basic building blocks relay this relationship. Dean even went as far as using perfect union to imply a marriage and we the people to signify the Constitution as the formal document or literal contract.

Within the frame, he also spoke of his College Commitment program, which advanced his Social Contract frame.

In the final speech of the analysis, the post-Iowa caucus speech (Appendix C),

Dean triggered a Finality frame. His speech mainly consisted of gratitude to his

campaign workers and his supporters. Moreover, he talked about beginning the fight,

congratulating his opponents, not giving up or quitting, and disappointing his supporters.

At that point, his speech took on all of the qualities of a concession speech. In trying to negate his loss, he activated and reinforced his loss in the voter’s mind. Dean focused on his surprisingly low third place in the caucus results, instead of building frames around his values. Most importantly, this post-caucus speech was broadcast to the entire nation, which would have been a major opportunity for Dean to get his message out.

Kerry Speeches

Much like Dean, Kerry used the Alliance frame in his foreign policy speech on

December 16, 2003 (Appendix D). He painted the Bush administration as the opposing force to an alliance. With terms like old formulas, unilateralism, and risk for American soldiers, Kerry diminished the Republican policies. He spoke of America snubbing allies, stonewalling the U.N., and having sham coalitions to further portray the

Republican ideals. Also similar to Dean, Kerry called for internationalism, partnerships, and alliances. Additionally, Kerry implied that Republicans revel in absolute power when he speaks of a kangaroo court without due process of law and America as an occupying power.

In his worker’s rights speech on January 8, 2004 (Appendix E), Kerry, like Dean, addressed taxes under the Bush administration. He promised to scour the tax code and remove loopholes from Benedict Arnold corporations. His promises imply a dirty government with traitorous and immoral values. His speech is rich with descriptive terms that furthers his vision of an immoral Republican government: widespread creed of

greed, look-the-other-way attitude, bagging billions. Kerry promoted his Democrat

ideals with terms such as Pocketbook Watchdog, protection, close the loophole, level

playing field, and fairness.

In Kerry’s post-Iowa caucus (Appendix F), he did more than concentrate on his

victory. He took the opportunity in the national spotlight to reiterate and strengthen his

previous frames on taxes and equality. He reinforced the concepts of fundamental

fairness, scrubbing the tax code, and Benedict Arnold companies.

Side-by-Side Comparison

The two candidates presented similar frames that backed their liberal values

within the Nurturant Parent Model. Dean presented more frames earlier on, while Kerry

reinforced his frames.

Table 1-1. Comparison of framing used in speeches by Governor Howard Dean and Senator John Kerry during the 2004 U.S. presidential primary race Speech Howard Dean John Kerry Foreign policy Teacher, Alliance Alliance Worker’s rights Bush tax, Social contract Greedy republican Post-Iowa caucus Finality Greedy republican

Frequency of Framing

Dean presented two new frames in each of his first two speeches. With his

Teacher and Alliance frames in his first speech, he used existing concepts to expand on his ideas. The teacher-student and the ally-enemy relationships are familiar to the

American public. Instead of using established concepts in his second speech, Dean opted to create new terms such as Bush Tax and Social Contract. He then built the framework around those terms such that future references to them would trigger certain images. For example, Dean relates the national debt and rising property taxes to the Bush Tax. So,

future mentions of the Bush Tax would immediately reactivate those concepts. Finally,

he created a frame of finality in his post-Iowa caucus speech.

Kerry used only two different frames throughout the three speeches – two fewer

frames than Dean. However, he reinforced the Greedy Republican frame in his post-

Iowa caucus speech that he had already introduced in his worker’s rights speech.

Furthermore, he did not attempt to build new frames. Rather, he worked off the already

present concepts in the minds of the American public: ally-enemy and greedy-fair

relationships. Although the number of differing frames in Kerry’s speeches is less than

Dean’s, Kerry consistently spread metaphors and descriptive terms throughout his

speeches. The rate at which he used these metaphors and terms is higher than Dean’s.

Application of the Nurturant Parent Model

Each candidate successfully embodied the liberal values of the Nurturant Parent

Model in his speeches. Both Dean and Kerry depicted the Republican administration to

be competitive, rewarding the “good children” while punishing the “bad children.” They

also both portrayed their own administrations as believers in equality and helping the

lesser.

Relation to Polling Results

As shown in the timeline, Dean demonstrated a constant decline between the first and third speeches, while Kerry increased his position in the polls. In the first speech on foreign policy, Dean came on strong with two frames that easily triggered existing frames in the minds of the American public. Kerry only used one that is similar to the frame used already by Dean. In the second speech, Dean did not use existing frames. Instead he built two new frames. Kerry, on the other hand, proceeded with a very familiar frame

15 regarding greed and government. In the final speech, Dean invoked a frame of defeat, while Kerry continued to fortify the Greedy Republican frame.

Analysis Summary

Dean and Kerry were united in terms of their liberal values and the frames they used to present those values. They also remained under the umbrella of the Nurturant

Parent Model, avoiding a conflicting message with conservative values. The most significant difference between the candidates’ framing is the method each used.

Midstream, Dean chose to create new frames and build on those. Kerry, however, opted to reinforce familiar frames. Dean further sealed his fate when he framed his post-Iowa caucus speech as more of a concession speech even though he planned to continue his campaign.

Dean may have benefited more if he had created his new frames at the onset of his campaign and then reinforced them throughout. Lakoff notes that each time a frame is reintroduced, it strengthens the concept. So by using familiar frames, Kerry had the advantage of having stronger concepts. As Lakoff has also mentioned, framing is built over decades. Clearly then, framing is an important factor in the success of political speeches.

Building a Frame

In theory, the values of each model are the ties that bind each party together.

Evidence of this is apparent in each party’s stances held on different issues. A frame that is compatible with a party’s view must be built using metaphors that are rooted in the party’s moral values. In order to build a frame based on the conservative value system of the Republicans or the Strict Father Model, one should consider the central morals of the model to select the appropriate terms that will trigger the corresponding frames. As

16 previously discussed, the Strict Father values moral uprightness, order, and discipline.

So, one should consider positive terms that promote these values and negative terms that trigger these values. For the purposes of this research, tort law will be used as the political issue upon which the frames will be set. A tort is a wrongful act for which a civil suit can be brought. The current issue in tort law is whether a limit should be placed on the amount of money a plaintiff can receive in a tort civil suit.

For this issue, one can set up a Gambling frame, which is a negative term that would trigger the value of moral order. Gambling is associated with risk-taking, potentially hazardous behavior, and uncertain outcomes. These ideas all are in direct violation of the orderly, disciplined behavior of the Strict Father mindset, so it provides the negation to trigger the Strict Father values. To evoke the Gambling frame, one could use terms that are typically associated with gambling, such as jackpot and lottery.

Furthermore, in keeping with the Strict Father values, one can add terms like responsible, free ride, and runaway. To strengthen the speech, one can also add terms like relief and abuse to activate the Rescue frame. The Rescue frame is based on the premise that terms within this frame imply that a wrong has been committed by some villain and requires a hero to right the wrong. Finally, the overall issue can be renamed as tort reform, where reform reinforces the idea that a wrong needs to be righted. So, applying Lakoff’s terms, one might end up with a speech as follows:

Tort reform is about stopping lawsuit abuse, about halting frivolous lawsuits. More and more greedy trial lawyers are exploiting our legal system to the tune of $246 billion per year. Spilled some hot coffee on your lap? You’ve just won the litigation lottery!

The taxpayers need relief. Each of you paid around $845 last year for tort cases that included a student who sued his school over summer homework. He claimed it caused unnecessary stress and an unfair workload.

Not too long ago, two men sued a carpet adhesive company after receiving severe burns from a carpet adhesive. After the men placed the adhesive bottle next to the hot water heater, the adhesive exploded when the heater kicked on. The words “flammable” and “keep away from heat” were not enough to sway the jury. The runaway jury awarded the men a jackpot $8 million.

Tort reform is necessary. We are responsible people who shouldn’t have to give others a free ride.

On the contrary, a frame built around the liberal value system of the Democrats or the Nurturant Parent Model should include the concepts of empathy, welfare, and fairness. If one builds an Injustice frame, terms like accountability crisis, corporate immunity, and closed courts would contribute to the antithesis of the Nurturant Parent values. The terms health, well-being, and protection characterize the liberal value system of empathy and helping the powerless. According to Lakoff, a speech based on the

Nurturant Parent Model would look something like this:

Tort law is the public's last defense against irresponsible, if not downright immoral, corporate behavior that harms the public. Without the threat of huge punitive damages—with a small cap on awards—we will have an accountability crisis. Corporations will have immunity. They will continue to rake in profits, with no regard to our health and well-being. Tort law is a matter of protection.

The proposal to cap awards would effectively take the power to punish away from juries, and would make it hard for those harmed to sue, since lawyers would have a financial disincentive to take such a case. This would have the practical effect of closing off the courts to those seeking redress from corporate harm. Justice requires open courts. Tort law is necessary. Don’t protect the guilty and punish the innocent.

Research Questions

This study addresses the lack of data-driven research in political discourse framing.

Based on the previously discussed cognitive science research, the assumption is that people process concepts using a system of metaphors. According to Lakoff’s models, the

U.S. government can be understood using the “nation as a family” metaphor. Thus, it

18 could follow that a connection exists between an individual’s parenting experience and the frames to which (s)he responds Two possibilities arise:

Does an individual’s parenting style correlate to the frames to which (s)he relates?

In other words, will an individual who has a authoritarian parenting style relate to a frame within the Strict Father Model?

Does an individual relate to the frame which corresponds to the manner in which

(s)he was parented? In other words, will an individual who was raised with an authoritarian parenting style relate to a frame within the Strict Father Model?

This study hypothesizes that no correlation will be found between an individual’s parenting style and her or his choice of frames. However, there will be a relationship between the parenting style of the individual’s family and the frame the individual chooses. Hence, individuals who were raised with an authoritarian parenting style prefer the Strict Father frame in political discourse, while individuals who were raised with an authoritative parenting style prefer the Nurturant Parent frame in political discourse.

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY

Participants

Since a lack of data existed in the field, this study served as a pilot in which a

sample of convenience was collected. Participants in this study consisted of 39 American

citizens between the ages of 18 and 69. Since participants were required to choose

between two audio clips based on the issue of tort reform, the data from participants who

were already familiar with the issue of tort reform were discarded. Hence, data from nine

participants were eliminated from this study, which left 30 participants between the ages

of 18 and 62. An equal number of males (n=15) and females took part in the study.

Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants received no

compensation. Participants were recruited from Gainesville, Florida via social networking and word-of-mouth advertising. Gainesville is a college town based around

the University of Florida and is located in central Florida. According to the 2000 U.S.

Census, Gainesville had a population of over 217,000 with a median age of 29. The

average age of participants in this study was 26 due to the high number of students. As

of 2004, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans in Gainesville was approximately 3:2.

The ratio of Democrats to Republicans in this study was 3.45:2.

Materials

The pre-activity questionnaires solicited demographic information such as age,

gender, parental status, voting registration status, and political party affiliation (Appendix

G). Two slides provided a generic dictionary definition of tort, and a general description

19 20 of the issue (Appendix H). The activity materials consisted of a 10-question written survey on parenting choices (Appendix I) and two 45-second, pre-recorded speeches with contrasting frames. The speeches were given by a 27-year-old male with the Standard

American English dialect and were recorded with a digital recorder. The content of the speeches were provided in the previous section of this paper (Building a Frame). The post-activity questionnaire was an additional page at the end of the parenting survey that required the participant to circle their choice of either the first or second speech.

Procedure

The participants were administered a pre-activity questionnaire to determine demographic information. The participants were then given a survey to determine their parenting style. If a participant was not a parent, the participant was asked to imagine that they have children in order to complete the survey. Upon completion of the survey, participants read the two slides that provided nonpartisan background information about the tort reform issue. Next, the participants listened to the two pre-recorded speeches. At the conclusion of the two speeches, the participants chose the speech which most closely relate to their values. Participants were explicitly instructed to make a selection not based on speaker qualities but rather the content which most fit with their sense of morality. To account for possible effects of speech ordering related to limited memory capacity, the first half of the participants heard Speech A first, while the second half heard Speech B first. In other words, the study attempted to account for any bias that might have occurred as a result of the order in which participants hear the speeches. The participants selected a speech by circling their choice on the questionnaire. Finally, the participants took the parenting survey again. This time, the participants were asked to

21 answer the questions as if they were the children, so that they were answering the questions based on how their parents had treated them.

Coding

Participants who marked their familiarity with the tort reform issue on the demographic questionnaire were excluded to eliminate the potential bias of their prior knowledge.

To account for Baumrind’s typology, the surveys included authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive responses. Each survey was scored according to the number of authoritarian, authoritative, and permissive responses. Since permissive responses were not addressed in the political discourse models, any participant that was coded as a permissive parent was excluded from the study. The survey was then assigned one of the parenting styles based on the majority score.

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Research Question 1

As discussed previously, no correlation was predicted to exist between an

individual’s parenting style and her or his preferred frame. In actuality, 26 of the 30

participants were scored as having an authoritative style of parenting.

Figure 3-1. Results for the individual parenting style-frame relationship.

The remaining four participants qualified as having a borderline style, alternating between authoritarian and authoritative behavior. No participants fell under the authoritarian category. The majority of the authoritative type parents chose the Strict

Father frame, which was contrary to expectation.

Research Question 2

The expected results were that individuals who were raised by authoritarian type parents would select the speech based on the Strict Father frame, and those raised by authoritative type parents would choose the speech based on the Nurturant Parent frame.

22 23

One might expect a spread like Figure 3-2 in which the two poles are heaviest with

participants. This indicates that a correlation exists between the parenting styles of the individual’s family and the frame that the individual selected. More specifically, it shows a link between authoritarian parenting and the Strict Father frame and also authoritative parenting and the Nurturant Parent Frame.

Figure 3-2. Expected results for the family parenting style-frame relationship.

In the second parenting survey designed to elicit their family’s parenting style, 17

of the 30 participants felt that their parents were authoritarian figures. Of these 17, 15 of them related to the Strict Father frame. Of the 13 participants who rated their family as having an authoritative parenting style, 8 chose the Nurturant Parent frame. The actual results yield Figure 3-3. Hence, a fairly strong relationship seems to exist between the parenting style of one’s family and the frame to which one subsequently responds.

Figure 3-3. Results for the family parenting style-frame relationship.

Discussion

The most surprising finding in this study was the lack of participants who fit the authoritarian profile of parenting. Although difficult to pinpoint, one possible reason for this might be a new parenting trend in more recent generations. Perhaps these newer generations leaned more toward an authoritative parenting style because it is deemed more socially acceptable in these times. Along the same lines, some might argue that the authoritarian and permissive styles are more extreme, while the authoritative style strikes a middle-of-the-road tone. If this is the case, the self-reporting method employed in this

study lends itself to these results. In other words, if participants wanted to appear

reasonable or moderate for the purposes of social acceptance, they would answer the

parenting survey accordingly. However, this should not compromise the data, as the

entire set is built upon self-reporting. If the participants are conscious of social appearance when answering the survey, this attitude would carry over into their frame

selection. For instance, if a participant felt that it were the social standard to be an

authoritative parent, that participant would also feel that the Nurturant Parent frame was

25 the social standard. Therefore, one would still expect to see a correlation between the two if one did indeed exist.

The data show a correlation between family parenting style and framing choice.

So, an individual who was raised by parents who used an authoritarian style was likely to select the Strict Father frame, while an individual who was raised by parents who use an authoritative style was likely to select the Nurturant Parent frame.

To further investigate the specific triggers for the participants’ choices, ten participants were asked to sit for an adhoc interview. These participants were asked to briefly comment on their motivation behind their frame selection. In these retrospective accounts, three participants stated that the use of tort reform in the Strict Father frame is the reason for their subsequent selection of that speech. As one participant explicitly stated, reform implies that something is not working properly and needs to be fixed. In addition, two participants remarked that they felt that corporation immunity evoked a sense of imbalance or injustice, and they consequently chose the Nurturant Parent frame.

Other participants were rather vague in their explanation, citing reasons of justice or fairness without relating it to a particular section of the speech.

It would seem then that voters are indeed responding to frames on some level, and their response is rooted in the parenting method used to raise them. This seems logical, since children generally learn their values and morals from their families. Moreover, if the nation is a family, the voters are the children and may react accordingly.

CHAPTER 4 CONCLUSION

Summary

This study suggests that a fairly strong relationship exists between the style with which an individual was raised and the frame they choose. Hence, individuals who were raised with an authoritarian parenting style preferred the Strict Father frame in political discourse, while individuals who were raised with an authoritative parenting style preferred the Nurturant Parent frame in political discourse. The study also found that no correlation can be found between an individual’s parenting style and her or his choice of frames.

The findings of this study have some implications for politics. Since evidence supports a relationship between framing and individual values, effective speechwriters will use terms to activate frames that target the underlying values within the particular model. For instance, a Democrat speechwriter would want to use terms to build a frame within the Nurturant Parent frame. Furthermore, successful campaigns will make use of demographic information that encompasses parenting history and backgrounds. This will ensure that speeches are presented to the proper audiences.

Future Research

An obvious limitation of this study is its sample of convenience. It would be fair to say that a college town does not provide a proper representation of the U.S. voting population. Furthermore, the majority of participants (77%) are not parents and may find themselves answering the parenting questions differently once they have had experience.

26 27

Future research should sample a broader cross-section of the U.S and attempt to only

sample parents. In addition, researchers might consider revising the parenting survey so

that the questions are more subtle or less leading.

Much of this study revolves around the Strict Father and Nurturant Parent

Models. Future research should target the gender issues that accompany these models.

The Strict Father Model implies a male-dominated government, while the Nurturant

Parent Model implies a female-dominated government. Additionally, studies might also

investigate the politician’s point of view. Since the politician is part of the government

and acts in a parental capacity for the nation, perhaps the correlation will exist between

the politician’s parenting style and the frames (s)he chooses.

Future research should also attempt to narrow down triggers for framing. A

potential avenue for this type of research is the use of dial groups. Dial groups are campaigning tools already used by political campaign groups to test audience reaction to

speeches. Goldman and Mathews (1992) describe dial groups as a set of people who

each hold an electronic dial or “perception analyzer". This dial is connected to a

computer, which records every turn of the dial. The set of people watch a televised

speech or commercial and react to it at any point in time by moving the dial clockwise or

counterclockwise along a calibrated scale from zero to 100. If viewers hear something

that causes them to react positively toward the discourse, they turn the dial clockwise

towards 100. If the opposite is true, they turn the dial counterclockwise towards zero.

This type of data would be ideal to pinpoint specific terms that trigger certain responses

and could help researchers further explore how people process ideas.

APPENDIX A EXCERPT FROM RESTORING AMERICAN LEADERSHIP: A NEW DIRECTION FOR AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH TO THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 25, 2003 GIVEN BY GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN

[deleted]

I spoke of the need to restore the American people's faith in their political system and government. To restore our government's commitment to the values of community, equality, opportunity and justice for all. To restore our role as a world leader by setting a positive example and working together to meet the challenges facing the global community in this new century.

I believe that the United States has a special role to play in world affairs. We have long been an inspiration to all those around the world seeking democracy, freedom and opportunity.

We have shaped our own destiny and set an example for the world that through hard work every obstacle can be overcome. Every candidate who seeks to lead America must keep this inspiration alive.

[deleted]

America is not Rome. We do not dream of empire. We dream of liberty for all.

[deleted]

In this fight, it is essential that America lead by example and exercise power responsibly. Only in that way can we hope to eliminate support for the next generation of extremists who regard our culture and our actions not simply with envy or jealousy but with a deep- seated hatred over the manner in which we conduct our affairs.

The Clinton administration was committed to military engagement with friends and allies around the world helping to train and equip these countries so that they were better prepared to work with the U.S. in shouldering this burden. As President, my administration would redouble these efforts.

We need to allocate the funds necessary to address the threat of weapons of mass destruction or weapons-grade material ending up in the hands of terrorists. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program with Russia and other former Soviet states is working, it just requires much more money to get the job done right.

28 29

Homeland security does not stop at our borders. Success in confronting these threats hinges on the willingness of our friends and allies to work with us. We need the benefit of their intelligence, the assistance of their security and transportation agencies, and the collaboration of their Customs offices.

[deleted]

APPENDIX B EXCERPT FROM THE CREATING A NEW SOCIAL CONTRACT FOR AMERICA’S WORKING FAMILIES SPEECH, MANCHESTER, NH, DECEMBER 19, 2003 GIVEN BY GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN

[deleted]

It became clear to me that there is a fundamental disconnect between the working people of America, corporate America and our government. The social contract that binds us has frayed and stands in desperate need of redefinition and repair.

More than two hundred years ago, the American people launched a new era of self- government. In the words of the Constitution, “we the people” committed to each other to “promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”.

These words created the promise of America – a pledge by a people to uphold the principles of justice and fairness.

At the heart of those principles was the promise of equal opportunity for all in the land of opportunity. The land where a person born with little can grow to great wealth. The land where the children of immigrants can rise to the highest offices.

I know from the families I’ve spoken to here in New Hampshire and out in Iowa that for too many Americans, the promise of America today is largely unfulfilled. I believe that fulfilling that promise today requires a new social contract.

[deleted]

But let’s look at the facts. The average wage earner did get a few hundred dollars back. But the refund didn’t come for free.

President Bush never told you about the “Bush Tax”. He never mentioned that over the next six years the typical American family will take on $52,000 more in its share of the national debt. That’s a part of the “Bush Tax”. But there’s a lot more.

Take a look at your property taxes. They probably went up. In New Hampshire, property taxes went up an average of $270 per family last year. That’s part of the “Bush Tax”. Or look at your state budget. Is it in crisis? In most states, it is. That’s part of the “Bush Tax”, too.

30 31

Getting fewer services and paying more for things like state college tuitions or special education – that’s the consequence of the “Bush Tax”.

The “Bush Tax” is huge – many times greater than most people’s refunds. And it’ll be here for a long time to come. Just add the “Bush Tax” to all the other things the President never told us.

[deleted]

APPENDIX C EXCERPT FROM THE IOWA CAUCUS SPEECH, DES MOINES, IA, JANUARY 19, 2004 GIVEN BY GOVERNOR HOWARD DEAN

Well, you guys, you have already got the picture here. I was about to say, you know, I'm sure there are some disappointed people here. You know what, you know something, you know something, if you had told us one year ago that we were going to come in third in Iowa, we would have given anything for that.

[deleted]

Let me thank Jeannie and all her people in Iowa. You worked hard, you got our ticket punched to New Hampshire, and I appreciate it. You should be so proud of you, our hard working Iowa staff.

Let me thank Tom Harkin. You are so lucky..

[deleted]

I would have liked to come in first tonight, and so would you, but you know what? I want to thank the people of Iowa. I do. I have spent two years here, I've gone to all 99 counties, this is a wonderful, wonderful state, with wonderful, wonderful people, and I appreciate it very, very much.

I have called Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards and congratulated them, and told them we would see them around the corner, on the other side of the block starting tomorrow morning...

I have called Representative Gephardt and thanked him for a courageous run. I worked for him in 1988, I still feel some loyalty to him. He did the best he could, and I appreciate his long career of service for the United States of America.

[deleted]

APPENDIX D EXCERPT FROM THE WORKERS’ BILL OF RIGHTS SPEECH, CONCORD, NH, JANUARY 8, 2004 GIVEN BY SENATOR JOHN KERRY

[deleted]

Tyson. Tyco. It's wrong when companies turn their back on the country, their community, and their workers. If I'm elected President, we're going to scour the tax code and remove every single loophole that rewards Benedict Arnold corporations for moving profits and jobs overseas and turning their backs on their workers here at home.

[deleted]

As President, I will create a new senior post in the White House - a Director of Family Economic Security - a Pocketbook Watchdog in the White House - as the focal point of tough action to guard working Americans' pensions and retirement, to protect their personal information from identify theft, to ensure fair lending and housing, and to help people to build wealth and savings over a lifetime. To fill this new position, I will appoint a powerful advocate whose job - morning, noon, and night - will be to look out for the everyday investors who are too often exploited to benefit a powerful few.

[deleted]

America has a problem when the workers who help build this economy are pocketing pennies while the few bragging about a recovery are bagging billions. America can do better than a Bush-league recovery; we can have a real recovery that reaches every American. And if I'm President, I pledge to you: I'll fight everyday, side by side with all of you.

[deleted]

APPENDIX E EXCERPT FROM THE FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH, DES MOINES, IA, DECEMBER 16, 2003 GIVEN BY SENATOR JOHN KERRY

[deleted]

Then this Fall, the President addressed the UN General Assembly. Other nations stood ready to stand with us – to provide troops and funds to stabilize Iraq. But instead of asking for their help, the President repeated the old formulas of his unilateralism, raising the risk for American soldiers and the bill to the American treasury.

Today, the risk is still too high and the bill is still too large. But today, we have also been given that rare fourth chance to set things right. We can return to the world, reject the idea of going it alone and hoarding all the power, and forge a shared response to the challenges of Iraq. No more snubbing allies, no more stonewalling the U.N., and no more sham coalitions. It’s time to win the peace, and it’s time to do it right. So President Bush needs to take four immediate steps.

[deleted]

But it must come through a new American partnership with the people of Iraq and of the international community. This is a unique time when we can show and not just speak the values of a free and just society to Iraqis, to the rest of the Arab world, and to our own people here at home. We can demonstrate in an unforgettable way that the rule of law includes rights that cannot be denied even to a despot. What a powerful signal that would be – a signal that would reverberate across the globe and even across generations.

So the question of how to structure the trial of Saddam Hussein is not just a legal issue; it is a test of our values and our intentions. Saddam Hussein committed heinous crimes against the Iraqi people and the international community, but we cannot try him in some kind of kangaroo court without due process of law. To do so would reinforce our image as an occupying power and set back the cause of a new beginning in Iraq. We need to work with the Iraqi leadership to create a path to true justice that is fair and credible – in their eyes, in the eyes of other Arab and Muslim people, and in the eyes of the international community.

[deleted]

When America needed leadership on Iraq, Howard Dean was all over the lot, with a lot of slogans and a lot less solutions. One moment he supported authorizing the use of force, the next he criticized those who did. He said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, then he said he’d figured out that he didn’t. He said he opposed the war all

34 35 along, but less than a month before it began he said that if the U.N. wouldn’t enforce its own mandates, then ‘unilateralism is a regrettable, but unavoidable choice.’

[deleted]

APPENDIX F EXCERPT FROM SENATOR JOHN KERRY’S SPEECH TO HIS SUPPORTERS, DES MOINES, IA, JANUARY 19, 2004

[deleted]

We need to restore - I'm running to restore a concept called fundamental fairness. That is how our parents raised us. That's how this country grew strong. And I say that it is time to stop having Americans just work for the economy and time to have an economy that works for Americans. We're going to change it. This president has an open hand for Halliburton, and he's turned his back on friends and neighbors across the nation. He's turned his back on teachers and on schools across the nation. And I will crisscross this country, from community to community, and together, with you and with all those who care about the children of our nation, who really care about them - not for photo opportunities but for future citizenship - we will hold this president accountable for making a mockery of the words leave no child behind.

And when we add up the indifference and the deficit - the real deficit of this administration - count the cost that working families are paying all across America while others reap the high reward - seniors have seen their retirement either blown away or postponed, utterly destroyed by Enron, by Worldcom, by mutual fund scandals. We've seen the financial scandals of Wall Street and a separate creed, even as many C.E.O.'s in businesses across our nation live by the rules and also want a work place that is fair, we are all cheated by what has been going on. And at companies like Tyco, we have seen a work place where this president licensed a creed of greed. Two million people have seen their health benefits destroyed. Three million jobs have been lost. And when we add it all up, as I have here in Iowa, and as we will together all across this country and in New Hampshire next week, it will be clear at the end that the one person in the United States of America who deserves to be laid off is George W. Bush. And that's what we're going to do.

I pledge to you that if I am elected president, with your help, we - I pledge to you that when I am elected president - I told you I was learning along the way - when I am elected president, I will scrub this tax code, which has exploded from 14 pages to 17,000 pages of loopholes and special interest giveaways, and there's not a person in this room who has their own page, we are not going to give one benefit or one reward to any Benedict Arnold company or C.E.O. who take the jobs and money overseas and stick you with the bill. That's over.

[deleted]

APPENDIX G DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Gender:

2. Age:

3. U.S. citizen: Y/N

4. Political party you most closely identify with: Democratic, Republican,

Other

5. Registered to vote: Y/N

6. Stance on the following issues:

Abortion for/against

Gun control for/against

Death penalty for/against

Same sex marriage for/against

Affirmative action for/against

7. Are you a parent: Y/N

8. Have you ever heard of tort reform? Y/N

9. If yes, briefly explain what you know about it.

APPENDIX H PRESENTATION SLIDE INFORMATION

Slide 1: Defining Tort

Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought.

Slide 2: The Issue

Should a limit be placed on the amount of money a plaintiff can receive in a tort civil suit?

APPENDIX I PARENTING SURVEY

This survey can be found at http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/quizzes/l/bl_prnt_style.htm. For the researcher, the codes are in parentheses, where (A) is authoritarian, (P) is permissive, and (N) is authoritative.

1. Your son hits another child at soccer practice. You would… a. tell the other child to hit him back (A) b. ignore them and let them fight or play (P) c. tell him that it is not right to hit people, make him apologize, and take away a privilege if this is a repeat offense (N)

2. Your son and his friends have made a big mess in your playroom and now want to go play outside. You would... a. let them go out and clean it up yourself (P) b. help them clean up by making a game out of who can pick up the most toys (N) c. yell at them and make them clean up (A)

3. If your pre-teen daughter wants to rent an R rated movie that her friends have all watched, you would... a. tell her she can't rent any movies (A) b. let her watch it (P) c. say no and help her find a more age appropriate movie (N)

4. Your daughter is putting off going to bed because she says that she wants something to eat, and you... a. let her eat whatever she wants (P) b. let her have a snack, but tell her that she will have to start eating more at dinner so that she isn't hungry at bedtime (N) c. make her go to bed hungry (A)

5. If your kids don't do their chores you... a. make them do them right away (A) b. do them yourself (P) c. remind them that they need to be responsible and do their chores (N)

6. When your kids whine and have tantrums you... a. explain better ways that they can express their frustrations (N) b. send them to their rooms (A)

39 40

c. give in to stop the whining (P)

7. If your kids get in trouble, you... a. don't do much of anything (P) b. discipline them and later explain better choices they could have (N) c. spank or yell at them (A)

8. Your son wants a new toy at the grocery store, so you... a. tell him that you will bring him back to buy it when he saves enough of his allowance (N) b. tell him he can't have any new toys (A) c. buy it so that he doesn't have a tantrum (P)

9. If your preschool age daughter has a nightmare and wakes you up, you would... a. let her go back to sleep wherever she wants (P) b. tell her to go back to bed (A) c. help her go back to sleep once she calms down (N)

10. The main goal of parenting and discipline is to… a. teach your kids to follow rules (A) b. teach your kids to make good choices on their own (N) c. ensure that your family is happy (P)

REFERENCES

About. (2006, May 29). Pediatrics: Parenting Style Quiz. Retrieved on May 30, 2006 from http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/quizzes/l/bl_prnt_style.htm.

Bateson, G. (1972). A theory of play and fantasy. In G. Bateson (Ed.), Steps to an ecology of mind (pp. 117–193). New York: Ballantine Books.

Baumrind, D. (1980). New directions in socialization research. American Psychologist, 35, 639-652.

Baumrind, D. (1991). Parenting styles and adolescent development. In J. Brooks-Gunn, R. Lerner, & A.C. Petersen (Eds.), The encyclopedia of adolescence, (pp. 746– 758). New York: Garland.

Fillmore, C. (1975). An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In C. Cogen (Ed.), Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, (pp. 123–131). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Foreign Policy Address at Council on Foreign Relations. (2004, April 15). Howard Dean-iabila. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://home.san.rr.com/crocuta/Dean/General_Dean_Stuff.htm.

Goldman, P. & Mathews, T. (1992, November/December). The Manhattan Project. Newsweek, 40–57.

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. London: Harper and Row.

Herbert, B. (2006, May 11). Where’s the beef? The New York Times, p. A37.

Iowa Caucus: Howard Dean’s Memorable Speech. (2005, November 16). Australian politics. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://www.australianpolitics.com/closed/news-usa.shtml.

Iowa Caucus: Senator John Kerry Wins. (2005, November 16). Australian politics. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://www.australianpolitics.com/closed/news-usa.shtml.

Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

41 42

Joslyn, M. (2003). Framing the Lewinksy affair: Third-person judgments by scandal frame. Political Psychology, 24, 829-844.

Keeping the Promise of America: Creating a new social contract for America's working families. (2004, April 15). Howard Dean-iabila. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://home.san.rr.com/crocuta/Dean/General_Dean_Stuff.htm.

Kerry’s Foreign Policy Speech. (2005, November 15). Iowa presidential watch. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/wannabes/Kerry/KerrySpeech.htm.

Kerry’s Workers’ Bill of Rights Speech. (2005, November 15). Iowa presidential watch. Retrieved November 16, 2005, from http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/wannabes/ Kerry/KerrySpeech.htm.

Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant: Progressive values and the framing wars: a progressive guide to action. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

“Relief.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. 1993.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2006, May 8). State and county quick facts. Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12000.html.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Audrey Y. Buehring earned her B.S. in electrical engineering from Auburn

University in 1997. Following her graduation, she worked for General Motors as a design release engineer in the OnStar division. After successfully launching OnStar on the Pontiac Aztek and Buick Rendezvous vehicle lines, she decided to move to

California, where she began exploring other career opportunities outside of engineering.

In 2004, Audrey entered the M.A. program in linguistics at the University of

Florida. Her studies in political discourse inspired her to pursue a law degree. Upon completion of her M.A. program, Audrey enrolled at The Dickinson School of Law at

The Pennsylvania State University.