Comprehending constructive journalism
An experimental study into the effects of
constructive news stories on news consumers
MSc thesis
by Marijne Beijen
UvA student number: 10747281 MSc programme Political Communication Supervisor: Dr. Sanne Kruikemeier Date: 10 July 2020
Abstract
In recent years, a journalistic approach called constructive journalism has been surfacing as a solution to the 'trust crisis' that journalism is in. By applying methods based on positive psychology, constructive journalism tries to combat the negative mental consequences of problem-oriented news frames. This thesis explores micro- and meso-level effects of constructive journalism, with the following research question as its basis: ''To what extent does exposure to constructiveness in a news story
influence news consumers?''. Through an experimental design, it is tested whether a
constructive article evokes more hopefulness than a non-constructive article and whether a constructive news article makes people more favourable of constructive roles for journalists. Results of the study are affirmative of micro-level effects of constructive journalism, indicating that constructive articles are perceived as more hopeful. The assumptions about meso-level effects are not supported by this study: there was found no evidence to suggest that a short exposure to a constructive article has an effect on how people perceive the roles of journalists.
Introduction
'No news is good news'. The infamous phrase says it all. Whether it is consumed on tv, in the newspaper, or via the Internet, one of the most common comments on news is that it is dominated by a negative frame (Soroka and McAdams, 2015; Baden et al., 2019). Traditional purposes of journalism explain why news stories are often negative and problem-oriented: journalists have the duty to alert the public of threats, serve as a watchdog and disseminate information in order to establish an informed electorate (From and Kristensen, 2018; McIntyre, 2015). The significance of negativity in the news is also underwritten in theories about news values, which Franklin et al. (2005) define as ''a set of criteria employed by journalists to measure and judge the news worthiness of events'' (p. 173). Out of these criteria, negativity is often considered the basic news value (Szabo and Hopkinson, 2007).
However, the implications of the negativity bias are not undisputed. Studies suggest that exposure to negative reporting affects news consumers' emotions in undesirable ways, triggering anger and fear (Boukes and Vliegenthart, 2017; Baden et al., 2019). Moreover, the negativity bias is often appointed as one of the reasons journalism is surrounded by an atmosphere of public distrust, because the problem-oriented frame makes news consumers
dubious of both the profession and society (Mast et al., 2019).
As the consequences of negative news have been coming to light more frequently, several journalistic approaches have been considered to change journalism (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2017). Currently, not only news consumers, but also news producers seem to call for a change and have started to rethink this 'bad news bias' (Meier, 2018). In this light, one of the most recent journalistic developments is constructive journalism (Haagerup, 2014; McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2017). At the root of the constructive 'movement' lies the observation that news stories often primarily focus on the negative – conflict, war and terrorism – but leave the public on their own to deal with this, causing a part of them to turn
away out of disillusion, disinterest and frustration (Haagerup, 2014; Meier, 2018; Aitamurto and Varma, 2018).
Striving to bring about beneficial societal impact from within the journalistic profession, constructive journalism lends a helping hand (Baden et al., 2019). In practice, this is done by including solution-, action- and future-oriented angles to news coverage (Aitamurto and Varma, 2018; Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019). By applying positive psychology based techniques to news processes and production, the goal is to create productive and engaging coverage, while holding true to journalism's core functions (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2017). That being said, the approach does not aim to replace traditional journalism practices, but rather supplement them: constructiveness could therefore be seen as an extra dimension (Bro, 2019).
Importantly, constructive journalism considers an active role for journalists in society – promoting the motivating and solution-driven journalist, rather than the traditional ''detached news disseminator'' (From and Kristensen, 2018, p. 718). As journalists are responsible for the selection of issues, sources and angles, they inevitably play an active part in the construction of news reality (Tuchman, 1978). Even more so, reporting of a certain kind can actually ''move the world, in the sense that news will influence people's decisions, opinions and everyday life'' (Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019, p. 540). Considering the potential of constructive framing changing society in a positive way, there is a great need to study how audiences respond to constructiveness (Meier, 2018; Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019).
The limited amount of studies on constructive journalism that have been conducted thus far, focus on micro level effects – whether and how constructive news stories evoke positive emotions with the news audience (Baden et al., 2019). Meier (2018), studying also meso and macro level effects, tests the assumption that news producers are able to achieve
greater audience loyalty through constructive coverage, as the journalistic institution would be regarded as more positive and helpful by providing solutions to problems (Meier, 2018, p. 765). In that sense, constructive journalism is regarded as a relevant instrument for solving the trust crisis between news consumers and news media (Hermans and Drok, 2018).
Using an experimental design, this study looks at micro- en meso-level effects of constructive news stories. Generating more insights on the audience's experiences with and evaluations of constructive journalism might contribute to a more mutual understanding between news producers and consumers. Therefore, this study sheds light on the effects of constructive journalism by exploring the central question:
''To what extent does exposure to constructiveness in a news story influence news
consumers?''
This research paper aims to contribute to the knowledge on constructive journalism, as it seems the often assumed hype is becoming a durable trend in the journalistic profession (Meier, 2018). First, the topic will be introduced by a comprehensive overview of the concept of constructive journalism, existing research and relevant theories. In this section, the three hypotheses are proposed. Subsequently, the study's methodological approach and design is explained. Thereafter, the analysis is presented. The thesis ends with a conclusion that provides an interpretation of the outcomes and an adequate answer to the central question.
Theoretical framework
Contextualising constructive journalism
Ever since the seventieth century, the press has been recognized as a pillar of modern democracy (Coronel, 2003). The media, often referred to as the Fourth Estate, are responsible for ''overseeing democracy and government function without abuse of power, neglect and corruption'' (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2019, p. 4). According to that role, the institution is supposed to serve as a watchdog; looking out for violations and holding representatives responsible (Schultz, 1998). With this predisposition in mind, it is hardly surprising that a significant part of news coverage is negative, focused on conflicts and abuse (McIntyre, 2015). Shoemaker and Reese (1996) argue that news media are also ought to focus on problems and threats, because humans are wired to react alertly to potential risks to theirselves and those around them. Even more so, negativity is commonly regarded as the 'basic news value', guiding newsroom decisions to a large extent – 'if it bleeds, it leads' (Harcup and O'Neill, 2001; Szabo and Hopkinson, 2007). However, one of the most common critiques on news agencies is that news is too negative (Baden et al., 2019). Research studies indicate news consumers' emotional state suffers harm from (over)exposure to news, as news seems to increase levels of anxiety and depression (Szabo and Hopkinson, 2007).
Other studies demonstrate that the effects of negative reporting go further than the individuals' well-being, and trickle down to trust levels as well (Avery, 2009; Kalogeropoulos et al., 2019). In other words, the negativity bias in the news weakens the trust that citizens have in the media (Avery, 2009; Hermans and Drok, 2018). Following the growing societal distrust, news consumers more often choose to turn away from the news out of apathy and frustration (Haagerup, 2014; Gyldensted, 2015; Aitamurto and Varma, 2018). Considering
news media are a main source of information on the political, economical and social world, this 'news fatigue' is regarded a harmful trend in public life (Kalsnes and Krumsvik, 2019; Aitamurto and Varma, 2018). Hence, as trust in media is of vital importance to the societal credibility of the journalistic profession, there lies an important challenge ahead for journalism: to reinforce the public's trust, to reconnect with the audience and to re-establish its importance as a democratic pillar (Kalsnes and Krumsvik, 2019; Hermans and Drok, 2018, p. 688).
A recent suggestion to improve todays' journalism and overcome the current 'crisis', is constructive journalism (Haagerup, 2014; Gyldensted, 2015; Hermans and Drok, 2018; Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019). Developed by newsroom practitioners, the approach prescribes to apply positive psychology techniques to news processes and production, in an effort to create engaging coverage – all while holding true to journalism's core functions (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2017). The 'constructive' in constructive journalism indicates the productive, positive approach used to cover problems in a news context (Aitamurto and Varma, 2018). In practice, this constructiveness is pursued by, among other things, actively incorporating solution-oriented perspectives into news stories, without particularly endorsing them (Hermans and Gyldensted, 2019; Aitamurto and Varma, 2018). That being said, constructive journalism does not aim to replace the traditional practice of journalism, but rather strengthen it: it should be considered an additional dimension to the field (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2018). The overarching goal of the approach is to improve individual and societal well-being through these engaging and productive news stories (McIntyre, 2015, p. 31).
Especially in the western world, the approach has gained popularity: newsrooms in Scandinavia, Great Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands have been actively adopting constructive methods and delivering constructive coverage (Hermans and Drok, 2018, p.
687). However, while constructive journalism has been gaining interest – both within and outside the field of journalism – it has been triggering substantive resistance as well (Bro, 2019). According to some skeptics of constructive journalism, the approach clashes with contemporary journalism: a reporter's duty is to accurately portray what is going in the world, whether this is (entirely) negative or not (From and Kristensen, 2018). Presenting certain solutions would run against the value of objectivity, which is of great significance within the field (Tuchman, 1978). Proponents, however, stress that withholding the public from solutions, opportunities and prospects to (conflict) situations in society, is far from objective and accurate (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2018; Aitamurto and Varma, 2018). Pleading for constructive journalism, they call for a more deliberate framing of societal issues, instead of the default problem-oriented frame. Applying means of constructive journalism would result in more comprehensive and truthful coverage of reality (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2019).
Danish design
Danish journalists Ulrik Haagerup and Cathrine Gyldensted are seen as leading figures in the movement surrounding constructive journalism, which emerged in 2014 (Hermans and Drok, 2018). Both found inspiration in their own working experience, as they found that journalists were often deterred from working on stories that contained little or no conflicts or problems (Haagerup 2014, 2017; Gyldensted, 2015). As their frustration with the negativity bias in traditional journalism grew, so did their determination to change it; both started developing the idea of constructive journalism into a serious attempt to rethink journalism from within (Hermans and Drok, 2018).
According to Gyldensted, the negativity bias in conventional journalism endures because traditional media function based upon the disease model (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2019). Following this model, which finds its premisses in traditional psychology, journalists
focus on stories that involve conflict, disaster and terror – just like psychologists used to solely focus on pathology and mental illness. Even though the goal is 'positive' – respectively bringing out the truth and encovering the illness – the focus is on negative emotions, highlighting only 'the bad' (McIntyre, 2015; McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2019). Instead, Gyldensted proposes a well-being model in journalism: a more comprehensive model which represents both the negative and positive, whereas possible solutions to a problem are equally important as its cause (Gyldensted, 2015; McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2017).
In their article on positive psychology as theoretical foundation for constructive journalism, McIntyre and Gyldensted (2018) have described the six practical applications of the journalistic dimension, classified by the Journalism School at the Windesheim University of Applied Science. The first element is providing a solution-oriented framing of the news. By adding a solution perspective, news audiences will experience the emotion of elevation and optimism, which can motivate them to act in a prosocial way (p. 667). The second element is adding a future orientation; include the ''What now?''-question to the traditional W-questions in journalism. By asking this question, the journalist allows for the news consumer to actively think about possible future perspectives and society's abilities to get there (p. 668). As a third element, McIntyre and Gyldensted name depolarization: counteract against existing polarized dynamics in news stories in order to enhance inclusion and diversity in society. A journalist striving for constructive coverage could for example help depolarize societal debates by portraying their sources as individuals with their own set of personal moral values, instead of two opposing sides.
The fourth element describes constructive interviewing: include a variety of linear, circular, reflexive and strategic questions in order to empower those speaking. By asking questions of different dimensions, responses could provide context and reflection. Fifth, the authors describe an approach called 'The Rosling', where data is used to establish progress or
setback. By presenting these in clear infographics, the journalistic end product develops from covering incidents to covering contexts (McIntyre and Gyldensted, 2018, p. 9). The sixth and final application of constructive journalism that McIntyre and Gyldensted (2018) describe is
co-creation – create participative journalistic techniques where news consumers contribute to
the stories that are made.
Effects of constructive journalism
Academic literature on constructive journalism is limited, as the approach is a rather new development. The existing research focuses on the impact of constructive coverage on the well-being and behavioral intentions of the audience (McIntyre, 2015; Baden et al., 2019; Meier, 2018). As constructive news methods are based on positive psychology cues, such as providing solutions and future perspectives, the assumption is that the well-being of the individual could benefit from stories of a constructive nature (McIntyre, 2015). Baden and colleagues (2019), but also Meier (2018) found affirmative results of this assumption, as their studies indicate that solution-framed stories evoked positive emotions and higher intentions to take action among their research group, while negative, catastrophically-framed stories triggered the very opposite. In other words, as constructive news stories are structured in a way to bring about hope and progress, constructive journalism could potentially reduce the negative mental health implications that traditional reporting brings forth. Based on this reasoning, this research will study whether people actually recognize constructive stories as more hopeful in the following hypothesis first:
H1: Constructive news stories are perceived as more hopeful than non-constructive news
stories.
Basing his assumptions on Krügers (2017) argumentation that constructive journalism could be good for the prosperity of media organizations and social progress as well, Meier
(2018) is the only scholar yet to experimentally study these meso and macro effects. On meso level, ''news producers would be able to achieve greater audience loyalty because the organisation, its workers and the institution as a whole is regarded as more positive and helpful'' (Meier, 2018, p. 765). On macro level, constructive journalism could contribute to actual societal progress by providing solutions and perspectives for problems and by encourage social engagement by incorporating role models (Meier, 2018). In that sense, constructive journalists could become what Krüger (2017) calls ''change-agents'' (p. 410). Although Meier (2018) concludes his study by saying that it is difficult to effectively identify (long term) meso and macro level effects, he does argue that there is potential to adopt constructive methods for both journalistic and societal purposes, and that further research is necessary – exposing the public to solutions could lead to a more productive public debate and active citizenship, which will strengthen democracy (Meier, 2018; Aitamurto and Varma, 2018).
According to practitioners and academics, constructive journalism could contribute to society's best interest when journalists carry out an active, solution-oriented role (Baden et
al., 2019). Reporter surveys by Beam et al. (2009) and McIntyre et al. (2018) suggest that
among journalists, there is a growing and established interest in active roles such as 'interpreter' or 'contextualist' – roles congruent with constructive journalism. While there are a lot of studies on journalists and their normative role perception of the working field, research on audience perceptions and expectations from news journalists is scarce (Van der Wurff and Schoenbach, 2014). Existing research studies indicate that news consumers seem more supportive of 'disseminator'-like roles (Willnat et al., 2019). This incongruence indicates the existence of some kind of communication distance between journalists and audiences – reflexive expectations between the two do not connect seamlessly (Loosen and Schmidt, 2012).
In modern mass communication theory, it is acknowledged that the relationship between journalism and its audience is partially structured by reciprocal expectations and experiences (Loosen and Schmidt, 2012). In that context, the audience's perception of journalists could alter when their experiences with news change. Hence, if the audience's experience with solution-oriented stories is positive, the audience might consider a more constructive role for journalists. Altogether, it is valuable to study whether exposure to constructive news stories makes news consumers more attentive to and favorable upon constructive roles for journalists, considering the potentials: to revise the negativity bias, reduce the negative impact of news and restore the trust in the press. Based on the exploration of the possible effects of constructive journalism, the following hypothesis is tested:
H2a: Exposure to constructive news stories makes people more favorable upon constructive
roles for journalists than exposure to non-constructive news stories.
When considering such effects of new forms of journalism, it is important to acknowledge certain predispositions of the audience. In that context, the trust that people have in media is particularly relevant, as it ''relates to the expectation that people, and society at large, would benefit from the work of journalists'' (Tsfati and Capella, 2003 p. 506). Media trust is also believed to affect media use and experience (Ardèvol-Abreu and Gil de Zúñiga, 2017). In that context, someone that is trusting of the media, potentially responds differently to constructive journalism than people who have lesser trust in the media. Based on this reasoning, the following assumption is tested as well:
H2b: The effect of exposure to constructive news articles is stronger for people who have
Method Sample
To test the proposed hypotheses, data was gathered through an online survey experiment, where respondents were randomly exposed to one of three conditions; with either a low, medium or high level of constructiveness. Participants were recruited via personal (online) communication platforms. The data collection took place between 19 May and 1 June 2020. In total, 180 respondents filled in the survey. Respondents filled out the survey experiment on their mobile phone or laptop/desktop. Participants that did not entirely complete the survey (n = 34) were excluded from the analysis. The final sample is 146, of which 51 were presented with the 'lowly constructive' condition, 49 with the 'medium constructive' condition and 46 with the 'highly constructive' condition. This sample consists
of 59 males and 85 females . The most prevalent age groups are 18-23 (n = 62),1 51+ (n = 33)
and25-30 (n = 22). To a large extent, the sample is from a high educational background; 70%
had a degree (higher professional education or university).
Procedure
Participants began the survey experiment, which was in Dutch, by indicating to what extent they trust institutions in the Netherlands (i.e. the Dutch government and Dutch news media). Subsequently, they were randomly exposed to one of three versions of a similar news article on population growth: (1) a news story containing no constructive elements, (2) a news story containing a few constructive elements or (3) a news story containing a lot of constructive elements. Next, respondents were asked to indicate how important they found a
dozen journalistic values. Then, the participants were asked to assess the presented article
regarding hopefulness, clarity, and interest. The survey concluded with a manipulation check
Two respondents indicated that they'd rather not make their gender explicit. 1
item to determine the effectiveness of a manipulation, which is an important element in
experimental designs . In this case, respondents were given a brief explanation of 2
constructive journalism and were asked to indicate to what extent they found the presented
article to be constructive. This manipulation check variable, measured with a 7-point scale 3
(M = 4.16, SD = 1.63), showed that the highly constructive article (M = 5.00, SD = 1.25) was indeed perceived as more constructive than the medium constructive article (M = 4.51, SD = 1.46) and the lowly constructive article (M = 3.06, SD = 1.50; (F(2,143 = 25.20, p = 0,001)).
Materials
To establish the experiment, three different versions of a news article were created to function as stimuli (see Appendix 1). Every participant was randomly presented with one manipulated news article. The articles differed from each other regarding the number of constructive elements as described by McIntyre and Gyldensted (2018) in their article on practical applications of constructive journalism. By using these acknowledged, practical applications of constructive journalism, the aim is to make the article realistically constructive. Also, population growth was deliberately chosen as the subject of the manipulated article, as such a subject can be approached rather objective. Condition 1 functioned as the most 'basic' news article, whereas the reader is presented with no constructive elements, but only basic information regarding the topic of population growth. Condition 2 contained several elements of constructive journalism, namely a solution oriented frame and context. Condition 3 contained many constructive elements: a solution oriented frame, context, future orientation, an infographic and people's perspective. The
Hoewe, J. (2017). ''Manipulation Check'', in Matthes, J., Davis, C.S. and Potter, R. (Eds.), The International 2
Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods, 1-5. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
From 1 (not constructive at all) to 7 (extremely constructive) 3
survey software was set to expose the respondents to the condition with a minimum of twenty seconds, to ensure that respondents did not skip the article without reading it thoroughly.
Design
The experiment uses a between-groups design, comparing groups that are exposed to different conditions. In this study, the independent variable – or predictor – is constructiveness: the extent to which the presented article contains elements of constructive
journalism. As there are three different groups, this variable is categorical, but with a certain hierarchy: group 1 was not actively exposed to constructive elements, group 2 was exposed to several constructive elements and group 3 was exposed to many constructive elements.
Measurements
The dependent variable hopefulness is measured by a survey question in the following form: ''I find the article that I just read to be hopeful'', whereas respondents were offered a 7-point Likert scale to classify it (M = 4.67, SD = 1.42). Although this scale is 4
With response options ranging from 1 (hopeful) to 7 (hopeless). 4
Table 1.1.
List of journalistic values
Constructive values Traditional values
Let people express their views Get information to public quickly Be transparent about the construction of news Be factual
Discuss possible solutions to problems Concentrate on widest possible audience Motivate people to get involved with the news Discuss national policy
Give analysis of complex problems Be objective
Influence the political agenda Clearly differ facts from opinion
formally ordinal, it is justly treated as an interval-level variable, as the structure of the scale is symmetric and adequate (Carifio and Perla, 2007).
To measure the dependent variable favourability of constructive roles, respondents
were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale ''To what extent do you find it important that 5
journalists <…>?''. In total, a list of twelve values was presented: seven traditional role values, based on pioneering work on journalistic role conceptions by Johnstone, Slawski and Bowman (1972) and five constructive role values, based on the work by Gyldensted (2014) (See Table 1.1).
In the third analysis, trust in media is included as a variable to examine an interaction effect, as trust in media is found to possibly affect ones attitude towards journalism (Chung and Nah, 2013). The variable trust in media is measured on a 7-point Likert scale in the
following manner: ''Please indicate how much trust you have in Dutch news media'' (M = 6
4.67, SD = 1.42). By examining the influence of the variable trust in media as a control variable, this study acknowledges for the fact that trust in media could explain part of the variance in opinion on journalistic values.
Analysis
To test hypothesis 1, applying a one-way ANOVA test, it is studied whether there are significant differences between the three groups. Then, a post-hoc test is applied to see whether these differences occur in the expected direction. To test hypothesis 2a, I used a one-way ANOVA, to investigate whether respondents that were exposed to a constructive article, favor constructive roles for journalists more. In order to test hypothesis 2b, and to examine whether trust in media has an interaction effect, a linear regression was performed.
With response options ranging from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (extremely important). 5
With values ranging from 1 (no trust at all) to 7 (complete trust) 6
Results
A randomisation check was conducted to check whether the variables sex, age and trust in media are distributed equally among the groups. For both sex (χ2(2) = 1.96, p = 0.16), age (F(2, 143) = 2.36, p = 0.98) and trust in media (F(2,143) = 2.57, p = 0.08), the randomization check was successful; the randomization has produced balance on these variables across all three conditions.
For hypothesis 1, the differences between the groups are analyzed using a one-way ANOVA, including a post-hoc test. Table 1 shows some descriptive information on the means of the three groups, as well as the total mean. Table 2 shows the means mean differences between the groups.
Table 2.1
Mean hopefulness per group.
Low level of constructiveness (Mean) Medium level of constructiveness (Mean) High level of constructiveness (Mean) Hopefulness 4.06 3.59 3.37 Table 2.2
Mean differences in hopefulness between groups.
Mean difference
(SD) Lower bound 95% Confidence interval Upper bound Low level of
constructiveness (1) Medium level (0.21)0.37 -0.14 0.87
High level 0.69** (0.21) 0.17 1.20
Medium level of
constructiveness (2) Low level (0.21)-0.37 -0.87 0.14
High level (0.22)0.32 -0.20 0.84
High level of
constructiveness (3) Low level -0.69** (0.22) -1.20 -0.17
As can be read in Table 2.1, the means of perceived hopefulness per group range from 3.37 to 4.06 on a scale from 1 (hopeful) to 7 (hopeless). A one-way ANOVA shows that there is a statistically significant difference between the means of the three groups (F(2,143) = 5.03, p = 0.008). In other words, between the groups as a whole, there is a significant difference in observed hopefulness. A Tukey post hoc test revealed that there is a statistically significant difference (p = 0.005) between group 1 (low level of constructiveness) and group 3 (high level of constructiveness). This observed difference occurs in the expected direction. However, there was no significant difference found between group 1 and group 2, nor between group 2 and group 3 (see Table 2.2). Altogether, the significant difference between group 1 and group 3 supports the first hypothesis: participants exposed to a constructive condition acknowledge the article to be more hopeful than participants that were exposed to a non-constructive condition.
For hypothesis 2, the three groups were compared regarding their position on constructive journalistic role conceptions, on a scale from 1 (not important at all) to 7 (extremely important). Table 2.3 shows the results.
Table 2.3.
Means of level of endorsement of journalistic values per group. Low level of constructiveness (Mean) Medium level of constructiveness (Mean) High level of constructiveness (Mean) Constructive values
Let people express their views 4.51 4.65 4.43
Be transparent about the construction of news 5.10 5.27 5.09 Discuss possible solutions to problems 4.82 5.14 5.24 Motivate people to get involved with the news 4.73 5.29 5.04 Give analysis of complex problems 5.43a 6.02b 6.13bc Table 2.3.
As can be seen in Table 2.3, there is only one item with a significant difference between groups, namely ''give analysis of complex problems''. This indicates that people that read the lowly constructive article, value this item significantly lesser than people that read the medium and highly constructive article. The difference between the medium constructive condition and the highly constructive condition is not significant. Although this item falls under the category constructive values, and the observed difference is in the assumed direction, no other constructive values were valued significantly more than others, by people that were exposed to the highly constructive condition. In other words, the article that participants were exposed to, did not appear to have an influence on their value judgement of journalistic role conceptions. Based on these results, this study rejects the hypothesis 2a; there is little to no evidence found to suggest that exposure to a constructive news article makes people more favourable of constructive journalistic values.
For hypothesis 2b, an interaction effect for trust in media was examined. The results can be read in Table 2.4. For this analysis, only the constructive values were analyzed.
Traditional values
Get information to public quickly 5.33 4.96 5.28
Be factual 6.57 6.47 6.20
Concentrate on widest possible audience 4.90 4.63 4.59
Discuss national policy 5.06 5.16 5.37
Be objective 6.24 6.10 5.83
Influence the political agenda 4.14 4.16 4.33
Clearly differ facts from opinion 6.59 6.61 6.63
Table 2.3.
Means of level of endorsement of journalistic values per group. Low level of constructiveness (Mean) Medium level of constructiveness (Mean) High level of constructiveness (Mean) Table 2.3.
*** p<0.001; ** p<0.01; * p<0.05
A few things can be observed by looking at Table 2.4. First of all, for four out of five variables, the coefficients for media trust are significantly positive. This indicates that for those four variables, media trust is positively related to the importance that people attribute to these constructive news values. Another thing that can be observed from Table 2.4 is that there are no significant interactions found. In other words, this study found no evidence to suggest that the effects of the constructive condition are stronger for people that have more media trust. That being said, hypothesis 2b was rejected.
Limitations
It should be clear that in the first hypothesis, the measured variable is the perceived hopefulness of the article, and not personal hopefulness of the participant at that moment. Although the measured variable is very relevant, it would have strengthened the analysis if
Table 2.4
Unstandardized coefficients and standard errors. Let people express their views b (SE) Be transparent about the construction of news b (SE) Discuss possible solutions to problems b (SE) Motivate people to get involved with the news b (SE) Give analysis of complex problems b (SE) Constant 4.31 (0.73) 3.91 (0.61) 3.56 (0.54) 2.89 (0.62) 3.95 (0.54) Medium level of constructiveness 0.38 (0.96) 1.41 (0.82) 0.72 (0.73) 1.99 (0.83) 2.04* (0.73) High level of constructiveness (reference = low level of constructiveness) -1.9 (1.17) 0.48 (0.97) 1.82 (0.87) 0.56 (0.99) 0.72 (0.9) Media trust (MT) 0.04 (0.15) 0.25* (0.12) 0.27* (0.11) 0.39** (0.13) 0.32** (0.11) Medium level of constructiveness * MT -0,05 (0.21) -0.27 (0.17) -0.07 (0,16) -0.3 (0.18) -0.31 (0.15) High level of constructiveness * MT 0.36 (0.23) -0.11 (0.19) -0,3 (0,18) -0.07 (0.2) -0.03 (0.17)
there had been an additional, deepening question about ones personal state of well-being after reading the article as well. That way, the observed effect could have been linked to actual emotional states more comprehensively, which would have strengthened the results. Moreover, the study did not use a repeated-measures design, whereby all respondents are exposed to both constructive and plain news articles. Such a design is acknowledged stronger than a between-groups design, as it controls more thoroughly for factors that cause variability
between subjects and gives the outcomes more statistical power . 7
Conclusion and discussion
A little over five years have passed since Ulrik Haagerup, at the time Executive Director of News at the Danish Broadcasting Company, introduced the term constructive journalism to the modern day journalistic landscape, in an effort to act against the apparent negativity bias in the media industry (Haagerup, 2014). His book Constructive News (2014), advertised as a ''wake-up call for a media world that struggles for a future, as well as an inspirational handbook on the next mega trend in journalism'', presents constructive journalism as a tool to overcome the so-called journalism crisis (Haagerup, 2014). Today, it is safe to say that while constructive journalism has been gaining ground in newsrooms all over the world, the academic literature on the approach – as a research field – is still in its infancy (Mast et al., 2019). This study has tried to slightly narrow this fairly large academic gap, with the following research question as its guidance: ''To what extent does exposure to
constructiveness in a news story influence news consumers?''
A thorough exploration of the concept of constructive journalism provided relevant insights on why this particular question is relevant. In recent years, the consequences of the negative frames used in traditional journalism are beginning to surface: news consumers
Salkind, N.J. (2012). Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd. 7
experience news fatigue, fear and frustration from exposure to all the turmoil reporting (Haagerup, 2014; Meier, 2018; Aitamurto and Varma, 2018). A detrimental effect of this is that people choose to turn away from the news. Although this is an unfavourable trend, it does strengthen the assumption that news frames matter, and that changing the frame could also change the well-being of the news audience positively.
In the quest for a proper answer to the research question, this study has investigated both micro level and meso level effects of constructive journalism. Regarding micro level effects, the research provided relevant insights of how constructive journalism is linked to the production of positive emotions: the results of the study indicate that the group that was exposed to the most constructive news article, classified that article as more hopeful than those who were exposed to the least constructive news article.
Importantly, the constructive news article did not merely offer the reader the 'problem', but also provided him with contextual factors, a future perspective and a closer look at possible solutions. This outcome provides the study sufficient grounds to suggest that the level of constructive elements in the constructive article contributed to its perceived hopefulness. Altogether, this is in line with conclusions by Meier (2018) and Baden et al. (2019) and reinforces the assumption that constructive journalism could counter against the negative side effects of traditional journalism.
According to Krüger (2017) and Meier (2018), constructive journalism has the potential to also evoke meso- and macro-level effects, and progressively make society a better place. However, Meier (2018) does question whether and how these effects can be measured best. In this case, an experimental design was used to look for potential meso-level effects, as was used in Meier's (2018) study. In this study, the focus was on the perceived role conceptions of journalists, and the assumption was tested whether different levels of constructiveness make people perceive journalists' values differently. The study did not
provide any evidence for this assumption; there was no evidence found to suggest that exposure to a constructive news article makes people more favourable of constructive journalistic values.
The last hypothesis of this study, tested whether the effects of constructive journalism regarding the favourability of constructive values, was stronger for media-trusting people. Following the analysis of this hypothesis, it is suggested that trust in media influences the extent to which people favor certain journalistic values. However, there was found no evidence that the effect of the constructive condition was stronger for people with more trust in the media, than for people with lesser trust in the media.
An explanation for these results is multi-faceted. Methodological, we can conclude that the experimental exposure to a non-constructive, semi-constructive and very constructive was successful, which was reflected in the manipulation check of the experiment. On micro-level, our results reflect an effect of constructive journalism through participants' recognition of hopefulness. However, it should be accounted for that such a short exposure to a constructive condition, does not appear to have the power to reveal effects of constructive journalism on other levels. Above all, this is a learning opportunity, and because of the small amount of experimental studies on constructive journalism, a worthy addition to literature.
Altogether, both the theoretical exploration of the concept, as the affirming and rejecting evidence of the effects of constructive journalism in this study, provide enough incentives to enlarge the study field. Also following Meier's (2018) recommendations, it is very valuable to further study both micro-, meso- and macro-level effects of constructive journalism, as its potentials could be beneficial on all three levels. However, it should be acknowledged that while short-term micro level effect are well-measured via experimental designs, measuring meso- and macro-level effects almost certainly asks for a different approach. A relevant next step in constructive journalism research, would be to properly
study medium-term and long-term effects. Because, for constructive journalism to really make the societal impact that it proposes, short-term micro-level effects are not enough. In order to achieve real change, whether it is for individuals, the profession or society as a whole, the traditional starting point of journalism may have to be re-evaluated on a larger scale than is happening currently. This is easier said than one, as traditional journalism practice has been around for many years (Shoemaker and Reese, 1996). However, with the societal ambitions surrounding constructive journalism, constructive journalism may be worth a turning point.
The belief that journalism frames have impact on the world they report on, has been around for decades. Media sociologists have argued for a long time that journalists do not simply report the news – they create it (Tuchman, 1978). That being said, constructive journalists seize the opportunity to put this influence to good use and to actively pursue a more comprehensive reporting of the world. This thesis has tried to increase both the knowledge of and the curiosity about the subject, as it may be the solution to yesterday's, todays' and tomorrow's problems.
References
Aitamurto, T. and Varma, A. (2018). The Constructive Role of Journalism. Journalism
Practice, 12(6), 695-713.
Ardèvol-Abreu, A. and Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017). Effects of Editorial Media Bias Perception and Media Trust on the Use of Traditional, Citizen and Social Media News.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(3), 703-724.
Avery, J.M. (2009). Videomalaise or Virtuous Circle? The Influence of the News Media on Political Trust. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(4), 410-433.
Baden, D., McIntyre, K. and Homberg, F. (2019). The Impact of Constructive News on Affective and Behavioural Responses. Journalism Studies, 20(13), 1940-1959. Beam, R.A., Brownlee, B.J., Weaver, D.H., Cicco, Di D.T. (2009). Journalism and Public
Service in Troubled Times. Journalism Studies, 10(6), 734-753.
Boukes, M. and Vliegenthart, R. (2017). News consumption and its unpleasant side effect: Studying the effect of hard and soft exposure on mental well-being over time.
Journal of Media Psychology, 29(3), 137-147.
Bro, P. (2019). Constructive journalism: proponents, precedents, and principles.
Journalism, 20(4), 504-519.
Carifio, J. and Perla, R.J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106-116.
Chung, D.S. and Nah, S. (2013). Media Credibility and Journalistic Role Conceptions: Views on Citizen and Professional Journalists among Citizen Contributors.
Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 28(4), 271-288.
Coronel, S.S. (2003). The Role of the Media in Deepening Democracy. NGO Media
Outreach.
Franklin, B., Hamer, M., Hanna, M., Kinsey, M. and Richardson, J.E. (2005). Key Concepts
in Journalism Studies. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
From, U. and Kristensen, N.N. (2018). Rethinking Constructive Journalism by Means of Service Journalism. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 714-729.
Gyldensted, C. (2015). From Mirrors to Movers. Lexington: GGroup Publishers. Haagerup, U. (2014). Constructive News. Hanoi: InnoVatio Publishing.
Haagerup, U. (2017). Constructive News. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Harcup, T. and O'Neill, D. (2001). What is News? Galtung and Ruge Revisited. Journalism
Studies, 2(2), 261-280.
Hermans, L. and Drok, N. (2018). Placing constructive journalism in context. Journalism
Practice, 12(6), 679-694.
Hermans, L. and Gyldensted, C. (2019). Elements of constructive journalism:
Characteristics, practical application and audience valuation. Journalism, 20(4), 535-551.
Johnstone, J.W.C., Slawski, E.J. and Bowman, W.W. (1972). The Professional Values of American Newsmen. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(4), 522-540.
Kalogeropoulos, A., Suiter, J. and Eisenegger, L.U.M. (2019). News Media Trust and News Consumption: Factors Related to Trust in News in 35 Countries. International
Journal of Communication, 13, 3672-3693.
Kalsnes, B. and Krumsvik, A.H. (2019). Building trust: media executives' perceptions of readers' trust. Journal of Media Business Studies, 6(4), 295-306.
Kovacevic, P. and Perisin, T. (2018). The Potential of Constructive Journalism Ideas in a Croatian Context. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 747-763.
Krüger, U. (2017). Constructive News: A News Journalistic Genre Emerging in a Time of Multiple Crises. Hofkirchner, W. and Burgin, M. (Eds.), The Future Information
Society: Social and Technological Problems. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing
Co.
Mast, J., Coesemans, R. and Temmerman, M. (2019). Constructive journalism: Concepts, practices, and discourses. Journalism, 20(4), 492-503
McIntyre, K. and Gyldensted, C. (2017). Constructive Journalism: Applying Positive Psychology Techniques to News Production. The Journal of Media Innovations, 4(2), 20-34.
McIntyre, K. and Gyldensted, C. (2018). Positive Psychology as a Theoretical Foundation for Constructive Journalism. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 662-678.
McIntyre, K., Smith Dahmen, N. and Abdenour, J. (2018). The contextualist function: US newspaper journalists value social responsibility. Journalism, 19(12), 1657-1675. Meier, K. (2018). How does the audience respond to constructive journalism? Two
experiments with multifaceted results. Journalism Practice, 12(6), 764-780.
Shoemaker, P.J. and Reese, S.D. (1996). Mediating the message. Theories of influences on
mass media content (2nd ed.). White Plains: Longman.
Szabo, A. and Hopkinson, K.L. (2007). Negative Psychological Effects of Watching the News in the Television: Relaxation or Another Intervention May Be Needed to Buffer Them!. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 14(2), 57-62.
Tsfati, Y. and Capella, J.N. (2003). Do People Watch What They Do Not Trust?.
Communication Research, 30(5), 504-529.
Willnat, L., Weaver, D.H. and Wilhoit, G.C. (2019). The American Journalist in the Digital Age. Journalism Studies, 20(3), 423-441.
Wurff, van der R. and Schoenbach, K. (2014). Civic and Citizen Demands of News Media and Journalists: What Does the Audience Expect from Good Journalism. Journalism
Appendix I: Experimental conditions
