To accept or to reject? The news framing effects on humanitarian support towards climate refugees with examination of mediation role of emotions and moderated
mediation effect of political knowledge.
Jane Orlova (12096814) Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Abstract
Prior researchers have found that news framing has a significant effect on humanitarian support towards refugees. More importantly, the effect of emotions, such as anger and empathy play a crucial role in the refugees’ topic, while this influence can be predetermined by political knowledge. Based on the findings, this study examined the effect of exposure to victimization and economization frame towards humanitarian support. An experiment was conducted where participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions. Furthermore, to determine whether there are additional effects on humanitarian support, emotional appeals via anger and empathy and moderated mediation role of pre-existing political knowledge were analysed. Results of one-way ANOVA revealed that framings have a significant effect towards humanitarian support, further victimization frame have positive impact via empathy. While no support was found for anger nor influence of pre-existing political knowledge.
Keywords: framing, humanitarian support, emotions, political knowledge
Introduction
Climate refugees are one of the newest kinds of displacement of people. In international law, there is no distinct definition of climate refugees, nor an official term, nor they are covered by the 1951 Refugee Convention (European Parliament, 2019). That is why doubts are expressed about whether certain people should be considered as “climate migrants” or “climate refugees”. Somehow, most official media typically refer to “climate refugees” (UNCHR, 2020). Furthermore, climate refugees can be considered as people which have to leave their lands and relocate to new areas involuntary.
and measures. The main question which will be answered this paper is how framing about climate refugees in the media influence humanitarian support on climate refugees in the Netherlands.
Mass media is one of the key factors which could influence people’s tendency to support certain policies (Eberl, Meltzer, Heidenreich, Herrero, Theorin, Lind, … Strömbäck, 2018). Moreover, media frames offer specific judgments, attitudes and decisions to the individual and therein way forming “framing effects” (Bos et al. 2016). On the one hand, thanks to media framing, the information provided by the mass media can have positive outcomes on refugees’ support. Prior findings examined that Dutch citizens’ opinion about immigration was positively influenced by exposure to victimization frame (Lecheler, Bos, Vliegenthart, 2015). Thus, it can be expected that individuals, who will be exposed to victimization frame, will consider climate refugees as victims and their support towards them will rise.
On the other hand, if the mainstream media presents refugees in a negative light, then individuals’ attitude towards them will be the same (Jacobs and Van Der Linden, 2018). A striking example of this - is the refugee crisis in 2015, when television news tended to portray immigration in a negative light. There are various media framings which can arise people’s negativity towards specific issue, one of them is economic threat frame. This framing is relevant for Western European countries, as it perpetuates the image of refugees as economic burdens and threat to the host country’s prosperity and welfare (Greussing et al. 2017). Hence, exposure to economic threat frame will have a negative influence on peoples’ willingness to support climate refugees and they will stand for more restrictive policies.
Additionally, the study will analyse the mediating role of emotions and influence on humanitarian support towards climate refugees. As the previous findings suggested that depending on different types of frame, either negative or positive, there is an influence of mediational patterns which has significant effect on publics’ behavior towards immigration
(Seate et al., 2019; Lecheler et al. 2015). It is worth to note, that people who are facing victimization frame are more influenced by empathy and thus have more positive attitude to support refugees (Verkuyten, 2004; Bruneau, Kteily. & Laustsen, 2018). While, individuals who are exposed to economic threat frame, interpret immigrants as threat and thus feel more anger and are more negative towards humanitarian support (Utych, 2016). The second question, which will answer this research paper is how do positive and negative emotions (i.e. empathy and anger), mediate the effect news framing of climate migrants towards public’s opinion?
Furthermore, the study will focus on examination of pre-existing political knowledge. Previously it was found that the influence of emotions could be predetermined by political knowledge (Lecheler, de Vreese, 2011). Still, some studies argue about the effect of pre-existing political knowledge and the influence of framing effects on individuals and their ability to process the information within climate change topic (e.g. Schuck, de Vreese, 2006). While less scholarly attention paid by examining the factor of political knowledge and their influence on emotions within the refugee’s topic. If people poorly know about certain political issues, such as climate refugees, they will likely rely on stereotypes activated by media coverage and consequently will have stronger behavioural change towards the issue (Liu, Shen, Eveland, & Dylko, 2013). Thus, the study will answer on third question on how does political knowledge moderate the effect of news framing on emotions and the influence on support?
Theoretical framework Climate refugees
Climate refugees are a quite new growing category of refugees. In modern literature a clear definition of climate refugees is lacking. Most scholars aim to extend the traditional definition of “refugees” under international law (Faist & Schade, 2013). Climate refugees in
the communication research field are not commonly studied, especially not how news framing of climate refugees influences the public opinion.
Prior framing studies have examined the relationship between media exposure and immigration attitudes in Europe (e.g. Helbling, 2014, Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2005) and the United States (e.g. Hainmuller & Hopkins, 2015). European news media usually portray immigrants from a one-sided dimension, by depicting them primarily as a safety threat. As a result, it can negatively influence public opinion on immigration (Kovar, 2016). While covering climate refugees, previous scholars have found that this minority is generally left aside, but if they become headlines of the news, they are collectivized and portrayed as constraining factors of speechless actors (Høeg, & Tulloch, 2019). Most of the western countries are well aware of climate refugees and thus may in the near future implement new measures of immigration policies (Bettini, 2013). Farris and Mohammed (2018) highlight the necessity of examination of framing effects on different immigrants’ groups as it expands the understanding of attitudes towards immigrants. Thus, this study will examine the news framing effects on climate refugees.
Framing
From a sociological point of view, Goffmann (1974) advances the idea that individuals organize their daily experiences based on “frameworks or schemata of interpretation” (Lecheler et al., 2015). From a psychological viewpoint, framing is related to prospect theory by Kahneman and Tversky (1979), which states that individuals’ decisions can change due to the presented information, which can be shown in different ways.
In the communication research field, there is no commonly agreed definition on framing. However, some of the researchers, like Entman (1993), Gamson & Modigliani (1987), Cacciatore, Scheufele, & Iyengar, (2016) have presented their own views on framing
definitions. Most of the studies studying the framing of immigration rely on Entman’s definition (1993) (e.g. Bos et al., 2016; Kuhne, Weber, Sommer, 2015; Kovar, 2016). Entman (1993) defines framing as “an omnipresent process in politics and policy analyses”. It involves selecting a few aspects of a perceived reality and connecting them together in a narrative by promoting particular interpretation.
Communication scholars while studying framing consider it as a process pertaining both to media content and effects. There are two types: frame-building (referring to “structural qualities of news frames”) and frame-setting (“the interaction between media frames and individuals’ prior knowledge and predispositions”). In this study will be examined the frame-setting, as it is more elaborated in the communication research field. It has a goal to explore to which and under what circumstances audiences reflect and mirror frames available to them in the news. The consequences of framing can be conceived on the individual level by altering attitudes (De Vreese 2005).
Most of the news frames usually contain arguments in favour or against certain issues or an event. As such, it helps to influence opinions and attitudes, and to be more specific about certain topics (Boomgaarden & de Vreese, 2007). Taking into account the topic of immigration, it is worthwhile to note that most of the immigrant and minority groups are underrepresented in the traditional media. Based on German and Dutch findings, the main focus is concentrated on asylum seekers (Ruhrmann et al., 2006). However, mass media rarely centers on the subgroups, which result in low number of studies focusing on various groups of immigrants (Eberl et al. 2018). News media play a key role in affecting audiences’ knowledge, with the power of news frames, which can influence people’s opinion and attitude towards immigrants (e.g. De Vreese, Boomgaarden, 2006). Therefore, there is a need to study different groups, including climate refugees as a newly emerging social category, due to the reason that people
To analyse framing effects, researchers commonly distinguish between generic and issue-specific frames. Generic frames, of which victimization frames are an example, transcend thematic boundaries and deal with journalists’ routines. Issue-specific frames (e.g. welfare, economic threat frames) relate to specific topics, such as refugees or immigrants and are less widely applicable, but only pertain to one specific issue (Eberl et al. 2018, de Vreese, 2003; Entman, 1993; Figenschou, & Thorbjørnsrud, 2015). Most studies use an issue-specific framing, as it helps to understand political perceptions, opinions or preferences of people on specific topics. However, in communication studies, there are few researches that analyze both issue-specific frames and generic frames in one study (Bos et al. 2016).
Researchers have studied a variety of issue-specific frames which have been used in immigration debates. For instance, Baker, Gabrielatos, Khosravinik, Krzyżanowski, Mcenery & Wodak (2008) have argued that the “economic threat” frame is closely related to ‘immigrant’ and ‘migrants’, as a threat to national economy and job competition. More specifically, recent studies on the 2015 refugee crisis have revealed that most newspapers (e.g. in Austria) portrayed refugees as an economic threat, posing a threat to a society (Greussing & Boomgaarden, 2017; Innes 2010). A study by Kovar (2016), also found that economic narrative in EU tabloids had shifted from the “Gastarbeiter” era to a security-based narrative that links immigration to crime, terrorism. Additionally, Atwell Seate et Mastro (2017) indicated that minorities are usually portrayed as threatening in the traditional media. As traditional media frames refugees predominantly negative, there is a concern, that climate refugees will not be distinguish from other groups and news will be framing them as economic threat. Thus, people will have negative biases towards this group which will decrease humanitarian support.
Meanwhile, the victimization frame portrays refugees and asylum seekers as being in need of help and as innocent victims (Greussing et al., 2017; Bos et al. 2016). Victimization framing corresponds to a personalised or emotional perspective on unfolding events and thus
relates to the human-interest frame, which is also a generic frame (Greussing et al., 2017). Previous researches states that mass media coverage of immigration with a victimization frame can positively influence public perceptions of refugee situation by creating empathy (e.g. Verkuyten, 2004). As climate refugees can be considered as one of the vulnerable groups, it is expected that the victimization frame will positively increase humanitarian support among individuals while an economic threat frame will have the opposie effect:
H1: Exposure to a victimization frame on climate refugees in the news increases humanitarian support for climate refugees, while exposure to an economic threat frame will decrease it.
The mediating role of emotions in framing effects
Issue-specific frames can not only cause directional effect on humanitarian support, but could also induce emotional responses (e.g. Aarøe, 2011). Most of the studies examining issue-specific framing effects argue that to strengthen the effects on humanitarian support towards refugees, one needs to consider emotions. In specific situations, individuals conduct a series of characteristic appraisals (Frijda, Kuipers, & Ter Schure, 1989). Most researches examine emotions via the appraisal theory (e.g. Atwell Seate, Ma, Chien, & Mastro, 2018; Parrott, Hoewe, Fan, & Huffman, 2019). Appraisal theories of emotion (e.g. Frijda, 1989; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985) argue that certain emotions require special evaluations, such as responsibility, support, which subsequently contribute to certain behavioral tendencies. When dealing with refugees’ topic, various emotions might arise depending on the assessment of the situation (e.g. Lecheler et al. 2015, Kuhne et al. 2015). Thus, this study will focus on one negative (anger) and one positive (empathy) emotion to see the emotional effect on humanitarian support towards climate refugees.
Emotions as mediators are an underlying psychological process which can explain why and how framing effects takes place (Lecheler et al., 2015). Previous literature has found that different immigration frames can produce distinct mediation patterns (e.g. Lecheler et al. 2015, Verkuyten, 2004). In the communication research field was found that negative framed news via discrete emotions like anger, fear, anxiety affect negatively political attitudes and behaviour (e.g. Huddy, Feldman & Weber, 2007). While positive framings via positive emotions, such empathy and hope, have been shown to exert a positive influence on political attitudes (Brader,Valentino, Suhay, 2008). In this study two valenced emotions will be assessed as mediators: anger and empathy.
Prior studies found that when an individual is exposed to frames with similar valence emotions, i.e. sadness and anger, it is more complicated to identify specific emotional effects (Kuhne et al., 2015). Lecheler, Schuck, de Vreese (2013) have confirmed that only anger and enthusiasm mediate the framing effect and can actively reinforce individuals’ opinions. Positive emotions can sometimes exert stronger effects than negative frames, further it predicts more refugee hostility (e.g., Lecheler & De Vreese, 2011; Bos et al., 2016). For example, the study of Bos et al. (2016) found that Dutch immigration debates are predominantly negative, which raise concerns about impact on public opinion. However, study found stronger effect for positive emotions and their effect on immigration topics.
For this study we expect distinct news frames i.e., the victimization and the economic threat frame to negatively (via anger) and positively (via empathy) impact humanitarian support for climate refugees.
Empathy is based on identification with the unfortunate situation of others. Empathy provides a basis of willingness to help and support immigration policies and social programs (Verkuyten et al., 2018). It is relevant for the examination of humanitarian crisis, especially when studying effects of emotions via the victimization frame (Lecheler et al., 2015; Bruneau,
Kteily & Lautsten, 2018). Bos et al. (2016) have demonstrated that compassion (which corresponds to empathy) had positive emotional effect on refugees support via victimization frame. A victimization frame can enhance individuals to view the world via the perspective of immigrants or refugees, which can lead to an increased identification and empathy (Bos et al. 2016; Pettigrew, 1997). Hence, in this study it is expected that the victimization frame will result in an increase of empathy which will in turn have positive influence on humanitarian support for climate refugees.
H2: The relationship between exposure to a victimization frame about climate refugees and humanitarian support is mediated by empathy, in the sense that the victimization frame is expected to increase empathy which in turn is expected to increase humanitarian support.
With anger, people tend to react in an irritated and hostile manner to others. Anger implies an affirmative reproach for self-inflicted problems and needs, and it can be expected to impede support for immigrant policies (Verkuyten, Mepham, Kros, 2018). Prior findings suggested that people who are exposed to economic threat frame felt more anger and thus were more inclined to have negative attitudes towards immigrants (Utych, 2016; Verkuyten, 2004). As an economic frame perpetuates the image of refugees as a threat to host country’s prosperity and welfare (Greussing, Boomgaarden, 2017), it is expected that people will feel anger, which will in turn have a negative influence on the level of humanitarian support for refugees.
H3: The relationship between exposure to an economic threat frame and humanitarian support is mediated by anger, in the sense that an economic threat frame is expected to increase anger which in turn is expected to decrease humanitarian support.
Political knowledge is a multidimensional construct. Individuals who are exposed to information, can be affected by it, and knowledge can play an essential role in its reception and ramifications (Zaller, 1992).
Past studies have identified several items that may affect individuals’ exposure to news, such as sociodemographic background variables, political motivation and ideology. However, political knowledge has been considered one of the strongest predictors (e.g. Liu & Eveland, 2005). Moeller and De Vreese (2019) suggest two dimensions of political knowledge. The first one is a structural model, which entails an understanding of the political process and the structures that shape the political system. The second one is factual model, which involves knowledge of books about politics, i.e. observation and correct identification of key players. Individuals acquire political knowledge through different channels and sources, one of which is mass media.
Zaller (1992) proposed the idea of received information which explains that a person, who was exposed to the information, processes it, interprets it and can use it in effective judgements. Previous studies have highlighted that political knowledge enhances the ability to rely on generalized, mass-mediated information instead of information from the social context (Danckert et al., 2017). Most of the studies suggests that people with high political knowledge support immigration more because of differences in perceptions of cultural and symbolic threats, and not because of differences in labor market vulnerabilities (Hainmueller, Hiscox, 2007). Prior framing studies found that low political sophistication among individuals affects information sources; these types of people tend to be more negative towards immigration issues (de Vreese, Boomgaarden, 2006; Valentino, Beckman & Buhr, 2001; Danckert et al., 2017). Considering previous findings, this study expects that individuals with less political knowledge will be more affected by framing effects than those with higher political knowledge.
When considering the role of emotions and political knowledge, studies have found that issue-specific knowledge can moderate media effects (Schemer, Wirth, Matthes, 2012; Eber et al, 2018). Prior researchers concluded that topic relevance with prior knowledge experience more positive emotions, rather than negative, which resulted in positive attitude towards issue-specific topic (Nabi, 2003; Trevors, Muis, Pekrun, Sinatra & Winner, 2016). Miller (2011) while studying the US citizens attitudes towards the Iraq war, found that individuals with higher political knowledge, who encounter political stimuli (related to victimization frame), have greater understanding of politics and thus are able to make positive emotional appraisals. Moreover, findings suggested that higher sophisticated people were more inclined to feel sympathy towards Iraqi people. Hence, it can be suggested that people with higher political knowledge feel more sympathy towards climate refugees, which will result in positive effect on humanitarian support.
While, negative emotions become active in the event when individual knows little about the information presented by him, in particular in scientific texts that threaten the individual (Trevors et al., 2016). Prior findings have found that low political knowledge has distinct interaction with anger which results to negative behavioral change (Lamprianou, Ellinas, 2019). Researchers have suggested that individuals with low political knowledge are more inclined to have anti-immigrants’ attitudes and do perceive refugees as a threat (Rapeli, 2014). While Weeks (2015) has proposed that people with lower political sophistication feel more anger as they ignore the information that challenges their attitudes. Based on previous findings, it is expected that individuals with lower political knowledge are more likely to be influenced by anti-humanitarian message portrayed within economic threat frame and thus have negative support toward climate refugees.
H4a: The positive relationship between victimization frame and empathy will be stronger for citizens with high political knowledge and this will have positive effect on humanitarian support towards climate refugees.
H4b: The positive relationship between the economic threat frame and anger will be stronger for citizens with low political knowledge and this will have negative effect on humanitarian support towards climate refugees.
Method
An experiment was conducted as part of this study. Participants were recruited using quota sampling techniques. Only people living in the Netherlands could participate in the experiment. Respondents were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental conditions (frame: economic threat; victimization) in a between-subjects experimental design. Most of the framing effects studies use experiments (e.g. Gross, 2008; Kovar, 2018; Nabi, 2003). An experimental design provides a high level of control, meaning that there is a possibility to determine if a potential outcome is viable and to substantiate causal claims. Furthermore, experiments allow to effectively run randomization. By randomly assigning to the group, researchers control the explanatory variable using a randomization procedure. Then, if we see a connection between the explanatory variable and the response variables, we have evidence that it is causal. Random assignment provides the most accurate analysis of the effect of the intervention. (e.g., voting behavior, campaign information). By randomly assigning subjects to a group to treatment treatment, or to control groups, researchers can measure the effect of the mobilization method, regardless of confounding factors, which can increase the likelihood of some people or groups participating in the political process.
However, prior scholars have criticized experiments for a lack of external validity (Arlt, Dalmus, Metag, 2019; Gadarian & Albertson, 2014) which could limit the generalizability. As
one of the main criteria of experiment is random assignment of participants to different groups, this allowed to minimize selection bias. Moreover, to exclude the ‘experimental world outcomes’ and to provide results in more ‘real-world outcomes’ the experiment was run as a post-test study, so participants did not know the format and the purpose of the study.
Participants
The participants were recruited via various social media channels: Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. By creating a snowball effect, people were encouraged to share the link to the experiment in their network. The average duration to complete the questionnaire was 4 minutes. The participants were recruited during 10 days in April-May 2020 starting from April 30 until May 10. The number of participants was 118 people, of which 19 people were excluded, because they did not finish the survey, resulting in a total number of participants of 99. Of which 50 people were Dutch and 49 people were non-Dutch citizens, who averagely live in The Netherlands 2 years (M = 2.14). Additional demographic variables were added to this study, like age (M = 24.5, SD = 6.36), education (most of the participants had obtained Bachelor degree, with a percentage of 48.5%, N = 48, SD = 1.11) and gender with a percentage of 39.4% (N = 39) male and 60.4% (N = 60) female participants.
Procedure
All participants in the experiment first answered social demographic questions, such as age, education, gender, and they needed to answer questions to tap their levels of political knowledge (i.e., the moderator). Second, participants were asked to carefully watch a video covering one of the news frames. After that, respondents completed a post-test questionnaire which contained measures of emotions (i.e., the mediators) and humanitarian support (i.e., the
Stimulus. For this study two frames were manipulated: a) victimization frame, which
addresses the problem of climate change and the reason why people flee to another regions or countries, portraying them as innocent victims; b) economic threat frame, which stresses the issue the problem of people relocating to other areas, resulting in a lack of jobs and overpopulation. For this study a video stimulus was chosen, while previous news framings studies most often used newspaper articles. Yet, in a video, participants see pictures and visuals along with audio, which resembles real-life situations, which is expected to more strongly influence attitudes and emotions. The stimulus materials were taken from a real news report of Nieuwsuur from November 2015 and was edited for the purpose of the study. Due to the fact that there are not so many news reports on this topic, this video was suitable as it is presented in a storytelling view. It was expected that this would elicit emotional reactions. The link to the visual materials is included in the appendices. Both videos at the beginning report on the migration of people in Bangladesh. Comments are made by cordaid Wachida Bashar Ahmed: “Everyday around 50-60 boats coming every day, early in the morning, late at night, and in each boat, you can put 500 people, but there are thousands of them. Each year one million people are coming to Dhaka, to find a job. Do they have jobs, do they have food for their children? It is a question for all of us”. Both videos were kept as similar as possible in terms of the audio and visual materials. Only at the end of the clip, depending on condition, both videos presented identical visual materials, but with different subtitles which stresses the issue of climate refugees. In the victimization frame, the problem was stated as a human disaster problem and it presented refugees as victims (“Bangladesh is one of the major victims of climate change. The extreme climatic events are responsible for immigration and conflict in Bangladesh. This immigration would be enough to cause human disaster and will be a ticking time bomb”). The economic threat frame stressed the economic disaster and portrayed immigrants as economic issues (“Bangladesh is one of the targets of climate change. The
extreme climatic events are responsible for the immigration and economy problem in Bangladesh. This immigration would be sufficient to cause an economic disaster and will be a ticking time bomb”).
Measures
Dependent variable
Humanitarian support. The dependent variable is humanitarian support. The scale measurement was based on prior literature, such as Verkuyten, Mepham, Kros (2017). Humanitarian support for refugees consisted of four items: “I am willing to donate money to the funds who are working with climate refugees”, “I am willing to support Climate Law to prevent climate change”, “I am willing to support government’s decision to accept climate refugees”, “I am willing to support the creation of asylum centres for climate migrants”. The scale ranged from 1 (= ‘Fully disagree’) to 7 (‘Fully agree’). To fully test whether four items could be manifest indicators of concept “Humanitarian support”, a principal axis factor analysis (PAF) was performed with direct oblimin rotation on four items. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure for sampling adequacy was well above the minimum criterion of .05 (KMO =.794), and the Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed that the correlations between variables were significantly different from zero, χ 2 (6) = 212.461, p < .001. Based on Kaiser’s criterion 1 factor was extracted; this factor explained about 72.42% of total variance. Four items formed a reliable Cronbach’s α = .871. Therefore, a variable “Humanitarian Support for climate refugees” was computed, the general results were M = 4.56, SD = 1.57. Hence, higher scores correspond to a more positive evaluation of climate refugees or more humanitarian support.
Vettehen, Hagemann, Van Snippenburg (2004). The questions were as follows: “What is the number of chairs in the Tweede Kamer?”; “Who is the current speaker of the Dutch Tweede Kamer?”; “From which country is the current Secretary of General of the UN?”; “How many members does the EU currently have?”. Every item that measured political knowledge included four answering options of which three answering options were incorrect and one correct. The incorrect answering options were recoded to 0. The correct answering option was recoded to 1. To construct the variable ‘political knowledge’, a sum scale was made, ranging from 0 to 4. These questions produced a reliability scale with average Cronbach’s α = .635. Two items were deleted, after that, was re-produced on a reliable scale with Cronbach’s α = .719. After construction of the new item “Political Knowledge”, the variable had M = .60 SD = .43 (the ranging scale from 0 to 1).
Mediator
Emotions. To measure discrete emotions, after exposure to one of the conditions, respondents were asked to indicate to what extent they felt two emotions: anger, empathy (“Thinking back about the video you saw about refugees, which emotions did you feel?”). Participants were presented only with anger and empathy. These two emotions were presented in a close-ended list. Emotions as anger and empathy were measured on a 7-point likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree). The result has shown that people felt anger (M = 4.17, SD = .184) and empathy (M = 4.83, SD = .196).
Results.
Randomization check. Randomization checks were performed to confirm that the participants in the two conditions did not significantly differ in terms of age, gender and education. To check if random assignment of stimulus materials was successful, age and
education was checked first, using a one-way ANOVA test was used (see Table 1). Randomization on this variable was successful. Secondly, to check the distribution between conditions for gender, Chi-square tests, where both of the variables are nominal, were conducted (see Table 2). Randomization of gender, thus, was successful. As the results revealed successful randomization check, the covariates will not be used in this study, as these items do not cause nor influence it.
Table 1. Results of a one-factor analysis of variance (randomization check)
SS df MS F p Eta2 Age 40.931 1 40.931 1.011 .317 .01 Total 3966.727 98 Education .800 1 .800 .645 .424 .01 Total 121.111 98 *N = 99
Table 2. Results of a chi-square test for gender (randomization check)
Value df p
Pearson Chi-Square .374 1 .541
*N = 99
Manipulation check. After exposure to one of the conditions, participants were asked a question that allowed to evaluate manipulation check. On a seven-point likert scale (1 = ‘strongly disagree’ to 7 = ‘strongly agree’) participants were asked to what extent climate refugees in the video were portrayed as a) victims; b) from an economic angle. Firstly, the extent to which the condition portrayed refugees as victims was measured. Participants who
victimization frame (M = 5.38, SD = 1.64), rather than as economic issue (M = 4.10, SD = 1.87). One-way ANOVA test showed main effect of condition F (1, 98) = 13.15, p < .001, eta2 =.12 on victims. The results showed that respondents with victims’ condition viewed people more as victims, thus, the manipulation check was successful. The second manipulation check measured the portrayal of people in the video as an economic issue. Participants who were exposed to the economic threat condition viewed the relocation of climate refugees in the video more as economic issue (M = 5.33, SD = 1.72), rather than as a question of victimization (M = 4.51, SD = 1.80). A one-way ANOVA test showed a significant main effect of condition F (1, 98) = 5.33, p = .023, eta2 =.05 on economic issue. This result illustrates that participants who have received economic threat frame viewed people as economic issue; hence, the manipulation was successful.
Table 2. Results of a one-factor analysis of variance (manipulation check).
SS df MS F p eta2
Victims Between
Groups
40.879 1 40.879 13.146 .000 .12
Total 342.505 98
Economic issue Between
Groups
16.449 1 16.449 5.333 .023 .05
Total 315.636 98
*N = 99
Results Main Study
Main effect. Firstly, the main effect of the study was tested. To test H1, whether respondents who have received a victimization frame, were more willing for humanitarian support towards climate refugees, rather than those who have viewed the economic threat
the framing on humanitarian support is statistically significant, F (1,98) = 5.62, p = .020. The effect is weak in size, eta2 = .05. Participants who were exposed to the victimization frame, on average reported higher humanitarian support levels (M = 4.94, SD = 1.34) than participants of the economic threat frame condition (M = 4.21, SD = 1.68). This mean difference (Mdif = .73)
is statistically significant, p = .020, 95% CI [4.25, 4.87]. Thus, H1 is supported as the analysis shows that participants in the victimization frame report higher humanitarian support towards refugees than participants in the economization frame.
Table 3. Attitudes towards humanitarian support
N M SD
Economic threat frame 52 4.21 1.68
Victimization frame 47 4.94 1.34
*N = 99
Table 4. Results of a one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA)
SS df MS F p Eta2
Between Groups 13.154 1 13.154 5.62 .020 .05
Total 240.229 98
*N = 99
Moderated Mediation. To test H2, H3, H4a and H4b moderated mediation analysis a PROCESS SPSS macro was run (Model 7; 5,000 bootstraps, Hayes, 2018). The conditional indirect analysis showed a significant positive effect on empathy (b = 2.33, SE = .23, p = .038, 95% CI [0.08, 2.73]).
of empathy towards humanitarian support (b = .58, SE = .06, p < .001, 95% CI [0.47, 0.69]). The indirect effect of victimization frame on humanitarian support is mediated by empathy 95% CI [0.47, 0.69]. Hence, H2 is confirmed: the victimization frame is mediated by empathy and thus has a positive influence on humanitarian support, revealing an indirect effect via emotions.
The conditional indirect effect of political knowledge on empathy is not significant 95% CI [-2.69, 0.88], hence we do reject H4a, as no support was found that pre-existing political knowledge has an influence on relationship between victimization frame and empathy.
Second, it was studied whether pre-existing political knowledge moderates the relationship between economic threat frame and anger and if there is an effect on humanitarian support. By analysing anger, the conditional indirect analysis showed a non-significant effect of economic threat frame on anger (p = .545). The interaction effect of political knowledge on anger was not statistically significant (p = .812). Additionally, the b-path results showed a non-significant effect of anger on humanitarian support, (p = .867).
The indirect effect findings showed that the economic-threat frame is not mediated by anger 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35]. Thus, H3 is rejected.
The conditional indirect effect of political knowledge on anger is not significant 95% CI [-1.90, 1.50], hence we reject H4b, as the results have shown that there is no effect of political knowledge on relationship between economic threat frame and anger, nor the effect on humanitarian support.
Controlling for the mediators, the direct effect shows non-significant results (p = .238, 95% CI [-0.20; 0.68]), meaning that after adding mediation as emotions, framing is no longer affects humanitarian support towards refugees. The results show full mediation.
Discussion and
Conclusion
Previous studies have examined the effect of frames on immigrant attitudes; however, they have studied general immigrant groups (e.g. Kovar, 2018,). The aim of this study was to determine whether exposure to two different types of news frames (i.e., victimization versus economic threat) would affect humanitarian support towards climate refugees. Additionally, the study examined the effect of news framing via two emotions: negative (via anger) and positive (via empathy), to assess how emotions influence on humanitarian support towards climate refugees. Moreover, this study evaluated the mediated moderation role of political knowledge.
Previous Dutch findings that studied the effect of the victimization frame found negative support for immigrants in the Netherlands (Bos et al. 2015). This analysis showed that exposure to victimization frame in the news leads to increase of positive attitudes toward humanitarian support for climate refugees. Meaning that Dutch who were exposed to a frame in which climate refugees were portrayed as victims, show more support. Meanwhile, the economic threat frame negatively influences support towards climate refugees. As in this study only two frames were examined, future researchers can also investigate the effect of another
News framing Humanitarian support
Anger
Empathy Political knowledge
Indirect effect (empathy), 95% CI [0.47, 0.69]
b = 2.33, p = .038
Indirect effect (anger) 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35]
b =.58, p < .001
p = .545 p = .867
p = .812
or emancipation (enhancing civic engagement by immigrants themselves) frame (Bos et al 2015)
Further, the mediating role of emotions were analysed, as empathy and anger on peoples’ willingness to support climate refugees. The results reveal that after being exposed to the victimization frame, empathy increases humanitarian support for climate refugees. This corresponds to prior findings that empathy has strong emotional effect on humanitarian support through victimization frame (e.g. Utych, 2018, Bos et al. 2016). The findings confirm the idea that within positive message about climate refugees, individuals felt more empathy towards them, in result, it has increased willingness of humanitarian support. Still, the results for economic threat and humanitarian support via anger did not show any significant effect. This leads to a contribution that individuals within negative messages towards climate refugees do not feel anger, but still the framing can have an impact on humanitarian support. One of the non-significant results could be the fact that respondents have not felt anger towards climate refugees, but more sympathy. Still, the manipulation check for economic threat condition was successful and respondents perceived people as economic issue. Previous scholars have suggested that people via anger perceive immigrants as a threat to their country (Verkuyten, 2004). In the pilot study, results for anger were statistically significant, while for empathy was not found any support. As the study analysed only two emotions, this can be considered as a limitation and future studies should include other emotions as well. There is a significant possibility, that people have felt different emotions within economic threat frame. Following this, future studies could investigate with broader list of negative emotions, such as anxiety and disgust.
Additionally, the study tested an interaction effect of exposure to news frames with pre-existing political knowledge of participants. Contrary to our expectations and to prior results, pre-existing knowledge does not moderate the relationship between the victimization frame
and empathy, nor for between the economic threat frame and anger (e.g. Miller, 2011, Rapeli, 2014). This leads to another note, that there is no difference between people with low and high political knowledge and their processing of information. Regarding the interaction, the item of ‘political knowledge’ initially showed not reliable scale and thus two items were deleted and two were left. As with this limitation, it is possible that political knowledge was not properly measured, which could explain why no interaction effect was found. As suggested by Lee et Chang (2010) framing effects are enhanced when low sophisticated people face with an easy issue. It could be the fact that for both low and high sophisticated people, the presented issue was not an easy topic to evaluate within short terms. For future research, it will be useful to examine political knowledge after interaction with stimulus. As Zaller (1992) proposed in the received information, after comprehension, individuals’ can correctly identify key players. As such, it will be useful to examine on how respondents perceived information regarding climate refugees. Another limitation, which would may affect the results of the study, is the fact that around the half of respondents were not Dutch and have lived in The Netherlands around 2,5 year. As the study had skewed sample, future researchers use a broader Dutch sample in order to see the effect of political knowledge. Additionally, previous scholars have noted that media does not pay proper attention to asylum seekers and within the escalation of anti-immigrants’ stance, there is a rise of right-wing extremist parties (Boomgaarden, Vliegenthart, 2007; 2009). Furthermore, it would be interesting to investigate pre-existing political orientation, which may have stronger effect on humanitarian support of climate refugees.
Overall, the findings have shown that victimization frame and economic threat frame play a role in peoples’ humanitarian support of climate refugees. As was noted before, climate refugees are a quite new category of refugees and there are still debates on definition towards them. Moreover, the minority group is underrepresented in the traditional media, apart from
that people are concerned about climate refugees’ topic. Considering the issue of refugee crisis and negative portray of refugees in the Western media, the overall dynamics towards climate refugees is positive. Hence, there is a possibility that people will be more inclined for humanitarian support towards climate refugees, comparing to other minorities groups. However, it is worth to note, that depending on the mass media angle of portraying such group, audience can perceive climate refugees either negatively or positively. Future studies need to control additional emotions, as it will allow comprehensively understand how the news have the effects. As Farris and Mohammed (2018) noted how it is important to know framing effects on different immigrant groups. Taking into account that Dutch society is usually pre-dominative negative towards refugees (Bos et al. 2016), this study was relevant to see on how emotionally respondents were attached to climate refugees.
The results show a strong effect of victimization frame and increase of empathy towards humanitarian support for climate refugees. The study has offered a deeper understanding of how media framing can elicit attitudes towards specific newly group of refugees and how emotions play a mediating role. Emotions have a significant role in the examination of framing effects, and there is a necessity to control both negative and positive emotions in one study. In addition, the study can be replicated not only within Netherlands, but also in other European countries.
Appendices:
Economic threat frame: https://youtu.be/7rKGLsyDoT8
Victimization frame: https://youtu.be/lGnNl8tPzhw
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating Frame Strength: The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames.
Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2011.568041
Arlt, D., Dalmus, C., & Metag, J. (2019). Direct and Indirect Effects of Involvement on Hostile Media Perceptions in the Context of the Refugee Crisis in Germany and Switzerland.
Mass Communication and Society, 22(2), 171–195.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2018.1536791
Atwell Seate, A., Ma, R., Chien, H., & Mastro, D. (2018). Cultivating Intergroup Emotions: An Intergroup Threat Theory Approach. Mass Communication and Society, 21(2), 178–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2017.1381262
Atwell Seate, A., & Mastro, D. (2017). Exposure to Immigration in the News: The Impact of Group-Level Emotions on Intergroup Behavior. Communication Research, 44(6), 817– 840. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215570654
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyżanowski, M., Mcenery, T., & Wodak, R. (2008). A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK
press. Discourse & Society, 19(3), 273–306.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962
Bettini, G. (2013). Climate Barbarians at the Gate? A critique of apocalyptic narratives on
“climate refugees.” Geoforum, 45, 63–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.09.009
Boomgaarden, H., & de Vreese, C. (2007). Dramatic Real-world Events and Public Opinion Dynamics: Media Coverage and its Impact on Public Reactions to an Assassination. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(3), 354–366.
Boomgaarden, H., & Vliegenthart, R. (2009). How news content influences anti‐immigration attitudes: Germany, 1993–2005. European Journal of Political Research, 48(4), 516– 542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01831.x
Bos, L., Lecheler, S., Mewafi, M., & Vliegenthart, R. (2016). It’s the frame that matters: Immigrant integration and media framing effects in the Netherlands. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 55, 97–108.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2016.10.002
Brader, T., Valentino, N., & Suhay, E. (2008). What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00353.x
Bruneau, E., Kteily, N., & Laustsen, L. (2018). The unique effects of blatant dehumanization on attitudes and behavior towards Muslim refugees during the European “refugee crisis” across four countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(5), 645–662.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2357
Cacciatore, M., Scheufele, D., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The End of Framing as we Know it ... and the Future of Media Effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
De Vreese C., & Boomgaarden H. (2006). News, Political Knowledge and Participation: The Differential Effects of News Media Exposure on Political Knowledge and Participation. Acta Politica, 41(4), 317–341. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500164
De Vreese, C. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13(1), 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1075/idjdd.13.1.06vre
Danckert, B., Dinesen, P., Klemmensen, R., Nørgaard, A., Stolle, D., & Sønderskov, K. (2017). With an Open Mind: Openness to Experience Moderates the Effect of Interethnic
Encounters on Support for Immigration. European Sociological Review, 33(5), 721– 733. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcx070
Eberl, J., Meltzer, C., Heidenreich, T., Herrero, B., Theorin, N., Lind, F., … Strömbäck, J. (2018). The European media discourse on immigration and its effects: a literature review. Annals of the International Communication Association, 42(3), 207–223.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2018.1497452
Entman, R.M. (1993), Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43: 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Faist, T., & Schade, J. (2013). Disentangling Migration and Climate Change Methodologies, Political Discourses and Human Rights (1st ed. 2013.). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6208-4
Figenschou, T., Thorbjørnsrud, K., & Thorbjørnsrud, K. (2015). Faces of an Invisible Population: Human Interest Framing of Irregular Immigration News in the United States, France, and Norway. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(7), 783–801.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215573256
Frijda, N., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations Among Emotion, Appraisal, and Emotional Action Readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2),
212–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212
Gadarian, S., & Albertson, B. (2014). Anxiety, Immigration, and the Search for Information. Political Psychology, 35(2), 133–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12034
Gamson, W. A. , & Modigliani , A. ( 1987 ). The changing culture ofaffirmative action. In R. G. Braungart & M. M. Braungart (Eds.),Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137 – 177 ). Greenwich,CT: jAI Press .
Greussing, E., & Boomgaarden, H. (2017). Shifting the refugee narrative? An automated frame analysis of Europe’s 2015 refugee crisis. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(11), 1749–1774. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1282813
Helbling, M. (2014). Framing Immigration in Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.830888
Høeg, E., & Tulloch, C. (2019). Sinking Strangers: Media Representations of Climate Refugees on the BBC and Al Jazeera. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 43(3), 225–248. https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859918809486
Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Weber, C. (2007). The Political Consequences of Perceived Threat and Felt Insecurity. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614(1), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716207305951
Innes, A. (2010). When the Threatened Become the Threat: The Construction of Asylum Seekers in British Media Narratives. International Relations, 24(4), 456–477.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117810385882
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Kovář, J. (2019). A security threat or an economic consequence? An analysis of the news framing of the European Union’s refugee crisis. International Communication Gazette.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048519832778
Kühne, R., Weber, P., & Sommer, K. (2015). Beyond Cognitive Framing Processes: Anger Mediates the Effects of Responsibility Framing on the Preference for Punitive Measures. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 259–279.
Lamprianou, Iasonas, and Antonis A. Ellinas. “Emotion, Sophistication and Political Behavior: Evidence From a Laboratory Experiment.” Political Psychology 40.4 (2019): 859–876. Web.
Lecheler, S., & De Vreese, C. (2011). Getting Real: The Duration of Framing Effects. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 959–983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01580.x
Lecheler, S., Bos, L., & Vliegenthart, R. (2015). The Mediating Role of Emotions: News Framing Effects on Opinions About Immigration. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(4), 812–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015596338
Lee, Y., & Chang, C. (2010). Framing public policy: The impacts of political sophistication and nature of public policy. The Social Science Journal, 47(1), 69–89.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2009.07.002
Liu, Y., & Eveland, W. (2005). Education, Need for Cognition, and Campaign Interest as Moderators of News Effects on Political Knowledge: An Analysis of the Knowledge Gap. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(4), 910–929.
https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200410
Liu, Yung-I et al. “The Impact of News Use and News Content Characteristics on Political Knowledge and Participation.” Mass Communication and Society 16.5 (2013): 713– 737. Web.
Moeller, J., & de Vreese, C. (2019). Spiral of Political Learning: The Reciprocal Relationship of News Media Use and Political Knowledge Among Adolescents. Communication Research, 46(8), 1078–1094. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215605148
Miller, P. (2011). The Emotional Citizen: Emotion as a Function of Political Sophistication. Political Psychology, 32(4), 575–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00824.x
Nabi, R. (2003). Exploring the Framing Effects of Emotion: Do Discrete Emotions Differentially Influence Information Accessibility, Information Seeking, and Policy Preference? Communication Research, 30(2), 224–247.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202250881
Parrott, S., Hoewe, J., Fan, M., & Huffman, K. (2019). Portrayals of Immigrants and Refugees in U.S. News Media: Visual Framing and its Effect on Emotions and Attitudes. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(4), 677–697.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2019.1681860
Pettigrew, T. (1997). Generalized Intergroup Contact Effects on Prejudice. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(2), 173–185.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167297232006
Rapeli, L. (2014). Knowledge and Opinion: The Immigration Issue in the 2011 Finnish Parliamentary Elections. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 20(3), 309–327.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13537113.2014.937627
Ruhrmann, G., Sommer, D., & Uhlemann, H. (2006). TV-Nachrichtenberichterstattung über Migranten – Von der Politik zum Terror. In R. Geißler & H. Pöttker (Eds.), Integration durch Massenmedien: Medien und Migration im internationalen. Vergleich (pp. 45– 75). Bielefeld: Transcript.
Smith, C., & Ellsworth, P. (1985). Patterns of Cognitive Appraisal in Emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48(4), 813–838. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.4.813
Schuck, A., & de Vreese, C. (2006). Between Risk and Opportunity: News Framing and its Effects on Public Support for EU Enlargement. European Journal of Communication, 21(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323106060987
Schemer, C., Wirth, W., Matthes, J., (2012). Value Resonance and Value Framing Effects on Voting Intentions in Direct-Democratic Campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 334–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426329
Valentino, N., Beckmann, M., & Buhr, T. (2001). A Spiral of Cynicism for Some: The Contingent Effects of Campaign News Frames on Participation and Confidence in Government. Political Communication, 18(4), 347–367.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600152647083
Verkuyten, M. (2004). Emotional Reactions to and Support for Immigrant Policies: Attributed Responsibilities to Categories of Asylum Seekers. Social Justice Research, 17(3), 293– 314. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SORE.0000041295.83611.dc
Verkuyten, M., Mepham, K., & Kros, M. (2018). Public attitudes towards support for migrants: the importance of perceived voluntary and involuntary migration. Ethnic and Racial Studies: Themed Issue: Migration and Race in Europe, 41(5), 901–918.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1367021
Weeks, Brian E. “Emotions, Partisanship, and Misperceptions: How Anger and Anxiety Moderate the Effect of Partisan Bias on Susceptibility to Political Misinformation.” Journal of Communication 65.4 (2015): 699–719. Web
