Master Thesis:
Nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants:
News framing effects under the moderating role of contact with immigrants
María José Pardo Student number: 11351527
Supervisor: Jasper van de Pol
University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication
MSc Communication Science 31/01/2018
Abstract
This study investigates the effects of issue-specific frames on immigration on people’s feelings of nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants. As an additional component, it also addresses how contact with immigrants moderates these effects. The immigration issue has always been on the political agenda of the European Union. Especially since the emergence of the migrant crisis at the beginning of 2015, it has gained a more prominent space in the public discussion. As a consequence, this issue has been framed from different perspectives; thus affecting public opinion. However, despite the existence of some studies investigating framing effects on immigration, there is not yet a study that addresses their consequences on people's feelings of nationalism and support for immigration, as well as the role of contact with immigrants in this relation. Therefore, using a survey experiment among 124 EU citizens and randomly expose them to three news frames, this study found that there is no significant effect of frame exposure on nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants for young, highly educated people in Europe. However, it should be considered that these results are only applicable to the sample and variables utilized in this study. There is a possibility that the use of a more diverse sample and additional variables, such as quality of contact with immigrants, could yield different results. Finally, understanding how and under which circumstances framing effects work, plays a major role in the development and management of communication strategies, especially those related to the immigration issue.
Keywords: frames, immigration, nationalism, attitudes towards immigrants, contact with immigrants, Europe
Nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants:
News framing effects under the moderating role of exposure to immigrants
News framing and its effects have always been an important element in forming public opinion worldwide. Thereby, understanding whether the use of different frames influences people´s feelings and attitudes is an important area of research in Political Communication, since the role of the media in forming public opinion in democracies is a topic that lies at the core of this discipline. A fair body of literature is available covering framing effects in political contexts (Nelson, Clawson & Oxley 1997a; Schuck, Vliegenthart & De Vreese, 2016). However, despite the existence of some studies investigating the topic of framing effects on anti-immigration attitudes (Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2009; Bos, Lecheler, Mewafi & Vliegenthart, 2016; Igartua and Cheng, 2009), to the best of my knowledge, there is not yet a study that addresses the effects of different issue-specific frames on people's feelings of nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants and the role of contact with immigrants in this relation.
Addressing issue-specific frames is relevant in this context since they focus on specific aspects of a particular issue or situation (De Vreese, 2005). Therefore, analyzing the framing on immigration allows for a more in-depth understanding of how particular aspects of this issue can affect people’s opinions and behaviour.
Hence, this paper aims to answer the research question (RQ): How does the use of
different issue-specific frames on immigration in the news affect people's feelings of nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants, and how does contact with immigrants moderate these effects? My objective is to address this question by carrying out a survey-experiment among 124 adult citizens from sixteen EU countries, randomly exposing them to three news articles with different frames and measuring their feelings of nationalism and support for immigration after the
As an additional component, this study investigates how contact with immigrants
moderates these effects. In this regard, there are available some studies addressing the effects of contact with immigrants on nationalism and anti-immigration attitudes. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) argue that contact with immigrants can increasing sympathy and understanding towards minority groups, thus affecting nationalist feelings and attitudes towards immigrants.
Now, investigating framing effects on nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants introduces new elements to the already existing literature on framing immigration, serving as a baseline for future studies on this topic. The immigration issue has always been on the academic and political agenda in Europe. Nevertheless, the rising number of immigrants arriving in EU countries since the beginning of 2015, including asylum seekers and economic migrants (mainly from Africa and the Middle East), has led to the emergence of an unprecedented migrant crisis (“Migrant crisis,” 2016), bringing closer attention to this issue.
An interesting societal consequence of this phenomenon is how different actors use the increasing attention that the migration issue has on the media, and strategically select some aspects of it (framing), in order to shape public opinion according to their interest. For instance, in some European countries, nationalist parties have used this issue to promote strong feelings of nationalism and anti-immigration policies (Robins-Early, 2017).
Additionally, contact with immigrants is a variable that has been used in other studies investigating public opinion, such as voting behaviour (Brunner & Kuhn, 2014), but has not yet been used for studies addressing framing effects. Therefore, using contact with immigrants as a moderator is an innovative contribution to the study of framing immigration, as this variable potentially influences framing effects. For example, Central European countries do not host a significant number of refugees and have not been majorly affected by the migrant crisis. Yet,
xenophobic feelings hold strong in the region (Hunyadi & Molnár, 2016), which could be explained by the lack of contact with immigrants.
Finally, addressing news-framing effects can shed new light on the issue of immigration, leading to a better understanding of how and under which circumstances framing effects work and their societal implications.
Theoretical background and hypotheses
The present research focuses on the model of framing in Political Communication, under the context of immigration.
Following Entman (1993, p. 52),
“to frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation for the item
described”.
framing implies some changes in the presentation of a topic. These changes can modify the perception of the same basic topic, significantly altering its meaning. In this sense, framing can affect people´s feelings and opinions, altering the considerations of a topic´s evaluation, by leading the public discussion (Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997b; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). For instance, Roggeband and Vliegenthart (2007) study five frames1 on immigration and
integration in the Netherlands in the media and the parliament, finding the Islam-as-threat frame as the most prevalent in both actors.
Frames provide a way to understand issues and events by influencing how people process information (Scheufele, 1999) - that is, their interpretative schemas. They limit the debate to particular interpretations by setting the language through which a topic can be understood
(Nelson et al., 1997b). Now, the use of frames in media is of key importance, since they pose a powerful and influential way of shaping public opinion (De Vreese, 2005). When frames are used by the media, they can direct perceptions, opinions and feelings towards the matter at stake. In political communication, they influence how people perceive political matters and their
implications (Chong & Druckman, 2007a).
Therefore, framing has consequences both at the individual and societal level. At the individual level, it can alter attitudes towards certain issues, while at the societal level it can contribute to social processes, such as political movements and changes in public policy (De Vreese, 2005). Likewise, there are two types of frames, generic and issue-specific. The former, broadly applicable to different topics and the latter focused on specific aspects of a particular issue (De Vreese, Peter & Semetko, 2001). Moreover, certain frames are relevant only to specific topics. Issue-specific frames “capture specific aspects of selection, organization, and elaboration that are present in news coverage and pertain specifically to a well-defined issue” (De Vreese et al., 2001, p. 108). In communication, an issue-specific frame is defined in relation to a specific issue or actor (Chong & Druckman, 2007b).
Mass media is one of the sources on which the public relies on to form their opinion about political matters (Kühne, 2012). In this regard, considering issue-specific framing on the news may provide an opportunity to investigate the effects of the media framing immigration on people´s evaluations.
Framing immigration
There are available some studies addressing the use of different issue-specific frames on immigration (e.g. Roggeband & Vliegenthart, 2007; Van Gorp, 2005). Approaching immigration from various angles highlights the most salient aspects of how immigrants are portrayed.
In this matter, scholars have identified that immigrants (particularly illegal immigrant and asylum seekers) are often presented as victims of extreme situations in their home countries, looking for a better life abroad (Van Gorp, 2005). Another frame that has been identified on the immigration issue is the emancipation frame (Lecheler, Bos & Vliegenthart, 2005). “In the emancipation frame, the position and orientation of migrants are problematized: they are viewed as backward in participation, customs and views” (Roggeband & Vliegenthart, 2007, p. 530). Moreover, research has also shown the existence of a multicultural perspective on this matter (Roggeband & Vliegenthart, 2007). The multicultural frame emphasizes the existence and benefits of a multicultural and diverse society (Bos et al., 2016).
Thus, framing studies have identified three issue-specific frames on the issue of
immigration in the European context: victimization frame, emancipation frame and multicultural frame. The first one focuses on inequality and the disadvantages of ethnic minorities, the second on autonomy and participation of immigrants, and the last one on a multicultural and diverse society (Lecheler et al., 2015), each of them emphasizing different aspects of news addressing the immigration issue.
Exposure to information on the news is essential for people’s opinions on the topic at stake, such as nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants in the immigration issue (Simon & Xenos, 2000). In this sense, different frames will lead to different feeling and attitude changes.
This study focuses on the effects of the use of the three aforementioned issue-specific frames on immigration, seeking to evaluate how the use of the victimization, emancipation and multicultural frames on immigration affect people's nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants and analyze the role of contact with immigrants in this relation.
Framing effects on nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants Nationalism
To start with, nationalism can be understood in terms of culture and citizenship. In this sense, “ethnic nationalism defines the nation in terms of some supposed ancestral, linguistic and/or cultural homogeneity and distinctiveness”, whereas civic nationalism defines nationality in terms of citizenship and its institutional commitments as the main criteria (Pehrson, Vignoles & Brown, 2009, p. 26). The main focus of this research will be centred on ethnic nationalism, as in this conception nationality is defined in a way that immigrants are excluded, and ancestry and culture are associated with the concept of nation (Shulman 2002).
In this regard, there is evidence indicating a relationship between national identification and anti-immigrant attitudes (Verkuyten, 2005). Understanding nationalism solely in terms of culture can lead to an exaltation of one nation above other nations or minority groups. This means that identification with a national identity may cause a dichotomous stereotyped image of one´s group vs other groups. “Nationalism encourages an orientation involving liking for one's own group and disliking of certain other groups” (Druckman, 1994, p. 63).
Attitudes towards immigrants
Furthermore, besides nationalism framing effects have also been studied on attitudes towards immigrants. Attitudes towards immigrants are distinguished between opposition and support for immigration and include cultural and national identity, economic factors and information or general knowledge about immigrants as predictors of these attitudes (Sides & Citrin, 2007).
Addressing immigrants from different perspectives (victimization, emancipation and multiculturalism) can cause different effects, particularly in feelings of nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants. So that, it is to be expected that the aspects of the issue emphasized by the
different frames might affect these two variables in different ways.
To begin with, the victimization frame focuses on the stereotypical role of immigrants as victims (Van Gorp, 2005). In this respect, research has shown that the victimization perspective focuses on the inequality immigrants face as newcomers on a foreign country, having to adapt to new social norms (Verkuyten & Brug, 2004). Thus, this stereotyped portrayal of immigrants as victims can generate feelings of empathy, hence generating favourable intergroup feelings (Bos et al., 2016).
While the victimization frame focuses on immigrants as victims of disadvantaged situations, limited by new social rules, the emancipation frame emphasizes the individual
responsibility of immigrants to take a more active role to integrate and participate in the receiving society (Roggeband & Vliegenthart, 2007). Unlike the victimization frame, the emancipation frame can constantly appeal to the emotion of anger (Lecheler et al., 2015). This feeling of anger enhance by the emancipation frame can highlight, even more, the out-group character of
immigrants, leading to more prejudice and higher feelings of nationalism as well as negative feelings towards immigrants (Quillian, 1995). It is important to emphasize that this frame is more critical towards immigrants than the other two frames discussed in this study.
Now, in regards to the multicultural perspective, this frame emphasizes the cultural diversity as beneficial for the society (Roggeband & Vliegenthart, 2007). Scholars agree that the use of this framework generates positive evaluations towards the out-group (Bos et al., 2016; Verkuyten & Brug, 2004). In this respect, Kofman (2005) argues that the portrayal of a multicultural society is perceived positively, as it enriches the diversity of the host country, reducing nationalism sentiments. In the same way, studies (Lecheler et al., 2015; Verkuyten & Brug, 2004) have found that the multicultural frame increases positives attitudes towards immigrants. Lastly, based on the analysis of the use of the victimization, emancipation and
multicultural frames on nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants, I hypothesize that:
H1: People exposed to the emancipation frame are more likely to have higher feelings of
nationalism than those exposed to the victimization and multicultural frames.
H2: People exposed to the multicultural frame are more likely to have more positive
attitudes towards immigrants than participants exposed to the victimization and emancipation frames, while participants exposed to the victimization frame are more likely to have more positive attitudes towards immigrants than those in the emancipation frame.
The moderating role of contact with immigrants
In addition to the aforementioned arguments, contact with immigrants is an important element to include when studying framing effect on immigration.
Contact theory holds that under certain conditions contact between two groups can encourage acceptance (Pettigrew, 1998). In this line, Schlueter and Scheepers (2010) find that intergroup contact can affect anti-immigrant feelings by reducing the perceptions of immigrants as a threat to the in-group. Hence, for the purpose of this research contact with out-group members will be taken in terms of contact with immigrants.
By definition, contact with immigrants encompasses contact between nationals of a country and minority groups from different origins (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). That is to say, contact with immigrants is defined in terms of interaction (either verbal or non-verbal) as in a daily environment (on public transport, in the street, in shops or the neighbourhood) (ESS, 2014).
Contact between natives and immigrants have been increasing in Europe as a result of globalization dynamics (Czaika & Haas, 2014), as well as a consequence of the migrant crisis (Halpern, 2017).
positively related to cultural nationalism (Mummendey, Klink & Brown, 2001). Nevertheless, contact with immigrants can reduce the negative perception of the out-group and therefore nationalist feelings by reducing prejudice (André & Dronkers, 2017), thus affecting negative media effects.
Furthermore, Kofman (2005) argues that the portrayal of a multicultural society, enriching the diversity of the host country, can generate positive attitudes towards immigrants. Therefore, contact with immigrants can enhance these positive attitudes by generating sympathy and understanding towards minority groups (Brown & Hewstone, 2005).
Moreover, when contact with immigrants is taking into account, it is expected to moderate framing effects as real-life contact with immigrants can influence feelings and attitudes towards them (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). For this reason, addressing framing effects on nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants should include the factor of contact with immigrants, since it can influence the relationship between the way in which the subject is presented and the feelings and attitudes towards it. I, therefore, hypothesize that:
H3: The stronger feelings of nationalism that result from being exposed to the
emancipation frame vs the victimization and multicultural frames, are weakened when participants have more contact with immigrants compared to when participants have less contact to immigrants.
H4: The more positive attitudes towards immigrants that result from being exposed to the
multicultural frame vs the victimization and emancipation frames are pronounced when participants have more contact with immigrants compared to when participants have less contact with immigrants.
Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of the independent and dependent variables in this experiment; frame, nationalism, attitudes towards immigrants and contact with immigrants.
Figure 1
Conceptual model of variables and hypotheses
Method
Participants
To test the hypotheses, an online questionnaire was administered to a total of 155 participants. Of these participants, one had to be excluded because s/he did not agree to
participate on the study, and 30 other participants had to be excluded because they did not meet the criterion of being from an EU country. Thus, the final sample had a total of 124 participants (56 males, 68 females) and their mean age was 27.15 (SD = 7.87) years. The participants were European citizens from sixteen different countries, with the majority of them being from Greece (47.6%), Italy (11.3%) and the Netherlands (11.3%).
Regarding the educational background 45.2% of the participants had an undergraduate university degree, followed by those with a postgraduate university degree (33.1%), and those with a degree from a University of Applied Sciences (10.5% ). Respondents did not receive any incentive for their participation.
Procedure
A survey experiment with a post-test only design was used for this study. This design was inspired by past research done on the topic of framing in political communication (Bos et al., 2016; Lecheler et al., 2015). This method was selected as it allows the attribution of the reported feelings of nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants to the exposure to the frame used in the news article. A non-probability sample was used, as this had the highest potential for collecting an adequate number of participants given the means that were available for this study. The method applied was a mix of convenient and snowball sampling (Bryman, 2015). The participants were recruited through social media by posting a link to an online questionnaire, asking them to complete it and share it with other friends on their social network. The
questionnaire took approximately 10 min to be completed. Data collection was conducted over a week timeframe from December 5th to 12th, 2017.
The experiment had three groups with different issue-specific frames. Every condition had one news article, for a total of three news articles. First, participants answered some questions consisting of socio-demographics and contact with immigrants. Second, they were randomly allocated to one of the three conditions. Third, participants completed three other blocks of questions measuring feelings of nationalism, attitudes towards immigrants and the manipulation checks. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
The variables of this experiment were frame (independent variable), feelings of nationalism (i) and attitudes towards immigrants (ii) (dependent variables), contact with
immigrants (moderator variable), sex, age, education and country of origin (socio-demographic control variables).
Stimuli
Frame. Three frames were developed for this study: victimization frame, emancipation frame, and multicultural frame. Each frame focused on different specific issues used in
immigration debates in Europe. This variable was operationalized creating a news article for each frame. So that, the victimization frame (i), focused on immigrants facing extreme situations and difficulties during their journeys to Europe; the emancipation frame (ii), focused on immigrants responsibility to increase their participation themselves with the use of public policies; and the multicultural frame (iii), focused on immigrant diversity enhancing European society.
Each stimulus had an equivalent news article consisting of three parts (paragraphs): Introduction/description of a news event related to immigration, for this study the new EU legal migration plan, the main body (where each frame was placed) and a conclusion. It is important to emphasize that all the facts presented in the news articles were identical across frames. The news articles used for this purpose were based on the article "Europe migrant crisis: EU presents legal migration plan" published the 27th of September 2017 on BBC News and were all manipulated with fictional content specifically created for this research. Both the content and format of the articles used for this study were designed in such a way that they looked like a real-life article available in a news website (the stimulus material featuring each one of the tree frames is available in Appendix A).
Victimization frame. This frame portrayed immigrants as victims of extreme situations
and other difficulties, both during their journeys to Europe and in the refugee camps. The article used for this condition consisted of three paragraphs. The first paragraph described the new EU legal migration plan, and it was the same across conditions. The second paragraph gave an evaluation of the event using the victimization frame. In this case, the article using the
they are travelling to Europe and once they reach the continent. Finally, the third paragraph consisted of a conclusion of the event also emphasizing the frame.
Emancipation frame. This frame emphasized that immigrants should participate and
integrate themselves into the society. The article used for this condition consisted of three
paragraphs, just as in the victimization frame, and it was divided similarly. In this case, the article using the emancipation frame emphasized immigrants' own responsibility to participate and include themselves in the European society with the help of the government and the use of public policies.
Multicultural frame. This frame treated immigrants as part of a multicultural society that
enriches European culture. The article used for this condition consisted of three paragraphs, just as in the victimization and emancipation frames, and it was divided similarly. In this case, the article using the multicultural frame emphasized that cultural diversity enhances the quality of the European society.
Measures
Nationalism. This variable was operationalized using a nationalism scale created by Kosterman & Feshbach (1989) and composing a score with the items measuring it. Seven items on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is “Strongly disagree” and 7 “Strongly agree” compose this measure. To compute this scale, a principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted with the 7 items. The analysis showed two components with eigenvalues above 1 (component 1 eigenvalue = 2.89, and component 2 eigenvalue = 1.01) and there was a clear point of inflexion after these two components in the scree plot.
After a Varimax rotation, two factors were identified. The first factor included five items with coefficient above .45 with the statements “The important thing for my country’s foreign aid program is to see to it that we gain a political advantage”, “Generally, the more influence my
country has on other nations, the better off they are”, "Foreign nations have done some very fine things, but it takes my country to do things in a big way", "The first duty of every citizen is to honour his/her country's history and heritage" and “It is important that my country wins in international sporting competitions like the Olympics”. The second factor included just one item with a coefficient above .45 with the statement “It is really not important that my country is number one in whatever it does”. So that, the first factor was used to create a new scale of nationalism and the second factor was excluded. A reliability test was conducted for the five items in the first factor, and a new variable Nationalism was computed. [M=3.65, SD=1.26] [α=.78].
Attitudes towards immigrants. This variable was operationalized using some questions of the Attitudes towards immigration and their antecedents’ module of the Round 7 (2014) of the European Social Survey (ESS) and composing a score with the items. Seven items on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is “Strongly disagree” and 7 “Strongly agree” compose this measure, with lower values indicating negative attitudes towards immigrants and higher values indicating positive attitudes towards immigrants. The statements in this scale include phrases as “My country is made a better place to live by people coming to live here from other countries”, “My country’s cultural life is generally enriched by people coming to live here from other countries”, and the like.
To compute this scale, a PCA was conducted with the 7 items. The analysis showed that the 7 items form a single uni-dimensional scale, only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (eigenvalue = 3.85), and there was a clear point of inflexion after this component in the scree plot. All items but one correlated positively with the component – this one item was reversed. Lastly, a reliability test was conducted for the items in the component, and a new variable Attitudes towards immigrants was computed. [M=4.58, SD=1.19] [α=.86].
Contact with immigrants. This variable was operationalized using one question of the Attitudes towards immigration and their antecedents’ module of the Round 7 of the ESS, more specifically contact with out-group members, quantity of contact.
One item on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is “Never” and 7 “Every day”, with lower values indicating less contact with immigrants and higher values indicating more contact with
immigrants. “How often do you have contact (either verbal or non-verbal) with people who are of a different ethnic group than the majority of the people in your country? (This could be on public transport, in the street, in shops or the neighbourhood)”. [M = 5.48, SD = 1.77].
Manipulation check. The manipulation check was designed to ensure that participants perceived the manipulations in the independent variable as intended, in this case, the frames. Each frame corresponds to one item on a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is “Not at all” and 7 “A lot”, addressing people´s perception of the main issue in the news article.
Victimization frame. Immigrants’ facing extreme situations and difficulties during their
journeys to Europe.
Emancipation frame. Immigrants’ responsibility to increase their participation in the
society.
Multicultural frame. Immigrant diversity enhancing the quality of the European society.
Pilot test
Before the final survey was launched a pilot test was administered to a total of 35 participants. To test the stimulus with the manipulation checks, three one-way ANOVAs were conducted with frame as the independent variable and the manipulation checks as the dependent variables.
For the manipulation victimization, the ANOVA showed a significant effect of frame exposure on manipulation check victimization, F(2, 35) = 6.02, p=.006, ƞ2 = .26. (Levene's test and Bonferroni post hoc test are available for all the ANOVAs in this section in Appendix C). Variances in the population were equal.
For the manipulation emancipation, the ANOVA showed a significant effect of frame exposure on manipulation check emancipation, F(2, 35) = 4.69, p = .016, ƞ2 = .21. In this case, variances in the population were also equal.
Finally, for the manipulation multicultural, the ANOVA showed a significant effect of frame exposure on manipulation check multicultural, F(2, 35) = 20.29, p <.001, ƞ2 = .54. Variances in the population were as well equal.
Results revealed significant differences in the manipulation checks between conditions (frames) (all p <.05.). Nevertheless, Bonferroni Post Hoc test revealed no significant differences in manipulation check emancipation between the frame emancipation and the frame
multicultural. However, these results were attributed to the small sample size in the pilot test. Therefore, it is assumed that participants perceived the manipulations in the independent variable as intended.
Results Randomization check
To check if participants' gender, level of education and nationality was comparable over the experimental conditions (frames), chi-square analyses were used. Results did not reveal significant differences between conditions regarding gender, level of education and nationality (all p > .05.)
Likewise, in order to check if participants’ age was comparable over conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with frame (victimization/ emancipation/ multicultural) as the
independent variable and age as the dependent variable. The ANOVA showed that participants’ mean age was non significantly different between frames, F(2, 121) = 1.54, p = .219.
Therefore, it is assumed that the population in the sample was equally distributed across conditions and the groups are comparable between them.
Manipulation check
Additionally, in order to check if the participant perceived the manipulation as indented, three one-way ANOVAs were conducted with frame as the independent variable and the
manipulation checks as the dependent variables.
The first one-way ANOVA with frame as the independent variable and manipulation victimization as the dependent variable showed a significant effect of frame exposure on
manipulation check victimization, F(2, 121) = 11.00, p<.001, ƞ2 = .15. (Bonferroni post hoc tests are available for the ANOVAs of the manipulation checks in Appendix D)
Welch F test for equality of means was conducted F(2, 78.79) = 14.15, p<.001.
The second one-way ANOVA with frame as the independent variable and manipulation emancipation as the dependent variable showed a significant effect of frame exposure on manipulation check emancipation, F(2, 121) = 10.31, p<.001, ƞ2 = .15.
Variances in the population were equal, Levene's F (2, 121) = 1.48, p = .232. Lastly, the third one-way ANOVA with frame as the independent variable and manipulation multicultural as the dependent variable showed a significant effect of frame exposure on manipulation check multicultural, F(2, 121) = 25.28, p <.001, ƞ2 = .30.
Welch F(2, 79.76) = 31.09, p<.001.
In accordance with the pilot test, the results revealed significant differences in the manipulation checks victimization and multicultural, but not in the frame emancipation. This means that participants perceived the frames victimization and multicultural as it was intended,
but they did not perceive the frame emancipation as intended. Namely, the emancipation frame was significantly different to the victimization frame, but it was not significantly different to the multicultural frame.
Nevertheless, it is possible that the sample might include people who did not fill out the questionnaire seriously. It is worth mentioning that when respondents that did not have any variation in the manipulation checks are deleted (e.g. all manipulation checks = 1) the frame emancipation is significantly different to the frames victimization and multicultural; thus it is perceived as intended.
Main effects
The first hypothesis states that people exposed to the emancipation frame are more likely to have higher feelings of nationalism than those exposed to the victimization and multicultural frames. In order to test this hypothesis, a one-way ANOVA was conducted with frame as the independent variable and nationalism as the dependent variable.
The findings showed a non-significant effect of frame exposure on reported feelings of nationalism, F(2, 121) = 0.34, p =.713. Variances in the population were equal, Levene's F (2, 121) = 0.28, p = .753. This test result suggests that participants exposed to the emancipation frame do not have higher feelings of nationalism than participants exposed to the victimization and multicultural frames in this study. Thus, hypothesis 1 is rejected.
Now, in order to test if exposure to the multicultural frame leads to more positive attitudes towards immigrants than exposure to the victimization and emancipation frames (H2), a one-way ANOVA was conducted with frame as the independent variable and nationalism as the dependent variable.
After conducting the analysis, the findings showed a non-significant effect of frame exposure on attitudes towards immigrants, F(2, 121) = 2.01, p =.137. For this test variances in the population were also equal, Levene's F (2, 121) = 0.11, p = .895. The result suggests that participants exposed to the multicultural frame do not show higher feelings of nationalism than participants exposed to the victimization and emancipations frames in this study. Hence, hypothesis 2 is rejected.
Additionally, in order to test if contact with immigrants moderates the effect of frame exposure in nationalism (H3), a multiple regression was conducted with frame and contact with immigrants as independent variables, and nationalism as the dependent variable. Dummy variables were created for the variable frame (emancipation = 1 and other = 0, and multicultural =1 and other = 0).
The multiple regression (Table 1) shows that the model is non-significant, F (5, 118) = 0.57, p = .727, adj. R2 = .023. Contact with immigrants, frame (emancipation), and frame (multicultural) do not have a significant effect on nationalism. Additionally, interaction between frame emancipation and contact with immigrants, and interaction between frame multicultural and contact with immigrants also do not have a significant effect on nationalism.
Table 1
Regression Analysis Summary for Frame and Contact with Immigrants Predicting Nationalism
Variable B SE b* t p
Constant 4.45 0.67 6.68 .000
Contact with immigrants -0.16 0.11 -0.22 -1.40 .165
Frame (emancipation) -0.90 0.87 -0.34 -1.03 .303
Frame (multicultural) -0.95 1.03 -0.35 -0.92 .357
Emancipation * Contact 0.20 0.15 0.43 1.33 .186
Multicultural * Contact 0.18 0.17 0.40 1.02 .309
The result suggests that exposure to the emancipation frame does not lead to stronger feelings of nationalism than exposure to the victimization and multicultural frames when contact with immigrants is taken into account. Therefore, hypothesis 3 is rejected.
Lastly, in order to test if contact with immigrants moderates the effect of frame exposure in attitudes towards immigrants (H4), another multiple regression was conducted with frame and contact with immigrants as independent variables, and attitudes towards immigrants as the dependent variable. The dummy variables created for the previous regression were also used in this analysis.
The multiple regression (Table 2) shows that the model is non-significant, F (5, 118) = 0.81, p = .547, adj. R2 = .033. Contact with immigrants, frame (emancipation) and frame (multicultural) do not have a significant effect on attitudes towards immigrants. Additionally, interaction between frame emancipation and contact with immigrants, and interaction between frame multicultural and contact with immigrants also do not have a significant effect on attitudes towards immigrants.
Table 2
Regression Analysis Summary for Frame and Contact with Immigrants Predicting Attitudes Towards Immigrants
Variable B SE b* t p
Constant 4.32 0.63 6.91 .000
Contact with immigrants -0.01 0.11 -0.01 -0.05 .961
Frame (emancipation) 0.29 0.81 0.12 0.36 .720
Frame (multicultural) 0.28 0.96 0.11 0.29 .773
Emancipation * Contact 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.08 .940
Multicultural * Contact 0.04 0.16 0.10 0.25 .803
The result suggests that exposure to the multicultural frame does not lead to more positive attitudes towards immigrants than exposure to the victimization and emancipation frames when contact with immigrants is taken into account. Thus, hypothesis 4 is rejected.
Conclusion and Discussion
The present study aimed to examine the effects of three different issue-specific frames in coverage of immigration on people’s feelings of nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants, and the moderating role of exposure to immigrants in these relationships. In contrast with the expectations, the findings of this study indicated that there is no significant effect of frame exposure on nationalism. People exposed to the emancipation frame are not more likely to have higher feelings of nationalism than those exposed to the victimization and multicultural frames. Similarly, the results of this study showed that frame exposure does not have a significant effect on attitudes towards immigrants. People exposed to the multicultural frame are not more likely to have more positive attitudes towards immigrants than people exposed to the victimization and emancipation frames.
Additionally, contact with immigrants does not moderate framing effects on nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants. Feelings of nationalism are not stronger as a result of being exposed to the emancipation frame vs the victimization and multicultural frames, and contact with immigrants does not exert a moderation effect on them. Likewise, attitudes towards immigrants are not more positive as a result of being exposed to the multicultural frame vs the victimization and emancipation frames, and contact with immigrants does not exert a moderation effect on them either.
Moreover, it is logical to assume that since the emancipation frame was not perceived as intended, the results of this study did not meet the initial expectations. As previously mentioned,
the manipulation test showed that the emancipation frame was significantly different to the victimization frame, but was not significantly different to the multicultural frame.
It is worth mentioning that these results differ with past findings in studies analyzing similar variables. For example, in their study of framing effects on support for collective action, attitudes and behavioural intentions in the Netherlands, Bos et al. (2016) found that victimization, emancipation, multicultural and assimilation frames can influence attitudes towards immigrants. In that study, using a survey-experiment, the authors found that there exists a positive impact of the frame multicultural on attitudes towards immigrants, in opposition to the victimization frame where the effect was negative. Lastly, in accordance with the results of the present experiment, the authors did not find any significant effect of the emancipation frame. Also in opposition to the findings of this paper, in their study about news content and anti-immigration attitudes in Germany, Boomgaarden and Vliegenthart (2009) found that both frequency and tone of coverage of the immigration issue (frame) had a significant effect on anti-immigrant attitudes. In line with this, using a survey experiment, Igartua and Cheng (2009) found that for the Spanish case frames can also significantly influence anti-immigration attitudes, but that this effect is mediated by immigration levels, number of asylum seekers in the country and immigrants' country of origin.
Now, it is important to remark that due to the convenience sample used in the present experiment, featuring more than 70% of the respondents from only 3 out of the 28 countries of the European Union, the findings are not representative of the European population. Furthermore, the mean age of the participants in this study (27 years) highly differs from the average age of participants in previous studies, ranging between 50-64 years (Bos et al., 2016). This factor, in addition to the participants' high level of education, could explain the non-significant results of frame exposure in nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants in this experiment. In this
regard, it is of key importance to mention that higher educated people are on average more tolerant towards immigrants (Cavaillé & Marshall, 2017). Therefore, within the context of this study, feelings of nationalism and negative attitudes towards immigrants are mitigated in the presence of high levels of education (Hjerm, 2001). For this reason, it is possible that due to the participants’ high level of education, the presented issue-specific frames did not have a
significant effect on people’s feelings of nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants.
Also, the present study did not take into account some variables that potentially influence framing effects, thus affecting its results. For example, the overall importance of the issue
addressed in the stimulus was not included as a variable in this experiment. In this regard, there are some studies (e.g. Lecheler, de Vreese and Slothuus, 2009; Shen, 2004), suggesting that framing effects could vary depending on the importance of the issue they address and people’s political predispositions towards that matter. Highly important issues tend to eliminate framing effects, while issues of low importance lead to large framing effects. Hence, since the
immigration issue is at the core of public discussion nowadays, it is possible that people assign high importance to it and tend to form strong opinions about it, thus eliminating framing effects.
Another point worth mentioning is that the scale used to measure feelings of nationalism (Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989) was originally designed for American respondents. According to Kramer (2011), American nationalism is usually defined in terms of civic nationalism, in contrast with the notion of European nationalism, which is understood in terms of culture. Therefore, since the wording and phrasing used on this scale can be interpreted differently by Americans, compared to Europeans, it is highly recommended to take into account the differences on the conception of nationalism between them, as well as the cultural differences, in order to test the effectiveness of this scale when applied to an European sample.
Now, regarding contact with immigrants, two important points should be mentioned. First, there is a possibility that a substantial number of the respondents in this study are non-native citizens in the country they reside, which by definition affects their feelings of nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants. Thus, including a control variable addressing whether
participants live in their country of origin or abroad, could be taken into consideration in future studies. Second, a variable addressing the quality of contact with immigrants could enrich studies investigating framing effects on immigration. For instance, such a measure is available at the Attitudes towards immigration and their antecedents’ module of the European Social Survey (ESS).
As a final point, future research addressing framing effects on nationalism and support for immigration should include other frames in addition to the ones used in this study. In this regard, the most critical frame towards immigrants utilized in the present research was the emancipation frame. Nevertheless, it is possible to find more critical frames used in media coverage of
immigration which should be considered in future research. For example, Roggeband & Vliegenthart (2007) found that the Islam-as-threat is predominant in the migration debate in parliament and media in the Netherlands. This frame is especially critical of immigrants, particularly of those whose practise the Islam, presenting this religion as a treat to the western values.
Overall, in this study, it was found that there is not a significant effect of frame exposure on nationalism and attitudes towards immigrants for young, highly educated people in Europe, particularly from Greece, Italy and the Netherlands. However, there is a possibility that frames can indeed exert significant effects on the aforementioned variables and that contact with immigrants can moderate these effects if the previous recommendations are taken into account.
Finally, addressing how media coverage, specifically news-framing effects, can potentially affect people’s feelings and attitudes, sheds new light on the issue of immigration, an ongoing political debate that has recently drawn the attention of academics. Thus, understanding how and under which circumstances framing effects work is of key importance to the development and management of communication strategies, especially those related to the immigration issue.
References
André, S., & Dronkers, J. (2017). Perceived in-group discrimination by first and second generation immigrants from different countries of origin in 27 EU member-states. International Sociology, 32(1), 105-129.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580916676915
Boomgaarden, H. G., & Vliegenthart, R. (2009). How news content influences anti‐ immigration attitudes: Germany, 1993–2005. European Journal of Political Research, 48(4), 516-542. doi: 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
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in experimental social psychology, 37, 255-343.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(05)37005-5
Brunner, B., & Kuhn, A. (2014). Immigration, Cultural Distance and Natives' Attitudes Towards Immigrants: Evidence from Swiss Voting Results. doi: 10.1111/kykl.12161
Bryman, A. (2015). Social research methods. Oxford university press.
Cavaillé, C., & Marshall, J. (2017). Education and Anti-Immigration Attitudes: Evidence from
Compulsory Schooling Reforms across Western Europe. Working Paper.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118. doi:10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2006.00331.x
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 10, 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Czaika, M., & Haas, H. (2014). The globalization of migration: Has the world become more migratory?. International Migration Review, 48(2), 283-323.
doi: 10.1111/imre.12095
De Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal & Document Design, 13(1), 51-62. Retrieve from
https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/idjdd.12.3/main
De Vreese, C. H., Peter, J., Semetko, H. A. (2001). Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political communication, 18(2), 107-122. http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1080/105846001750322934
Druckman, D. (1994). Nationalism, Patriotism, and Group Loyalty: A Social Psychological Perspective, Mershon International Studies Review, 38(1),
43-68. https://doi.org/10.2307/222610
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of communication, 43(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
ESS Round 7: European Social Survey (2016): ESS-7 2014 Documentation Report. Edition 3.1. Bergen, European Social Survey Data Archive, NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data for ESS ERIC.
Europe migrant crisis: EU presents legal migration plan. (2017, September 27). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41413303
Halpern, J. Europe’s plan to end its migrant crisis is failing. (2017, December 08) Retrieved from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/europes-plan-to-end-its-migrant-crisis-is-failing
Hjerm, M. (2001). Education, xenophobia and nationalism: A comparative analysis. Journal of
ethnic and Migration Studies, 27(1), 37-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830124482
Hunyadi, B. & Molnár, C. (2016). Central Europe’s Faceless Strangers: The rise of xenophobia in the region. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-reports/central-europe-s-faceless-strangers-rise-xenophobia-region#.WlLIQiPSH-Y
Igartua, J. J., & Cheng, L. (2009). Moderating effect of group cue while processing news on immigration: Is the framing effect a heuristic process?. Journal of Communication, 59(4), 726-749. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01454.x
Kramer, L. S. (2011). Nationalism in Europe and America: Politics, Cultures, and Identities
Since 1775. UNC Press Books.
studies, 9(5), 453-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020500301221
Kofman, E. (2005). Citizenship, migration and the reassertion of national identity. Citizenship
studies, 9(5), 453-467. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020500301221
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes. Political psychology, 10 (2), 257-274. doi:10.2307/3791647
Kühne, R. (2012). Media-induced affects and opinion formation: How related and unrelated affects influence political opinions. Living Reviews in Democracy, 3. doi:10.5167/uzh-68721
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. doi:10.1177/1077699015596338
Lecheler, S., de Vreese, C., & Slothuus, R. (2009). Issue importance as a moderator of framing effects. Communication research, 36(3), 400-425.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333028
Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts. (2016, March 04). Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: National
identification and out‐ group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(2), 159-172. doi:10.1348/014466601164740
Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997a). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(03), 567-583. Retrieve from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/stable/2952075
Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997b). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political behavior, 19(3), 221-246. doi:10.1023/A:1024834831093
Pehrson, S., Vignoles, V. L., & Brown, R. (2009). National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250907200104
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49(1), 65-85. Retrieve from http://www.annualreviews.org/journal/psych
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5),
Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American sociological review, 586-611. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2096296
Robins-Early, N. How the Refugee Crisis is Fuelling The Rise Of Europe’s Right. (2017, January 03) Retrieved from
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/europe-right-wing-refugees_us_562e9e64e4b06317990f1922
Roggeband, C., & Vliegenthart, R. (2007). Divergent framing: The public debate on migration in the Dutch parliament and media, 1995–2004. West European Politics, 30(3), 524-548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402380701276352
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication, 49(1), 103-122. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x
Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of communication, 57(1), 9-20.
doi:10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x
Schlueter, E., & Scheepers, P. (2010). The relationship between outgroup size and anti-outgroup attitudes: A theoretical synthesis and empirical test of group threat-and intergroup contact theory. Social Science Research, 39(2), 285-295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.07.006
Schuck, A. R., Vliegenthart, R., & De Vreese, C. H. (2016). Who's afraid of conflict? The mobilizing effect of conflict framing in campaign news. British Journal of Political Science, 46(01), 177-194.
https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1017/S0007123413000525
Shen, F. (2004). Effects of news frames and schemas on individuals' issue interpretations and attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(2), 400-416.
https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1177/107769900408100211
Shulman, S. (2002). Challenging the civic/ethnic and West/East dichotomies in the study of nationalism. Comparative Political Studies, 35(5), 554-585.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414002035005003
Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2007). European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British journal of political science, 37(3), 477-504. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123407000257
Simon, A., & Xenos, M. (2000). Media framing and effective public deliberation. Political communication, 17(4), 363-376.
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2048/10.1080/10584600050178979
Van Gorp, B. (2005). Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press coverage of the asylum issue. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 484-507.
doi:10.1177/0267323105058253
Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic Group Identification and Group Evaluation Among Minority and Majority Groups: Testing the Multiculturalism Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 121-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.121 Verkuyten, M. & Brug, P. (2004), Multiculturalism and group status: The role of ethnic
identification, group essentialism and protestant ethic. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 34: 647–661. doi:10.1002/ejsp.222
Appendix Appendix A
Stimulus material
The frame used in each article is underlined (i) Victimization frame
EU legal migration plan: An attempt to provide a safe alternative for migrants
The EU Commission has proposed a new two-year programme to bring at least 50,000 asylum seekers into Europe. The scheme suspended European rules, which say would-be refugees should apply for asylum in the country of entry to the EU. The Commission suggested that the priority should now be to relocate would-be refugees who arrived on frontline countries such as Italy and Greece - which it estimates as about 8,000 people.
The migration plan: protecting immigrants from criminal traffickers
The new scheme is an opportunity to manage one of the most complex phenomena of Europe nowadays. “The migration plan aims to relocate immigrants in different European countries. Immigrants often risk their lives and face extreme situations, such as human
trafficking, during their journeys to Europe as well as in the refugee camps. This new scheme will provide a safe and legal alternative for immigrants, who often suffer from war traumas,” said the
Commission's Vice-President Francesca Mogherini.
With this scheme, the EU is trying to seek a solution for Europe's migrant crisis. Overcrowded refugee camps, slave markets and human trafficking are examples of the
difficulties and horrors that immigrants often face during their journeys to Europe, and this legal plan is expected to be effective in tackling this crisis.
(ii) Emancipation frame
EU legal migration plan:
An attempt to enhance the participation of immigrants in Europe
The EU Commission has proposed a new two-year programme to bring at least 50,000 asylum seekers into Europe. The scheme suspended European rules, which say would-be refugees should apply for asylum in the country of entry to the EU. The Commission suggested that the priority should now be to relocate would-be refugees who arrived on frontline countries such as Italy and Greece - which it estimates as about 8,000 people.
The migration plan: Also more participation expected
The new scheme is an opportunity to manage one of the most complex phenomena of Europe nowadays. “This migration plan is designed to relocate immigrants across European countries. We help them find a safe destination, but at the same time, we expect back from them that they actively try to integrate into the societies they arrive in. In order for the migrant crisis to be successfully solved, it is important that immigrants take an effort in participating and integrating in the country of destination,” said the Commission's Vice-President Francesca Mogherini.
With this scheme the EU is trying to seek a solution for Europe’s migrant crisis. If immigrants manage to adjust and actively participate in the European country of destination, this legal plan is expected to be effective in tackling the crisis.
(iii) Multicultural frame
EU legal migration plan: A more multicultural Europe
The EU Commission has proposed a new two-year programme to bring at least 50,000 asylum seekers into Europe. The scheme suspended European rules, which say would-be refugees should apply for asylum in the country of entry to the EU. The Commission suggested
that the priority should now be to relocate would-be refugees who arrived on frontline countries such as Italy and Greece - which it estimates as about 8,000 people.
The migration plan: open doors for a diverse Europe
The new scheme is an opportunity to manage one of the most complex phenomena of Europe nowadays. “We should make sure that immigrants live in different European countries and that these countries benefit from the way immigrants enrich their societies. Cultural diversity enhances the quality of the European society. This new policy will provide a legal alternative for immigrants to find a new home and for European countries to contribute their fair share of accommodating immigrants in Europe,” said the Commission's Vice-President Francesca
Mogherini.
With this scheme the EU is trying to seek a solution for Europe’s migrant crisis. Immigrants from different cultural backgrounds further enrich an already multicultural and diverse Europe and this legal plan is expected to be effective in tackling the crisis.
Appendix B
Experiment questionnaire Item wording
Socio-demographics
“Please indicate your nationality” “What is your gender?”
-Male -Female
“What is your age?”
“What is the highest educational level you have obtained?” -No schooling completed
-Primary / elementary school -Secondary school / high school -Intermediate Vocational training -University of Applied Science -Undergraduate University degree -Postgraduate University degree Contact with immigrants
“Regarding the area where you currently live in”. On a scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is “Never” and 7 “Every day”. “How often do you have contact (either verbal or non-verbal) with people who are of a different ethnic group than the majority of the people in your country? (This could be on public transport, in the street, in shops or in the neighbourhood)”.
Nationalism
On a scale of 0 to 7, where 0 is “Strongly disagree” and 7 “Strongly agree”. Please indicate the option that best matches your answer.
-"The first duty of every citizen is to honour his/her country´s history and heritage”.
-"The important thing for my country´s foreign aid program is to see to it that we gain a political advantage”.
-“Other countries should try to make their government as much like ours as possible". -“Generally, the more influence my country has on other nations, the better off they are”.
-“Foreign nations have done some very fine things but it takes my country to do things in a big way”.
-“It is important that my country wins in international sporting competitions like the Olympics”. -“It is really not important that my country is number one in whatever it does”.
Attitudes towards immigrants
On a scale of 0 to 7, where 0 is “Strongly disagree” and 7 “Strongly agree”. Please indicate the option that best matches your answer.
-“My country is made a better place to live by people coming to live here from other countries”. -“It is good for a country to have a law against racial or ethnic discrimination in the workplace”. -“ People who come to live in my country generally help to create new jobs”.
- Regarding taxes, health and welfare services. “People who come to my country put in more than they take out”.
- “It is generally good for my country’s economy that people come to live here from other countries”.
-“Crime problems in my country made worse by people coming to live here from other countries”.
-“ My country’s cultural life is generally enriched by people coming to live here from other countries”.
Manipulation checks
On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is “Not at all” and 7 “A lot”. Please indicate the option that best matches your answer.
“To what extent do you believe that the news article you just read covers the topic of...” -“ ...immigrants facing extreme situations and difficulties during their journeys to Europe?” -“ ...immigrants responsibility to increase their participation themselves and participate in the society?”
Appendix C Pilot test Post hoc tests
Manipulation victimization Levene's F (2, 35) = 1.30, p = .284.
For the first ANOVA (manipulation victimization), Bonferroni post hoc comparison indicated significant differences between the victimization frame (M = 5.36, SD = 1.74) and the emancipation frame (M = 2.90, SD = 2.08; p = .023), and between the victimization frame and the multicultural frame (M = 2.93, SD = 2.40; p = .012) but not between the emancipation frame and the multicultural frame (p = 1.0).
Manipulation emancipation Levene's F (2, 35) = 2.88, p = .069.
For the second ANOVA, Bonferroni post hoc comparison indicated significant
differences between the emancipation frame (M = 4.50, SD = 2.07) and the victimization frame (M = 2.29, SD = 1.33; p = .018), but not between the emancipation frame and the multicultural frame (M = 3.79, SD = 2.08; p = 1.0), and the victimization frame and the multicultural frame (p = .112).
Manipulation multicultural Levene's F (2, 35) = 0.03, p = .975.
For the third ANOVA, Bonferroni post hoc comparison indicated significant differences between the multicultural frame (M = 5.50, SD = 1.45) and the victimization frame (M = 2.71, SD = 1.38; p <.001 ), and between the multicultural frame and the emancipation frame (M = 2.20, SD = 1.40; p <.001 ) but not between the victimization frame and the emancipation frame (p = 1.0).
Appendix D
Manipulation checks Post hoc tests
Manipulation victimization
Bonferroni post hoc comparison indicated significant differences between the
victimization frame and the emancipation frame (p = .001) and between the victimization frame and the multicultural frame (p<.001) but not between the emancipation frame and the
multicultural frame (p = 1.0). Table 4 Manipulation victimization Frame n M SD Victimization 41 5.02 1.64 Emancipation immigrants 42 3.38 2.47 Multicultural 41 3.00 2.04 Manipulation emancipation
Bonferroni post hoc comparison indicated significant differences between the
emancipation frame and the victimization frame (p<.001) but also between the victimization frame and the multicultural frame (p = .033). Nevertheless, the test also indicated non-significant differences between the emancipation frame and the multicultural frame (p=.167)
Table 5 Manipulation emancipation Frame n M SD Victimization 41 2.73 1.76 Emancipation immigrants 42 4.48 1.90 Multicultural 41 3.73 1.58
Manipulation multicultural
Bonferroni post hoc comparison indicated significant differences between the
multicultural frame and the victimization frame (p<.001) and between the multicultural frame and the emancipation frame (p<.001) but not between the victimization frame and the
emancipation frame (p = .255). Table 6 Manipulation multicultural Frame n M SD Victimization 40 2.85 1.49 Emancipation immigrants 38 3.45 1.94 Multicultural 41 5.32 1.42
