FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
0
Framing and Agenda-Setting: Two Parallel Processes in Interaction
František Kalvas, Jan Váně, Martina Štípková
University of West Bohemia in Pilsen
Department of Sociology
Univerzitní 8
306 14 Pilsen
Czech Republic
+420 775 640 158 / +420 377 635 663
kalvas@kss.zcu.cz ; vanejan@kss.zcu.cz ; marsti@kss.zcu.cz
Martin Kreidl
Masaryk University
Faculty of Social Studies
Joštova 10
602 00 Brno
Czech Republic
kreidlm@fss.muni.cz
František Kalvas is a head of the Department of Sociology at the University of West
Bohemia in Pilsen. His research interests include public opinion, media effects, and survey
methodology.
Jan Váně is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology at the University of West
Bohemia in Pilsen. His research interests focus sociology of religion, and social theory.
Martina Štípková is a Ph.D. student at the Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University at
Prague and lecturer at the Department of Sociology at the University of West Bohemia in
Pilsen. Her research interests are social stratification, family, and health.
Martin Kreidl is an Associated Professor at the Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University
in Brno. His research has concerned social inequalities and mobility, social demography,
sociology of health, and quantitative applications in social sciences.
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
1
Abstract
We interconnect the framing and agenda-setting theories of mass-communication effects in
this paper. We postulate that the framing process creates conditions for the agenda-setting
process. We argue that differently framed news have different effect in the agenda-setting
process. We hypothesize that issue-specific frames, episodic frames, and value frames have a
stronger agenda-setting effect. We suggest an explanation of the role of frames in the agendasetting process through the theory of cognitive dissonance. We use matched panel survey data
and media content analysis regarding one particular issue – church restitutions. We show that
indeed differently framed news have distinctive effects on setting the personal agenda. Some
frames have a strong positive effect, some slightly negative effect, while some other have no
effect.
Key words: framing; agenda setting; cognitive dissonance; panel data; quantitative content
analysis.
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
2
Framing and Agenda-Setting: Two Parallel Processes in Interaction
Agenda-setting
The agenda-setting theory describes a process in which society prioritizes through
coming to a consensus as to which issues should be dealt with primarily. It is logical that
society first allocates resources for dealing with these priority issues. The term issue means “a
conflict between two or more identifiable groups over procedural or substantive matters
relating to the distribution of positions or resources” (Cobb & Elder, 1983, p. 32). All issues
are a conflict, which can be recognized on the following three levels: 1) whether the issue
even exists, 2) whether the issue should be solved and 3) how the issue should be solved. But
not every conflict becomes an issue. For a conflict to become an issue it has to be identified as
such and there must be a requirement for its solution (Dearing & Rogers, 1996).
A set of issues hierarchically arranged according to their importance is called an
agenda. An agenda changes dynamically in time – either because the issue is solved or its
most thorny stage is warded off, or because society got used to the originally thorny condition
(i.e. it is no longer perceived as urgent), or because other issues occurred which were more
urgent. An agenda is not distinguished only on the level of the entire social system – its
subsystems have their own agendas as well. When deconstructing the whole system, we can
get all the way to an individual who has own agenda – we call it a personal (or intrapersonal)
agenda (McLeod, Becker, & Byrnes 1974/1991).
In terms of agenda-setting theory, three subsystems are crucial: media, public, and
policy. All three have their own agendas among which the theory recognizes a dense network
of mutual interrelationships. These agendas are also influenced by events in the non-mediated
world, personal experience, and by interpersonal communication. The theory also fragments
crucial subsystems and describes how agendas of subsystem parts mutually influence one
another, and how a consensus concerning the agenda of the whole subsystem is created
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
3
(Dearing & Rogers, 1996). In this text, we only focus on the relation of public and media and
we omit the rest of the system. We perceive the media and public as one unit and do not
structure these subsystems any further.
Clarification is still required on how the agenda-setting theory determines the position
of issues in the media agenda or public agenda. The intensity of attention is the common
denominator for indicating the position of an issue on any agenda. Attention by the media is
usually understood as the number of news dealing with the respective case. Attention by the
public is usually understood as the proportion of the public that considers the issue to be one
of the most important (Dearing & Rogers, 1996). If research works with data on the microlevel (as we do), we talk about personal agenda that is the agenda of an individual reflecting
what this individual considers to be a significant issue (Kalvas 2009a). This is how we will
understand the terminology as well – see methodology.
Framing
The framing theory lies on the borderline of three paradigms concerning media
studies: cognitive, critical, and constructivist (D’Angelo, 2002; Matthes, 2007). The framing
theory describes how the complexity of issues that are difficult to understand can be reduced.
This theory claims that news contains not only plain facts but also a value frames that helps us
understand these facts. According to Entman (1993) the frame contains four fundamental
components “problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment
recommendation” (p. 52). Entman’s definition is what we stem from as well.
Entman (1993) states four locations where we can find frames “the communicator, the
text, the receiver, and the culture” (p. 52). Framing must be perceived as a process in which
frame-building happens first, followed by frame-setting, and this process has its consequences
as well (de Vreese, 2005). Frame-building takes place mainly in the interaction between
journalists, elites and social movements, and “the outcomes of the frame-building process are
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
4
the frames manifest in the text. Frame-setting refers to the interaction between media frames
and individuals’ prior knowledge and predispositions” (de Vreese, 2005, p. 52). In the
framing process, many participants try to force their own perspective on the issue, “so that it
resonates with their needs” (Trampota, 2006, p. 123). However, these participants have
dissimilar capabilities to enforce their way of framing. Contemporary research deals
intensively with the ability of media to set the frames in the minds of audience members and
with the consequences that such frame-setting brings (Iyengar, 1991; Entman, 1993; de
Vreese, 2005; Lee, McLeod, & Shah, 2008; Scheufele 2000).
Interconnection of agenda-setting and framing
McCombs and Shaw (1993) were the first to try connecting the theory of agendasetting and framing. They assumed that news carry information about an issue – this is how
agenda-setting takes place. At the same time news emphasizes or conceals some attributes of
the issue – this is how the framing of the issue takes place (McCombs & Shaw, 1993). The
effort of McCombs and Shaw is disproved by Scheufele (2000) who claims that the frame is a
complex pattern and guideline for a causal interpretation which can be substituted only
through offering an alternative complex pattern. Today, the effect described by McCombs and
Shaw is better indicated by the terms second level of agenda-setting or attribute agendasetting (e.g. McCombs, 2004). Now McCombs (2004) understands the frame according
Entman’s definition, but still insists the frame is an attribute of a respective issue.
Lecheler, de Vreese, and Slothuus (2009) work with a different idea: they consider the
issue importance to be the moderator of the framing process. They measure individual
evaluation of the issue importance (i.e. personal agenda) before participants are exposed to the
manipulated impulses – variously framed messages. Their results show that if an issue is
important, it blocks the possible effect of framing, while if an issue is not very important we
can observe a strong effect of the framing process. The evaluation of importance definitely
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
5
does not lead to framing. The authors only declare that if we consider an issue to be not very
important, we incline to change frame if there is an appropriate impulse from outside.
Our solution respects the Scheufele’s critique and finds inspiration in the approach of
Lecheler et al. (2009). In our opinion, the framing process creates conditions for the agendasetting process. We do not argue that the framing process leads directly into the agendasetting process. In agreement with Scheufele (2000), we are convinced that these are
cognitively different and parallel processes. At the same time, we believe that although the
processes are separate, they interact whereby one creates conditions for the other. We
presume that if some frames establish themselves in public discourse, the agenda-setting of
the given issue is more successful than if some other frames do. In our opinion, different
frames have a different ability to support the process of agenda-setting. This idea is in
consensus with McCombs (2004) proposing that “certain ways of describing an object may be
more compelling than other ways in creating object salience among the public” (p. 93). Cobb
and Elder (1983) emphasize the key role of a problem definition for a public support of an
issue. A similar idea to ours was given already by Wanta and Hu (1993), but we believe they
expressed too strong a hypothesis that frames determine the effect of agenda-setting.
To theoretically explain the relationship between framing and agenda-setting, we
apply theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957/1962). If a person is exposed to frames
that are not in compliance with his/her cognitive elements (knowledge, opinion, and reflection
of own behavior), it causes a state of cognitive dissonance. The extent of cognitive dissonance
is directly proportional to the number and importance of cognitive elements that are in
contradiction with the frame. The pressure to reduce the present dissonance is then directly
proportional to the extent of cognitive dissonance. A substantial way of reducing this pressure
is drawing on new information or a confrontation with new opinions.1
To simplify the explanation of cognitive dissonance, we relate Festinger’s theory to frames. Where we use the
term “frame” in this part of explanation, Festinger would use a general term “cognitive element”.
1
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
6
In other words, we think the frames in media messages could evoke a cognitive
dissonance that motivate more intensive reception of information regarding the issue and
intensified reception leads to setting the issue on the personal agenda. Iyengar and Kinder
(1987) clarify the relationship between the intensity of information reception and importance
of the issue by the memory-based model of information processing. The importance of an
issue is connected with the easiness of recall and the amount of information we receive and
store in our memory. The more information about issue we receive the easier we recall the
issue and the more important the issue is for us.
We should make several remarks on use of cognitive dissonance theory. The origin of
dissonance is usually connected with a behavior (Cooper, 2007). But Festinger (1954/1999)
originally assumes that information could evoke cognitive dissonance. Even in his canonical
book, Festinger (1957/1962) does not exclude other sources of dissonance than behavior,
though his examples concern only a behavior as a source of dissonance. Also in later work,
Festinger (1962) highlights idea the dissonance evoked by behavior is only special case.
Several empirical findings prove the cognitive elements could evoke cognitive dissonance as
well (Dias, Oda, Akiba, Arruda, & Neuder, 2009; Donohew & Palmgreen, 1971).
We are fully aware that the effect of one dissonant piece of news is incomparable with
the effect of dissonant behavior. But we think a bigger sum of dissonant news could evoke
cognitive dissonance, at least in weaker form. We also think the plain facts in the news are not
only the source of dissonance but also the frames of the news. Frames that invoke cognitive
dissonance in audience members stimulate the attention given to an issue, since it is
unimaginable to discuss the frame and not to mention the issue itself at the same time.
Through coping with cognitive dissonance (i.e. drawing on new information), a person
strengthen the memory traces to the framed issue. And doing so, s/he increases the chance to
set the issue on the personal agenda (according to the memory-based model).
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
7
The theory distinguishes several typologies of frames and we will demonstrate how
different types of frames should differ in the effect they have on the agenda-setting process.
Iyengar (1991) defines thematic and episodic frames. Thematic frames provide a deeper
insight into the context, emphasize general trends, and describe mainly the process. Therefore,
they lead to attributing responsibility to society. Episodic frames focus on concrete events,
and situations and they lead to attributing responsibility to individuals. We assume that
episodic frames are more likely to invoke cognitive dissonance. Their more concrete and,
hence, more seizable form is more likely to be in contradiction with individual’s cognitive
elements. That is why we presume a more significant effect of episodic frames.
H1: Thematic frames have a weaker agenda-setting effect than episodic frames.2
Frames can be also divided into issue-specific and generic. Issue-specific frames “are
pertinent only to specific topics or events” (de Vreese, 2005, p. 54) while the generic ones are
much more general. Generic frames “transcend thematic limitations and can be identified in
relation to different topics, some even over time and in different cultural contexts” (de Vreese,
2005, p. 54). We distinguish five types of generic frames: conflict, human interest, economic
consequences, morality, and responsibility (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). We anticipate a
stronger effect of issue-specific frames because they focus the effect of invoked cognitive
dissonance directly on the framed issue. Generic frames have the potential to focus attention
on an issue different from the framed issue since they can be applicable to other such issues
from the audience’s point of view, due to their generic character.
H2: Generic frames have a weaker agenda-setting effect than issue-specific frames.
The last typology is strategy and value frames. “A strategy frame organizes a policy
conflict as a clash of political interests and competing strategies, typically highlighting
political machinations of the contending parties, related to their objectives, strategies, and
2
Below we will provide a more detailed description and classification of frames used in our analysis.
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
8
tactics” (Lee, McLeod, & Shah, 2008, p. 700). A value frame depicts policy conflict as a clash
of moral principles or basic values where the parties enter the conflict on the basis of a
different set of values. This type of frame is not very common, but when it occurs, it is
“powerful and efficient in shaping audience reasoning processes, as values provide
individuals with easily accessible heuristics that guide the understanding of complex policy
issues without recourse to detailed information” (Lee, McLeod, & Shah, 2008, p. 701).
Disillusion invoked by strategy frames should lead to an impression that the framed issue is
not significant for a common member of audience. Thus, disillusion reduces the weight of
cognitive elements (frame, issue, and framed information) and dilutes the degree of cognitive
dissonance. Therefore, strategy frames inhibit agenda-setting effect. We anticipate a more
substantial effect of value frames because they emphasize moral principles and values.
H3: Strategy frames have a weaker agenda-setting effect than value frames
History of the church restitutions case
Before we describe the data with which we verify the validity of our hypotheses, we
will explain the context of the issue that we chose – the dispute over church restitutions.
Church restitutions were supposed to remedy the property injustices that the communist
regime inflicted on churches. Already in the federal convention (1990-1992), there was the
first unsuccessful attempt to enforce the restitution law that would enable the return of
property to churches. Another attempt took place in 1996 and 1997 when the government
passed a resolution concerning the performance of some so-called gratuitous transfers of the
property belonging to churches, parishes, and some societies. The proposal for restitutional
compensation, however, was not implemented.
In 2004, there was a push from municipalities to solve the stalled situation, the socalled “Řečická výzva” (“Řečice Appeal”). It was submitted by mayors of municipalities that
owned the property formerly belonging to churches. Such property is blocked by law, and
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
9
municipalities are not allowed to manipulate it until a state-churches settlement takes place. In
reaction to that, an agreement was prepared by the coalition committee in 2005, where
churches would be paid rent totaling 50 million dollars plus inflation annually for the period
of 50 years. But this agreement never became a government bill.
Based on the government decree from January 2008, the Ministry of Culture of Czech
Republic (MCCR) processed a bill on church restitutions that was approved by the
government of the Czech Republic on 2nd April 2008. The bill counted on compensation for
the confiscated property amounting to 7 billion dollars. Churches were supposed to be given a
third of the confiscated property and the remaining two thirds were supposed to be
compensated through a refund amounting to 4 billion, which would be paid out over a period
of 60 years. In total, the proposed bill counted on the state paying approximately 12.5 to 13.5
billion dollars including interest.
The bill was submitted for consideration in the Parliament of the Czech Republic. On
29th April 2008 the submitted bill on church restitutions did not pass the parliament. The
discussion about the bill was postponed with the explanation that the “determination of scope
of the given out property (listing or definition) and evaluation of the non-given out property,
i.e. a determination of scope of the refund from state” (MCCR, 2008) needed to be filled in.
This particular episode culminated on 6th May 2008 when the rebelling coalition member of
parliament Vlastimil Tlustý refused to support this bill. The Chamber of Deputies established
a temporary parliamentary committee that was supposed to evaluate and submit comments on
the proposed bill. In May 2010, the activity of this committee was terminated together with
the end of term of the respective Chamber of Deputies without any solution being adopted.
One of the focusing events of the church restitutions case is the dispute over the
ownership of the St. Vitus Cathedral. The core of the dispute is a polemic whether the
statutory order from 1954 is valid, according to which the cathedral belongs to all Czech
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
10
people. On 30th December 1992, the Devotional Array (Náboženská matice) submitted a
declaratory action regarding the ownership of the St. Vitus Cathedral against the Office of the
President of the Republic. Upon submitting this declaratory action, the dispute over the
cathedral and the issue of unsolved church settlement gradually overlapped in the media.
We mention this dispute mainly because the media attention paid to the case of church
restitutions coincides significantly with the media attention paid to the dispute over the
cathedral in the period that we studied (April – May 2008). Both cases coincide as well. On
30th April 2008, the Supreme Court definitively adjudicated the St. Vitus Cathedral to the
state. That was a definite end to the dispute that had dragged on for more than 15 years.
Data and variables
The data file analyzed in this text originated through the merger of a panel survey of
the Public Opinion Research Center (Centrum pro výzkum veřejného mínění [CVVM]) from
the project “Public and Media Agenda”, quantitative content analysis of media performed by
MediaTenor (CVVM, 2008), and our own content analysis of the corpus of news dealing with
the issue of church restitutions. From the CVVM research, we use the information of
mentioning the church restitutions as a significant all-society event and sociodemographic
characteristics of respondents. From the content analysis of media, we use data on the media
exposition concerning the topic of church restitutions and the dispute concerning the
ownership of the St. Vitus Cathedral. Our own content analysis provided us with information
on types of frames and the frequency of their occurrence in the corpus of news.
In the panel survey, 648 Czech Republic citizens 18 years old or older were
questioned in a 12 week period from 20th April until 6th July 2008. The sample was construed
through a random sampling (see Vinopal, 2009). Respondents were instructed to fill out a
questionnaire, always on Sunday at the end of the respective week, and then send it back by
post. Within the questionnaire, the respondents’ task was to give two items every week that
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
11
they considered to be “recently the most significant all-society events”.3 We created a
dichotomous dependent variable “Mentioning of restitutions” which had a value of 1 if the
respondent had an answer in the category “St. Vitus Cathedral” or “church restitutions” as one
of the two most significant recent events. Since the answer in one wave of the survey can
influence the answer in the following wave, we introduced a control variable “Previous
mentioning of restitutions” which had a value of 1 if the respondent stated the restitutions or
the dispute over the cathedral as one of the two most significant recent events in the previous
wave of survey. The frequencies of these variables are stated in the Appendix 1.
Why we constructed a joint variable for the mentioning of church restitutions and the
dispute over the cathedral? The original codebook distinguishes these issues but in the whole
(not yet reduced) set, the dispute over the cathedral was directly indicated only 24 times (7%)
and church restitutions were indicated 319 times (93%). In our opinion, this noticeable
disproportion shows that both the cases overlap in the respondents’ minds and, therefore, we
created a joint variable in which we aggregate the evaluation of both issues as important.
Sociodemographic characteristics of respondents include gender, age, education and
religion. Respondents filled out these data only in the first wave and the values stayed the
same for the whole research period. Gender is a dichotomous variable, male coded as 1. The
variable age has 4 categories depending on which period of relation between the state and
church the respondents experienced. The oldest category is for people 72 to 92 years. Another
category is for people 52 to 71 years. The third age category consists of people who were 3151 years when the survey took place. The youngest age category consists of people aged 1830 years. The highest completed education is divided into 4 categories: basic and lower,
vocational, secondary school certificate, and university. The original seven categories of
religion are simplified into a dichotomous variable Christian vs. other. The value Christian
3
The question wording was: “Which recent all-society events do you personally consider to be most important?”
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
12
religion includes respondents who acknowledged catholic, protestant or orthodox religion.
The frequencies concerning categories of these variables are stated in the Appendix 2.
Variables capturing the occurrence of church restitutions in news come from the
content analysis of MediaTenor. This analysis monitored the content of nationwide dailies
(Blesk, Hospodářské noviny, Lidové noviny, MF Dnes, and Právo), radio news (ČRo 1
Radiožurnál, and Impuls), and the main TV news (ČT1, TV Prima and TV Nova) from 24th
March until 14th July 2008. The number of news in the categories “restitutions of church
property” and “relation between church and state” were recorded on a daily basis. Since the
dispute over the St. Vitus Cathedral ownership is sensu stricto not part of the church
restitutions issue, neither can it be considered as the relation between the church and state, we
supplemented the content analysis of MediaTenor with our own research. In the
ANNOPRESS archive for the monitored media, we found all news concerning the dispute
over the cathedral and we added their number from the respective days into the data set. If
news covering the dispute over the cathedral mentioned church restitutions as well, we set a
special attribute for this news within the data set. In this way we maintained reliable records
of the total number of news, and whether the news relates to church restitutions, dispute over
the cathedral, or both of these at the same time. We analyzed 240 messages in total.
The variable “Media in total” assigns to each respondent the number of news related
to the topic of church restitutions, relation between the state and church, or the St. Vitus
Cathedral, which occurred in media during the 7 days prior to completing the questionnaire.
We chose this time interval because Wanta and Hu (1994) proved that the agenda-setting
effect occurs within one week (in the case of nationwide TV news).
We also went through all news included in the variable “Media in total” and
categorized them according to their main frame. Frame 1 understands the restitutions as a
rectification of a historical injustice. Frame 2 presents restitutions as a field for a political
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
13
battle that, however, does not solve the factual issue (“politicking”). Frame 3 argues the
choice of suitable criteria and the way the church restitutions should be performed. Frame 4
supports the opinion that church does not have a moral right for property restitutions. Frame 5
defends the church’s economic activity as morally justifiable. And finally, frame 6 points out
that the victims of unsolved restitutions are municipalities that cannot do anything with the
blocked property. 18 news items in the monitored corpus (N=240) did not contain any frame.
They were either very short (3 news items) or they only covered the dispute over the St. Vitus
Cathedral and did not mention church restitutions (15 news items). 222 analyzed news items
contained some frame as mentioned above, 196 related only to church restitutions, and 26 also
mentioned the dispute over the cathedral.
Variables “Frame 1” – “Frame 6” state for each respondent the number of news
falling into the given frame that occurred in the seven days prior to completing the
questionnaire. However, Frames 5 and 6 occur so sporadically that we decided not to include
them in the analysis. We only do not analyze the variables “Frame 5” and “Frame 6”. The
news containing frames 5 and 6 is included in the variable “Media in total”. The frequency of
media variables are stated in the Appendix 3.
In Table 1, we provide a comparison of the classification of frames 1 to 4 according to
previously established theoretical typologies. Frames 1 and 4 are of a similar type – both are
specifically aimed at church restitutions, they focus on the issue history and not on the up-todate events, both are value-anchored, and are related to a dispute over the very existence of
the issue. However, they differ in the angle – Frame 1 evaluates the present situation as
problematic and calls for its solution, while the Frame 4 denies the problematic character of
the situation that churches were not returned the confiscated property. Frames 2 and 3 are of a
similar type in that they focus on up-to-date events and they perceive the issue as a battle of
tactics and strategies, not as value-anchored. However, Frame 3 focuses directly on
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
14
restitutions unlike Frame 2, where restitutions themselves are not significant and they are
instead a field for a politicking. Frame 2 is the only generic frame in our analysis. Frame 3
does not question the existence of the issue or the necessity of its solution, only the method
for church restitutions is controversial. Frame 2 approaches as controversial not only the
method for church restitutions but also the call for the necessity of their momentary solution.
However, the center of Frame 2 relates to church restitutions only marginally since it mainly
concentrates on the politicking itself.
For analytical purposes, we only use the second to sixth wave of panel survey. We
eliminated the first wave because, logically, it is missing the value of the control variable
“Previous mentioning of restitutions”. The seventh to twelfth waves were eliminated because
by this time the respondents mentioned the church restitutions and the dispute over the St.
Vitus Cathedral very sporadically. Furthermore, we eliminated those respondents that did not
fill out their personal characteristics, did not answer in all monitored waves, or answered at a
different time than they were supposed to. In order to keep as high a number of observations
as possible, we considered as a timely answer also the cases when a respondent filled out the
questionnaire on the respective Friday, Saturday or Monday, besides the prescribed Sunday.
The numbers of news (variables Media in total, Frames 1–4, and Cathedral) were assigned to
respondents precisely according to respective days so they are not influenced by this shift in
filling out the questionnaire. After all these modifications, there were 369 respondents left in
the data set with a full set of five filled out questionnaires. Comparison of original and
analyzed sample provides Appendix 2.
Analysis
Panel data have a multi-level structure and, therefore, we use multi-level regression
models with a dichotomous dependent variable. In our data set, we have 369 respondents, i.e.
1845 observations. Respondents with their characteristics form macro-contexts, stable in time,
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
15
for answers in individual waves of survey. Together with a development of media contents
that change every week, individual answers form a micro-observation. Answers of one
respondent in different weeks are mutually more similar than answers from different
respondents. Contrary to classic linear or logistic regression, multi-level models can take this
similarity into account and, therefore, they lead to more precise estimates of coefficients and,
mainly, standard errors (Kalvas, Kreidl,Váně, & Štípková, 2009).
However, methods of multi-level modeling are not totally stable and, therefore, we
follow the recommendation of Allison (1999) and use more methods at once, where each has
different advantages and disadvantages. We use marginal models (also population averaged
or GEE models) and conditional logistic regression. Conditional logistic regression has a very
beneficial attribute - it explains the variability of the dependent variable only through
variables that change in time. Thus, it controls the effect of all monitored as well as nonmonitored characteristics of respondents that stay the same in the whole survey period.
However, its problem is that it uses data from only those respondents who had a change in the
dependent variable during the survey period. That means that conditional logistic regression
excludes from the analysis all respondents who mentioned the church restitutions always or
never. The marginal model, contrary to conditional logistic regression, handled the data
effectively, but this method risked data deformation due to an influence of a non-monitored
variable.4 In the next section, we present and interpret the results of both the modeling
methods. All calculations are performed by the statistical software STATA 11.
Results
In total, we estimated six models whose test statistics are stated in Appendix 4. Table
2 provides estimated effects of all monitored variables for all models. Models 1 to 3 study the
impact of the variable “Media in total” on respondents’ willingness to mention church
4
The options, advantages, and disadvantages of these methods were discussed in detail already in our previous
text (Kalvas et al., 2009).
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
16
restitutions as an up-to-date social event. They do not directly test any of our hypotheses, but
provide insight on the effect strength of the number of news for a later comparison, and they
also provide a rough test for the validity of the agenda-setting hypothesis. All three models
confirm the agenda-setting hypothesis because it is validated that with every news related to
the issue or focusing event the odds are increased that a respondent would mention
restitutions as an important issue. This result is consistent with both statistical methods of
estimation, in control of the respondent’s personal characteristics as well as in control of the
answer from the previous wave of survey.
Let us also look at the strength of the effect. The estimated logit 0.05 (or 0.04, or 0.03)
means that if 14 (or 18, or 23) news items related to the topic of church restitutions or the
dispute over the cathedral appear in media in the past seven days, it will double the odds (logit
0.7 = 0.05 * 14, or 0.72 = 0.04 * 18, or 0.69 = 0.03 * 23) that a person will determine church
restitutions to be an important issue. Similar or higher values are reached in the media
exposition during the third, fourth and sixth wave of the survey (see Appendix 3). The media
exposition during the second and fifth wave is statistically significant but it is not substantive
significant because there were not enough contributions from the media to allow a doubling of
the odds that the church restitutions would set on the respondent’s personal agenda.
Models 4 – 6 work with framing of news and, thus, they provide material for the
evaluation of the validity of the first to third hypothesis and our basic research question, if
there is any point in further examination whether the process of framing creates conditions for
a parallel agenda-setting process. Test statistics of models in Appendix 4 show that the
models better describe data if we introduce variables indicating frequency of frames in the
news content. In our view, it proves important role of frames in the agenda-setting process.
In these models, we always use variables “Frame 1” to “Frame 4” as well as the
variable “Media in total”. The estimated effects of variables “Frame 1” to “Frame 4”
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
17
determine how the effect of news increases or decreases if it contains a respective frame. The
results are consistent with both statistical methods of estimation, in control of the
respondent’s personal characteristics as well as in control of the answer from the previous
wave of survey.
An important result is that the effect of media exposition stays both statistically and
substantive significant even if we control the analysis for news frames. Another important
result is that effects of frames differ, although in our case this means that only “Frame 2”
differs from all others. The negative effect of “Frame 2” markedly reduces the effect of the
news itself. According to the estimated model, it diluted the effect of the news (Model 4),
annulled its effect (Model 6) or even caused an overall weak negative effect (Model 5).
A substantive significant effect of news containing “Frame 2” remains in Model 4, but
the effect of this news is 4 times lower than if it contained a different frame. In Model 5, the
negative effect of “Frame 2” (logit -0.18) is higher than the positive effect of the news itself
(logit 0.16). If we add these values we get an overall weak negative effect of such framed
news (logit -0.02). This effect will be factually significant if “Frame 2” appears in at least 35
news stories in the previous seven days. In such case, the odds of setting the church
restitutions on the agenda drops at least by half (logit -0.7 = -0.02 * 35). With this or even
higher frequency, “Frame 2” appears in news during the third or fourth wave of survey. The
overall negative effect estimated by Model 5 does not have a substantive significance during
the other waves.
We should also mention an increase of estimated effect of “Media in total” in Models
4, 5, and 6. The effect is from three to five times higher than in respective Models 1, 2, and 3.
While in Models 1, 2, and 3 variable “Media in total” refers to the effect of an ‘average’ news
item, in Models 4, 5, and 6 it refers to the news in reference category: (a) news with frame 5
and 6, (b) news without any frame or referral, (c) and news referring to Cathedral trial without
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
18
restitution frame. Insignificant effects of “Frame 1, 3, and 4” tell us the respectively framed
news does not statistically differ from news in reference category and also this news has quite
strong positive effect. So we could understand significant negative effect of “Frame 2”
relatively – news framed as politicking has much more weaker effect than any other news.
Now we look at sociodemographic characteristics of respondents, i.e. Models 3 and 6.
Gender did not play a role. In the case of age, however, we do observe substantive as well as
statistically significant differences in both models. The two oldest age groups of respondents
(72 – 92 years, and 52 – 71 years of age) had approximately the same tendency to adopt
church restitutions into their personal agenda, while for the younger groups these odds
dropped rapidly. Respondents of 31 – 51 years of age had 3 times lower odds that they would
indicate church restitutions, and in the youngest group (18 – 30 years) the odds were 5 times
to 6 times lower.
In the case of education it is only persons with basic education who differ factually
and statistically. Contrary to the other groups, they have approximately three times lower
odds that they consider church restitutions as important. The respondent’s religion also
proved to be statistically significant for these two models. However, this effect is not highly
substantive significant; if an individual endorses some form of Christian religion, they have
1.5 times higher odds that they consider church restitutions to be important.
The last result is a negative effect of “Previous mentioning of restitutions”. Models 5
and 6 show dramatic decline of its effect if we add frame variables into models, but it is likely
effect of specific composition of analyzed sample. Majority of respondents (199 out of 369)
does not mention church restitutions in any wave. Effect of “Previous mentioning of
restitutions” is strongly negative in Models 1 and 4 that analyze only 170 respondents who
mentioned restitution at least once. (Leaving out respondents without change in dependent
variable is trait of conditional logistic regression discussed above.) We also estimate very
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
19
strong negative effect of “Previous mentioning of restitutions”, if we apply Models 2, 3, 5 and
6 on 170 respondents who mentioned restitutions at least once (results are not presented in
this paper, please, ask authors).
Discussion
Kalvas et al. (2009) have assumed the introduction of frame variables could explain
the strong negative effect of “Previous mentioning of restitutions”. But effect lasts even if we
control the composition of frames. We think we have drained all possibilities how to explain
this effect by media variables. This effect could describe the general tendency leave
mentioned issues quickly in such a frequently panel survey. But Kalvas (2009b) shows on the
same data file that the effect of previous mentioning differs significantly issue by issue. We
suggest that the strong negative effect of “Previous mentioning of restitutions” could illustrate
the specific relationship of the Czech public to the church restitutions.
We will now evaluate the hypotheses postulated in this text. The key role has the
overall weak effect of news framed as politicking. We offer two explanations. (1) From all the
studied frames, this frame has the weakest relation to church restitutions. As we have stated
above, in this frame church restitutions are only a field for a politicking on which the “Frame
2” concentrates primarily. (2) “Frame 2” was by far the dominant one in the monitored corpus
of news – it is the main frame in 65 % of news items. It allows other frames a larger potential
to cause cognitive dissonance in the news receivers because these frames brought a different
perspective on the issue.
“Frame 2” is generic, episodic, and a strategy frame at the same time. Therefore, the
weak effect that we found within it supports Hypothesis 2 because it is the only generic frame
and, at the same time, the only frame where the factually as well as statistically significant
weak effect was proved. However, this result contradicts Hypothesis 1 because it assumed
that an episodic frame would have a stronger effect than a thematic frame. Furthermore,
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
20
another episodic frame, “Frame 3”, has the same effect as “Frames 1 and 4” which are
thematic. Hypothesis 3 is partially supported by the results. It predicted correctly the weak
effect of “Frame 2” which is a strategy frame. However, “Frame 3” is also a strategy frame
but its effect does not differ statistically from “Frames 1 and 4” that are value frames. From
such evidence, it is not clear whether “Frame 3” does not have a negative effect, despite being
a strategy frame, or whether for other reasons there is an effect of “Frame 2” which is, among
others, a strategy frame.
It is possible that the higher the number of our hypotheses a frame suits with its type,
the weaker its effect is. “Frame 2” corresponds to two hypotheses (2 and 3), other frames only
to a single one. However, we do not recognize this generalization as a general result as it is
risky to generalize based on an analysis of a single issue and four frames. We understand it
rather as an inspiration for further research where it would be possible to study a higher
number of issues and a higher number of frames that will have larger variability in terms of
examined typologies.
Conclusion
Our main goal was to determine if there is any point in further examination whether
the process of framing creates conditions for a parallel agenda-setting process. Unfortunately,
we were not able to directly test the causal mechanism of the link between both the processes,
the role of cognitive dissonance. We only confirmed the effects of variables that describe the
frequency of frames occurrence in the press, radio, and TV. In our opinion, however, the
results are conclusive, and they show that frames can influence the setting issue on personal
agenda. We conclude that further research is needed to address the problem of the relation
between framing and agenda-setting processes. Other interesting result is that structure of
frames is not able to explain strong negative effect of mentioning issue in preceding wave of
study. We must explain this effect by other than the media content variables.
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
21
Our results are not in contradiction with the research of Lecheler et al. (2009), who
show that the framing process is blocked by the importance attributed to an issue by an
individual. None of the texts contradict the assumption that both processes interact, creating
conditions for each other and, therefore, that they influence each other. The framing process
influences the setting issues on the personal agenda and, at the same time, the issue
established on the agenda blocks the chance that a person will accept an alternative frame.
Interaction between both processes is explained by the theory of cognitive dissonance.
Frames invoke a person’s cognitive dissonance. The effort devoted to reduction of the
dissonance will strengthen the memory traces to the framed issue. The effort also heightens
perceived importance of the issue and cognitive elements of the frame that the person chose as
a relevant interpretation of the issue. The strengthened importance of these cognitive elements
then blocks the acceptance of an alternative frame. An alternative frame could replace the
actual frame only if (1) the alternative frame weakens cognitive elements of the actual frame,
or (2) the alternative frame brings stronger cognitive elements, or (3) the alternative frame is
more consistent with other cognitive elements than the actual frame.
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
22
References:
Allison, P. D. (1999). Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and Application.
Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.
Centrum výzkumu veřejného mínění [Public Opinion Research Center]. (2008). Veřejná a
mediální agenda [Public and media agenda] (Data file and code book).
Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1983). Participation in American politics: The dynamics of
agenda-building. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dearing, J. W., & Rogers, E. M. (1996). Agenda-setting. London, England: Sage.
de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal +
Document Design, 13, 48–59.
Dias, Á. M., Oda, E., Akiba, H. T., Arruda, L., & Neuder, L. F. (2009). Is Cognitive
Dissonance an Intrinsic Property of the Human Mind?. World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology, 54, 784–788.
Donohew, L. A. & Palmgreen, P. (1971). A reappraisal of dissonance and the selective
exposure hypothesis. Journalism Quarterly, 48, 412–420.
D’Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multi-paradigmatic research program: A response to
Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870–888.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press. (Original work published 1957).
Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive Dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93–102.
Festinger, L. (1999). Social Communication and Cognition: A Very Preliminary and Highly
Tentative Draft. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance:
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
23
Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 355–379). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1954).
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible?. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Kalvas, F. (2009a). Nastolování agendy: Role masové a interpersonální komunikace, osobní
zkušenosti a genderu [Agenda setting: Role of mass and interpersonal communication,
personal experience and gender]. Plzeň, Czech Republic: ZČU v Plzni.
Kalvas, F. (2009b). Ověření hypotézy o nastolování agendy pomocí panelových dat [Testing
agenda-setting hypothesis by panel data]. In Škodová, M., & Nečas, V. (Eds.), Veřejná
a mediální agenda [Public and media agenda] (pp. 76–97). Praha, Czech Republic:
Professional Publishing.
Kalvas, F., Kreidl, M., Váně, J., & Štípková, M. (2009). Modelování panelových dat s
dichotomickou závisle proměnnou [Modeling panel data with a dichotomous
dependent variable]. Data a výzkum, 3(1), 99–124.
Lecheler, S., de Vreese, C., & Slothuus, R. (2009). Issue importance as a moderator of
framing effects. Communication Research, 36, 400–425.
Lee, N.-J., McLeod, D. M., & Shah, D. V. (2008). Framing policy debates: Issue dualism,
journalistic frames, and opinions on controversial policy issues. Communication
Research, 35, 695–718.
Matthes, J. (2007, May). Looking back while moving forward. Paper presented at conference
Creating Communication: Content, Control, Critique, San Francisco, CA.
McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda. Cambridge, England: Polity.
McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five
years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43(2), 58-65.
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
24
McLeod, J. M., Becker, L. B., & Byrnes, J. E. (1991). Another look at the agenda-setting
function of the press. In D. L. Protess, M. E. McCombs (Eds.), Agenda setting (pp.
47–60). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Asociates. (Original work published 1974).
Ministry of Culture of Czech Republic. (2008). Návrh majetkového narovnání (2007-2008)
[Proposal of property rectification (2007-2008)]. Retrieved from:
http://www.mkcr.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=2855.
Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at
cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 297–
316.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing european politics: A content analysis
of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.
Trampota, T. (2006). Zpravodajství [News]. Praha, Czech Republic: Portál.
Vinopal, J. (2009). Konstrukce panelu respondentů a datový soubor v šetření CVVM
[Construction of panel sample and data file for the CVVM survey]. In Škodová, M., &
Nečas, V. (Eds.), Veřejná a mediální agenda [Public and media agenda] (pp. 124–
130). Praha, Czech Republic: Professional Publishing.
Wanta, W., & Hu, Y-W. (1993). The agenda-setting effects of international news coverage:
An examination of differing news frames. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 5, 250–263.
Wanta, W., & Hu, Y-W. (1994). Time-lag differences in the agenda-setting process.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6, 225–240.
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
25
Table 1
Classification of frames according to theoretically substantiated typologies
episodic/
thematic
issue-specific/
generic
value/
strategic
Frame 1: Rectification of a historical injustice
thematic
issue-specific
value
Frame 2: Field for a policy battle (“politicking”)
episodic
generic
strategic
II and III / 0
Frame 3: Choice of suitable criteria
episodic
issue-specific
strategic
III
Frame 4: Restitutions are not morally substantiated
thematic
issue-specific
value
Note: types of controversies present in the frame:
0 – present controversy does not relate to the issue
I – whether the issue even exists
II – whether the issue should be solved
III – how the issue should be solved
type of
controversy
I and II
I
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
26
Table 2
Estimated coefficients and (standard errors) of multi-level models concerning the occurrence of church property restitutions on personal agenda.
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Model 4
Model 5
Model 6
Constant
-3.42** (0.182) -3.23** (0.248)
-3.28** (0.240) -3.08** (0.289)
Previous mentioning of restitutions -3.25** (0.339) -2.26** (0.418) -2.27** (0.359) -2.98** (0.377) -0.25 (0.285) -1.01** (0.314)
Media in total
0.05** (0.004) 0.03** (0.003) 0.04** (0.003) 0.17* (0.068) 0.16** (0.047) 0.17** (0.048)
Framed news in preceding 7 days
Frame 1
-0.16 (0.313) -0.19 (0.202) -0.15 (0.207)
Frame 2
-0.13† (0.066) -0.18** (0.046) -0.17** (0.046)
Frame 3
-0.29 (0.181) -0.10 (0.145) -0.13 (0.147)
Frame 4
0.23 (0.409) 0.06 (0.284) 0.00 (0.294)
Other or no frame
(reference category)
Respondent’s gender
Man
0.22 (0.187)
0.22 (0.182)
Woman (reference category)
Respondent’s age
18-30
-1.80** (0.364)
-1.69** (0.353)
31-51
-1.19** (0.205)
-1.14** (0.200)
52-71 (reference category)
72 – 92
0.08 (0.314)
0.14 (0.302)
Respondent’s education
Basic
-1.14* (0.575)
-1.17* (0.568)
Vocational school
-0.19 (0.201)
-0.17 (0.196)
Secondary school
(reference cat.)
University
0.21 (0.241)
0.22 (0.233)
Respondent’s religion
Christian
0.47** (0.177)
0.47** (0.173)
Other (reference category)
Nmacro (Nmicro)
170
(850)
369
(1845)
369
(1845)
170
(850)
369
(1845)
369
(1845)
Note: † p < .1; * p < .05; ** p < .01.
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
27
Appendix 1
Number of respondents who indicated the restitutions of church property or the dispute over
the ownership of St. Vitus Cathedral as an important event in the present or previous wave
according to individual waves of research (N=369).
2nd wave 3rd wave 4th wave 5th wave 6th wave
Mentioning of restitutions
Number
20
121
39
8
15
Percentage
5.4 %
32.8
10.6
2.2
4.1
Previous mentioning of restitutions
Number
0
20
121
39
8
Percentage
0%
5.4
32.8
10.6
2.2
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
28
Appendix 2
Respondents according to gender, age, education, and religion.
Analyzed sample (N=369)
Original sample (N=658)
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Gender
Men
Women
Unascertained
123
246
0
33.3 %
66.7
0.0
230
425
3
34.9 %
64.6
0.5
Age
18-30
31-51
52-71
72-92
Unascertained
55
136
155
23
0
14.9
36.9
42.0
6.2
0.0
114
246
249
46
3
17.3
37.4
37.8
7.0
0.5
Education
Basic
Vocational
Secondary school
University
Unascertained
19
128
155
67
0
5.2
34.7
42.0
18.2
0.0
44
232
277
102
3
6.7
35.3
42.1
15.5
0.5
Religion
Christian
Others
Unascertained
144
225
0
39.0
61.0
0.0
401
254
3
38.6
60.9
0.5
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
29
Appendix 3
Number of media news which respondents were exposed to in seven previous days, according to the frame, reference to the Cathedral trial, and
the precise date of the questionnaire being filled out.
Date
Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6 Without frame Cathedral Media in total
nd
2 wave
25.4.2008
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
26.4.2008
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
3
6
27.4.2008
0
8
1
0
0
0
0
2
9
28.4.2008
0
9
1
0
0
0
0
2
10
3rd wave
2.5.2008
2
36
8
0
0
0
12
20
58
3.5.2008
3
39
8
2
0
0
13
25
65
4.5.2008
5
37
9
2
0
0
13
26
66
5.5.2008
6
39
11
3
0
0
13
26
72
th
4 wave
9.5.2008
7
53
9
5
1
1
3
10
79
10.5.2008
6
51
8
3
2
1
2
5
73
11.5.2008
4
54
8
3
2
1
2
6
74
12.5.2008
3
54
6
2
2
1
2
6
70
th
5 wave
16.5.2008
0
13
1
0
2
0
0
2
16
17.5.2008
0
11
1
0
1
0
0
2
13
18.5.2008
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
19.5.2008
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
4
th
6 wave
23.5.2008
0
19
2
0
1
0
0
0
22
24.5.2008
0
19
2
0
1
0
0
0
22
25.5.2008
0
19
4
0
1
0
0
0
24
26.5.2008
0
19
4
0
1
0
0
0
24
FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING
30
Appendix 4
Statistics of estimated multi-level models concerning the occurrence of church property restitutions on personal agenda.
Test statistics
chi2/
Wald
LR chi2
M1: media in total, previous answer (conditional logit)
275.0
M2: media in total, previous answer (GEE)
153.9
M3: media in total, previous answer, characteristics of respondent (GEE)
193.1
M4: media in total, frames 1-4, previous answer (conditional logit)
284.2
M5: media in total, frames 1-4, previous answer (GEE)
179.9
M6: media in total, frames 1-4, previous answer, characteristics of respondent (GEE)
220.2
Indication and description of model
d.f.
Nmacro
Nmicro
p-value
2
2
10
6
6
14
170
369
369
170
369
369
850
1845
1845
850
1845
1845
< .001
< .001
< .001
< .001
< .001
< .001
Contrasts
Extension with frames
M4 – M1
9.2
4
170
850
= .056
M5 – M2
26.0
4
369
1845
< .001
M6 – M3
27.1
4
369
1845
< .001
Extension with characteristics of respondent
M3 – M2
39.2
8
369
1845
< .001
M6 – M5
40.3
8
369
1845
< .001
Note: Respondent’s characteristics are: gender, age (3 dummy variables), religion (Christian vs. other), and education (3 dummy variables).