ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Different Aspects on Google Leaving Mainland China:
An Experiment of Priming upon University Students
THIS ARTICLE IS AN EXEMPT FROM A BIGGER RESEARCH PROJECT
By Elvin Chuanye OUYANG
Table of Contents
1.
Introduction
1.1. Background
1.2. Research objectives
2.
Literature review
2.1. Different frames in understanding Google leaving mainland China
2.2. Instant factors and mechanisms influencing the fluctuation of public opinion
3.
Experimental design
3.1. Experimental settings
3.2. Variables
3.3. Hypothesis
3.4. Analyzing tools and procedures
4.
Results and discussion
4.1. Demographic distribution among experimental groups
4.2. Hypothesis test on effects and relative significance of treatments
5.
Conclusion
5.1. Discussion
5.2. Implications
APPENDIX REFERENCES
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Abstract
This article focuses on the effects and mechanisms of utilitarianism and egalitarianism frames
upon public opinion towards Google leaving mainland China, 2010. By the application of a
contextual simulation of priming effects in the experiment, the research provides first hand
empirical data towards the Google case. The results of the study suggest that different frames
can have influenced differently upon the respondents, through different mechanisms. The
priming of egalitarianism frame is believed to be more effective and significant than the
priming of utilitarianism frame in instantly changing respondents’ opinions on the Google
case. Findings of this study might shed light upon public diplomacy and global
communication strategy of both Google and Chinese government.
Keywords
priming
public opinion
China
Google
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Since the beginning of 20th century, information technology has been enhancing
communication among individuals, organizations and governments. The emergence of Social
Networking Services (SNS), together with other Internet communication technologies,
provides a chance of national image building through direct communication between
governments and the public. Studies on the effects of optional public diplomatic policies or
global public relation strategies are necessary in study of communication policy effectiveness,
especially over cases with high public exposures.
Among cases of this kind, the story of Google leaving mainland China (thereafter "the
Google case") provokes controversy that can shed light on national sovereignty and
corporation interests.
On March 3rd 2010, Google claimed to pull its "Google.cn" service out of mainland China,
drawing international attention on Internet Content Providers (ICPs) and Chinese Internet
policy instantly. Despite official claim from Google that this action is due to consideration of
hacker attacks from mainland China on its Gmail service, the following months have seen a
hot debate over the reason of Google's withdrawal and Chinese internet sensorship policy.
This controversy, however, is not an unprecedented one of its kind. As early as 2004, ICPs
like Yahoo or MSN have complied with Chinese Internet codes by submitting private
information of its dissendent users or close certain politically-incorrect websites upon
Chinese government's request, which leads to fierce international criticism1 focusing on their
support of human rights violation of Chinese government.
The compliance of the ICPs, however, is not an unreasonable action; it is based on their
agreement with the Chinese government before they can operate locally in mainland China.
Since March 2002, ICPs operating in mainland China have signed “Public Pledge on Self
Discipline for the Chinese Internet Industry” (thereafter “the Pledge”)“voluntarily”. By
signing on the Pledge, ICPs operating in China agree to undertake self-censorship over any
online information. They provide and submit information of customers who afford
information which would "jeopardize state security and disrupt social stability"2. This pledge,
with its non-mandatory appearance and self-administrated censorship contents, might seem
flexible at the first glance; yet the decisions left by Chinese government to the ICPs would
force them to be as cautious as possible, thus maximizing the censorship effects without
much government involvement.3
Ingenious as it is, “The Pledge” is only the legal method among the three applied by the
Chinese government when implementing public censorship. The other two more conventional
methods are technical method and social method: the technical method includes firewalls,
proxy servers, filtration software for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Internet cafes,
email and search engine filtration, Web site blocking and surveillance of Internet cafes4
while the social method includes controlling mass media, forming propaganda and shaping
James S. O’Rourke IV, Brynn Harris and Allison Ogilvy, “Google in China: government censorship and corporate
reputation”, Journal of Business Strategy, VOL. 28 NO. 3 2007, pp. 12-22
2 See Sharon Hom, Amy Tai, “Human Rights and Spam: A China Case Study”, “Spam 2005: Technology, Law and Policy”,
Center for Democracy & Technology, Washington D.C., March 2005 and J. Brooke Hamilton, Stephen B. Knouse, Vanessa
Hill, “Google in China: A Manager-Friendly Heuristic Model for Resolving Cross-Cultural Ethical Conflicts”, Journal of
Business Ethics, 2009
3 Fei Shen, Ning Wang, Zhongshi Guo and Liang Guo, “Online Network Size, Efficacy, and Opinion Expression: Assessing
the Impacts of Internet Use in China”, International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. 21 No. 4, Nov. 2009
4 Jonathan Zittrain and Benjamin Edelman, “Empirical Analysis of Internet Filtering in China,”
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/> and Open Net Initiative, <http://www.opennetinitiative.net>
1
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
ideology. All three methods aim at controlling “the flow of information and social order at
large”5.
The Chinese government’s resort to censorship, however, has legitimacy considering the
social stability or national security: the right of information restriction is part of the
sovereignty which no country would totally abandon. The differences merely lie in subtle and
ad hoc discussions of specific conditions. Hence on a broader scope, this controversy
between ICPs and Chinese government is not a specific situation; it is the manifestation of a
more widespread conflict between globalization and national sovereignty. In an article
discussing the Global Online Freedom Act (proposed to the House on February 16, 2006, by
Rep. Christopher H. Smith, thereafter “GOFA”) and the possibility to contain foreign
countries from violating freedom of information, William J. Cannici (Jr., 2009) claimed that
it is impossible for American international Internet corporations to ensure freedom of
information by refusing to comply with local governments; even more, United States would
be doing the same as China does by intervening practices of private companies once passing
the GOFA.6
Therefore censorship, either in China or other countries, has long posed dilemmas for
international ICPs: they have to either comply with Internet censorship or abandon profits in
the market. The compromises reached by the ICPs are claimed by some scholars to
undermine potential interests in two ways: a “watered down” version of their services
weakens their technological competitiveness and the so-called “human rights violation”
caused by the submitted private customer information distained their corporate reputation.7
Therefore ICPs have to strike a balance between the access of potential market and the
distaining of their ethical corporate reputation, which leads us back to the Google case.
With the high profile reports of Google's exit out of China and the involvement of national
government and international company, the public opinion towards either Google or Chinese
government might be influenced by different rhetoric. The Chinese netizens would be deeply
influenced by the withdrawal of Google.cn services, thus imposing pressure upon both the
government and the company. The widespread news of Google's choice would subsequently
induce immense international attention from the global community, leading to an even more
complex involvement of other countries (mainly the United States, with its claim of 'strong
concerns'8). Hence a study looking into the public reaction towards different media aspects of
the issue might be suggestive to both the government and the company: in this study, the
researcher provides empirical information which can shed light on what the government
should stress in public diplomacy or what a company should emphasis in public relation.
1.2. Research objectives
Therefore this study focuses on the instant media effects and mechanisms upon people from
different cultural backgrounds. Drawing on the Google case, the study focuses on one
question: to what extent different frames in understanding the Google case would change
people’s opinion instantly.
To answer this question, an intervening experiment was designed, which analyzed Canadian
and American university students’ opinions towards the Google case.
Sharon Hom, Amy Tai, “Human Rights and Spam: A China Case Study”, “Spam 2005: Technology, Law and Policy”,
Center for Democracy & Technology, Washington D.C., March 2005
6 William J. Cannici, Jr., “The Global Online Freedom Act: American Business that Facilitate Internet Censorship in China”,
Journal of Internet Law, May 2009
7 J. Brooke Hamilton, Stephen B. Knouse, Vanessa Hill, “Google in China: A Manager-Friendly Heuristic Model for
Resolving Cross-Cultural Ethical Conflicts”, Journal of Business Ethics, 2009
8 The Gardian: “US asks China to explain Google hacking claims”, 13th January, 2010,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/13/china-google-hacking-attack-us
5
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
In the following sections, the article introduces the public opinion theories and research
methods, explain the application and implementation of this study and discuss the results and
further improvements.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Different frames in understanding Google Leaving mainland China
In order to answer the first question, possible frames feasible for understanding the Google
case are needed. As illustrated in the background, the Google case has both national
government and multinational corporations (MNCs) involved and is related to national
censorship. Therefore it would be reasonable to search in the pool of Chinese and American
political values for possible frames in explaining the Google case.
With regard to Chinese and American political culture differences, scholars of both Chinese
and American background have done much work. Chinese scholars suggest that political
cultural differences between Chinese and United States can be categorized into two kinds.
First, Chinese and Americans take different positions on the spectrum of individualism vs.
collectivism: Chinese tend to sacrifice individual interests for the sake of the community
while Americans tend to focus more on individual interests. 9 Second, China and United
States take contrary positions in foreign policy when dealing with Sino-American relations on
the utilitarianism vs. idealism spectrum: conflicts are more likely to occur when China takes a
utilitarianism position (which emphasizes economic interests) while United States takes an
idealism position (which emphasizes human-rights-based moral standards). 10 These two
spectrums are coherent with each other in that individualism emphasizes on freedom and
rules which would lead to the protection of individual freedom and rights, while collectivism
stresses collective interests and security which would lead to the pursuit of ultimate
sovereignty and collective interest of the nation.
Although Chinese scholars have made conclusive remarks towards differences between
Chinese and American political culture, empirical researches have scarcely been carried out
to verify them. In contrast, American scholars have done a great amount of empirical studies
on American political culture on the two spectrums. Egri and Ralston (1994) who studied the
generation who grew up “during Communist China's closed-door policy” found that the
biggest political culture difference between Chinese and Americans lies on the
individual-community spectrum 11; Lipset(1979),Mc Closky and Zaller (1984) and Feldman
and Zaller (1992) pointed out that American’s controversial understanding on social welfare
issues mostly lies in the conflicting values of freedom vs. equality and capitalism vs.
democracy, which lies on the utilitarianism vs. idealism spectrum12.
Prominent as they appear, these two spectrums, nonetheless, is not equally prevalent in
international issues between Chinese and Americans. With the consideration of both
economic and political interests behind the story of the Google case, it would be self-evident
that the spectrum of utilitarianism vs. idealism is where the conflicting values lie. Google's
choice can be interpreted either as a rational choice because of its low market share in China
(a Utilitarianism frame, thereafter "U Frame") or as a symbolized protest because of the
violation of its corporate values by complying with Chinese censorship (an Egalitarianism
frame, thereafter "E Frame").
9邱美荣，倪世雄：《文化与政治——浅析中美关系中的人权问题》，国际观察，2002
年第 1 期，33－38 页。
年第 3 期，53－59 页。
11 Carolyn P. Egri and David A. Ralston, Generation Cohorts and Personal Values: A Comparison of China and the United
States, Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 2004), pp. 210-220
12 Stanley Feldman and John Zaller, The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State,
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Feb., 1992), pp. 268-307
10李振全：《从文化价值观透视美国的对外政策传统》，南京师大学报(社会科学版)，2000
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
2.2. Instant factors and mechanisms influencing the fluctuation of public opinion
After identifying possible frames in understanding the Google case, our next question goes to
through which ways these frames can affect the public opinion. This question requires
reviewing the public opinion theories. Since the beginning of 20th century, public polls have
gained strong credibility during elections with the application of statistical inference theories.
Nevertheless, traditional public poll theories made a hasty assumption that stable collective
opinion of the public exists and can be measured by scientific sampling methods. They took
public opinion as a concrete entity and assume public polls would draw results both
continuously and coherently over time.
This assumption, however, was questioned by latter researchers for its failure in explaining
the instant variation and contradiction between public polls over same topics and populations,
which were observed from time to time. By pointing out the traditional assumption's lack of
consideration over social factors influencing the public opinion, Converse (1964) proposed a
radical thinking which argues that the public mass de facto has no preexisting opinion and
people hand over poll answers out of mere “polity”. Converse therefore denounced the
assumption of traditional public research by exaggerating the instant social psychological
effects on public opinion. Intriguing as it is, however, Converse went so far in destructing the
basis of public polls that a theory combining traditional views and his criticism is necessary
for the validity of public polls.
Hence in 1992, Zaller and Feldman proposed a “simple theory of the survey response” which
explains both the instability and the validity of public polls by integrating the traditional
public opinion assumptions and instant social factors upon the public. After an experiment of
over 1000 respondents over a time span of six months, Zaller and Feldman proposed three
axioms about public opinion:
Axiom 1: The ambivalence axiom. Most people possess opposing considerations on most
issues, that is, considerations that might lead them to decide the issue either way.
Axiom 2: The response axiom. Individuals answer survey questions by averaging across
the considerations that happen to be salient at the moment of response, where saliency is
determined by the accessibility axiom.
Axiom 3: The accessibility axiom. The accessibility of any given consideration depends
on a stochastic sampling process, where considerations that have been recently thought
about are somewhat more likely to be sampled.13
With these axioms, Zaller and Feldman proposed that instead of having preexisting attitudes
towards certain political issue, public opinion has a preexisting combination of values from
which certain attitudes can be drawn upon instant outside stimulus, i.e. "salience". In addition,
for the contradictory nature of values (freedom vs. equality for instance), they suggest it be
possible that conflicting altitudes would appear from the same population in accordance with
salience of opposite values.
Zaller and Feldman’s theory is supported by other researchers, either with individual case
studies or with mass statistical analysis. A study on people's psychical process when
answering subjective questions undertaken by Tourangeau and Rasinski (1988) indicated that
people are more likely to respond with values easier to retrieve in their minds upon asked,
thus substantiating the Response Axiom.14 Another research on people's performance in an
in-depth interview undertaken by Dennis Chong (1993) indicated that people tend to answer
13
John Zaller and Stanley Feldman, A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing
Preferences, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Aug., 1992), pp. 579-616
14 Roger Tourangeau and Kenneth A. Rasinski, ‘Cognitive Processes Underlying Context Effects in Attitude Measurement’,
Psychological Bulletin, 1988, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 299-314
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
questions "hastily" when encountering new issues, thus substantiating the Accessibility
Axiom.15
With our goals of comparing and evaluating people's response to different frames of the
Google case, we lay our focus on the instant public opinion variation upon salience, which
fits with Zaller and Felman's theory.
Furthermore, with the theory of Zaller and Feldman, we should clarify with what mechanisms
the salience can impose effects upon the public opinion. Considering the existing political
frames of ulititarianism and egalitarianism in understanding the Google case, we can infer
that the most efficient way of influencing the public by saliency is to make one value more
accessible than the other, which is called "priming". This effect can be imposed by mass
media or social media efficiently for they communicate directly to the public mass.
Cross-sectional and time-series observatory studies between public opinion variations and
mass media addresses imply that priming imposed by the media does relate to the directions
of the public opinion. To take an example, John Zaller (1994) found that American political
elites managed to prime certain frames for the public mass in understanding the Gulf War by
appealing to the mass media.16 Besides of observatory studies, large amounts of experiments
also substantiate the effects of priming. Researchers simulate the priming effect by providing
different contexts (reading materials with different frames, different pictures with opposite
priming directions, etc.) to respondents before asking questions; then it would be possible to
estimate the effects and mechanisms of priming. Nelson and Kinder (1996), Nelson, Clawsin
and Oxley (1997), Nelson and Oxley (1999) and Jacoby (2000) made a series of intervening
experiments on respondents' opinions upon racial discrimination, social welfare system,
government spending and foreign affairs in which significant correlations have been found
between priming and respondents' opinions.17
Apart from priming, another possible mechanism to instantly change public opinion is
through make general impression salient. Regarding the Google case, we would notice that
individual's impression towards the main actors, namely Chinese government and Google,
would be a strong factor influencing his\her opinion. Preceding general impression about a
subject would determine the attitudes towards an issue with that subject involved. In a
research examining determinants of voters' opinions towards candidates, Lodge and McGraw
(1989) argued that people tend to apply an impression-driven processing model in which they
resort to the impression of candidates in evaluations. The preexisting impression might have
nothing to do with the issue itself.18 This finding actually stresses the importance of
influences from irrational and emotional factors. We therefore determine that general
impression should also be considered as a possible mechanism in the salience of our study.
With all the discussion introduced above, we thus consider priming and general impression as
possible mechanisms for the salience to impose effects upon the public. We would also take
the lesson from Nelson and Kinder (1996) experiment in designing our experiment, which
would be introduced in the next section.
15
Dennis Chong, How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.
37, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), pp. 867-899
16
John Zaller, 'Elite Leadership of Mass Opinion: New Evidence from the Gulf War' in W. Lance Bennett and
David Paletz, eds., Taken By Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U. S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp. 201-2
17
See Thomas E. Nelson and Donald R. Kinder, Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion, The
Journal of Politics, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Nov., 1996), pp. 1055-1078; William G. Jacoby, Issue Framing and Public Opinion on
Government Spending, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 750-767; Thomas E. Nelson
and Zoe M. Oxley, Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Nov.,
1999), pp. 1040-1067; Thomas E. Nelson, Rosalee A. Clawson, Zoe M. Oxley, Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict
and Its Effect on Tolerance, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 567-583
18 Milton Lodge, Kathleen M. McGraw, Patrick Stroh, ‘An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation’, The
American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Jun., 1989), pp. 399-419
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
3. Experimental design
3.1. Experimental settings
As explained in the above section, we should take the methods from Nelson and
Kinder (1996) in designing an intervening experiment on the theoretical basis of Zaller and
Feldman (1992)’s work. The core initiative of Nelson and Kinder (1996) experiment is to
take the simulation of priming as treatments of the experiment by contextualizing certain
frames to the respondents. By integrating different frames into the reading material submitted
to the respondents randomly without the respondents' knowledge, the experiment would be
able to testify the variance made by different frames through simply comparing respondents’
opinions under different treatments. Furthermore, with the help of multi-regression analyzing
models and intermediate variables, we would be able to provide information of the inside
mechanisms through which the priming takes effects once we control for other possible
confounding variables.
According to our previous review, we provide priming effects of U Frame and E Frame as our
treatments to the respondents upon the Google case. These two frames are provided in the
introductory material at the beginning of the questionnaires when explaining why Google left
mainland China in 2010. The U Frame tries to induce the respondents in believing that
Google left China out of business reasons whereas the E Frame tries to induce the
respondents in believing that Google left China out of moral reasons.
In line with our discussion about possible mechanisms for the salience, we consider priming
and general impression as possible mechanisms for our treatments to take effects. We would
include intermediate variables in the measurement, and undertake multi-regression analysis in
figuring out significant mechanisms of our treatments.
We therefore set up three experimental groups in our research: the U Frame group, the E
Frame group and the control group. Treatments are provided in the case introductory material
of the questionnaires in each group. Respondents are required to read the material before
answering subsequent questions. The material in each group is displayed as below with
different texts in each experimental group displayed in italic:
Control Group
U Frame Group
E Frame Group
Early in 2010, Google left
mainland China and claimed it
was because of a hacker attack
from mainland China that
threatened all of its email
users.
Early in 2010, Google left
mainland China and claimed it
was because of a hacker attack
from mainland China that
threatened all of its email
users. However, some people
say that the real reason is that
Google can’t compete against
local Chinese search engines
that provide Chinese Netizens
a better Chinese language
service.
Early in 2010, Google left
mainland China and claimed it
was because of a hacker attack
from mainland China that
threatened all of its email
users. However, some people
say the real reason is that
Google
objects
to
the
self-censorship required in
China because it violates its
own users’ freedom and forces
Google to violate its corporate
motto “Don’t Be Evil"
The experiment is taken on a single-blinded basis, for respondents know nothing about the
experimental design and other questionnaire versions. They were required to finish a “survey
questionnaire” and therefore finished the questionnaires as in a normal observatory research.
3.2. Variables
In order to fulfill our research targets, four sets of variable are designed and measured in the
experiment, including dependent variables, intermediate variables, confounding variables and
demographic variables.
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Dependent variables aim to measure respondents’ opinions toward the Google case. We
design two dependent variables, with one (“Level of Support to Google”, a 1 to 7
thermometer with 1 meaning totally disagree and 7 meaning totally agree, thereafter “D1”)
measuring attitude about the already-made choice of Google and the other (“Expected
Strategy Preference of Google”, a dummy variable of either remain in China with
self-censorship or leave mainland China, thereafter "D2") measuring respondents’ expectation
of Google if they decide for it. These two variables are designed to divide respondents'
attitudes into “opinions” and “expectations”, with D1 focusing on facts and D2 focusing on
possibilities. We assume that both two treatments and two mechanisms would have relatively
different significance upon the two variables.
Intermediate variables aim to support the multi-regression analysis by indicating relative
significance of the two mechanisms. Two variables (“Thermometer of China –
ECONOMICS”, thereafter “ECO”, “Thermometer of China – HUMAN RIGHTS”, thereafter
“HUM” )are designed to indicate priming mechanism while one variable (“General
Impression of China”, thereafter “GEN”) is designed to indicate general impression
mechanism. Correlations between dependent variables and their interactions with
intermediate variables would indicate intermediating effects triggered by certain mechanism.
Therefore correlations of interactions between dependent variables and ECO or HUM would
indicate the mechanism of priming while those of interactions between dependent variables
and GEN would indicate the mechanism of general impression.
Confounding variables are designed to enhance precision of the multi-regression analysis. We
include “Thermometer of Google”, “Background about China”, “Credibility of Information
Resource”, “Information Frequency about China” and “Whether Received Information from
China” as confounding variables.
Finally, considering precision and possible uncontrollable factors of the study, we also
measured several demographic variables of “Gender”, “English as First Language” and
“Whether Grow Up in the Country of the Experiment”.
3.3. Hypothesis
Before comparing significance of treatments, we should testify whether the treatments
imposed have functioned as Zaller and Feldman (1992) suggested. Thus our first hypothesis
in regard to this goal is:
H1: Values of D1 and D2 are significantly different among U Frame Group, E Frame
Group and Control Group.
D1U ≠ D1E ≠ D1C; D2U ≠ D2E ≠ D2C
In regard to the two frames primed in our treatments, we propose two sub-hypothesis as
below:
H1U: U Frame would reduce value of D1 and increase value of D2.
D1U < D1C; D2U > D2C
H1E: E Frame would increase value of D1 and reduce value of D2.
D1E > D1C; D2E < D2C
3.4. Analyzing tools and procedures
In the data analysis, cross-tab, means comparison, t-test, General Linear Model (thereafter,
“GLM”) and binary logistic regression would be applied. Cross-tab would be applied in
displaying demographic distribution of respondents for a general introduction of the whole
experiment. Means comparison and t-test would be applied to test the validity and
significance of H1.
4. Results and discussion
The experiment was completed separately in two universities of Canada and United States
during the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011. The Canada part was accomplished in
libraries of University of British Columbia (UBC), Vancouver while the US part was
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
accomplished in libraries of University of California, San Diego.
The researchers completed the experiments during the finals of the winter semester and
beginnings of spring semester, which is the time when students are more likely to be present.
Questionnaires were handed out one by one with candy bonus and in a single blinding setting:
the researchers made sure that no respondents knew the existence of other types of reading
material. As illustrated in Table 1, among 300 questionnaires handed out in total, 270 were
received as available ones, with respondents distributing evenly in each experimental group.
Table 1 Demographic Distribution among Experimental Groups
United States
Canada
Variables
U Frame
E Frame
Control
U Frame
E Frame
Control
Number of
41
45
43
44
48
49
Cases
English as
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
First
20
19
19
25
17
21
25
19
23
23
22
26
Language
Grow up in Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
the country
27
12
34
10
25
13
26
18
27
20
23
25
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
M
F
Gender
19
20
20
24
17
21
18
26
22
25
20
28
4.1. Demographic distribution among experimental groups
The demographic distribution among experimental groups is of same ratio as illustrated in
Table 1, reflecting the randomization process of the research. Therefore in this research,
internal validity based on randomization is concrete. We would discuss the external validity
of the research later in the conclusion section.
4.2. Hypothesis test on effects and relative significance of treatments
The crosstab below (Table 2) shows the differences of means of the dependent variables D1
and D2 among the three experiment groups.
Table 2 Comparing Means of Dependent Variables among Experimental Groups
Level of Support to Google (Q1)
Expected Strategy Preference of Google (Q2)
United States
Canada
United States
Canada
U
3.95
3.43
1.65
1.84
E
4.39
4.57
1.5
1.45
C
4.07
3.92
1.88
1.65
As illustrated above, the general fluctuations between experimental groups are quite obvious.
For D1, respondents in U Frame Group provide a lower support to Google’s decision of
leaving mainland China compared to those in Control Group while those in E Frame Group
provide a higher support. For D2, respondents in U Frame Group are more likely to stay in
China compared with those in Control Group while those in E Frame Group are more likely
to leave China. This result fits with H1U and H1E, thus supporting H1.
Hence generally we can say the treatments introduced by our experiment do have impacts
upon the respondents’ opinion. Yet we should also undergo a significance test on these
differences to see whether these impacts are out of certainty. The t-test results are shown in
Table 3 as below:
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Table 3 T-Test of Differences of Means among Experimental Groups
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Selected
Mean
Sig.
Country Tested Variables
Groups
Difference (2-tailed) Difference
Lower
Upper
E and C
0.647**
0.041
0.028
1.265
Level of Support to
U and C
-0.487
0.124
-1.109
0.136
Google (Q1)
E and U
-1.133*** 0.000
-1.695
-0.572
Canada
-0.198*
0.061
-0.404
0.009
Expected
Strategy E and C
Preference of Google U and C
0.185**
0.045
0.004
0.366
(Q2)
E and U
0.383***
0.000
0.194
0.572
E and C
0.317
0.295
-0.280
0.914
Level of Support to
U and C
-0.045
0.895
-0.726
0.636
Google (Q1)
E
and
U
-0.362
0.320
-1.082
0.358
United
States
-0.375**
0.029
-0.711
-0.039
Expected
Strategy E and C
Preference of Google U and C
-0.225
0.183
-0.559
0.109
(Q2)
E and U
0.15
0.174
-0.067
0.367
*p≤0.10; **p≤0.05; ***p≤0.01
As indicated in Table 3, differences among experimental groups are generally of statistical
significance in the Canada part while only difference between E Frame Group and Control
Group on D2 is statistically significant in the US part. Hence we can indicate that salience of
different frames are relatively more successful in the Canada part.
Apart from the significance test, we can also infer from Table 3 that mean differences are
bigger in respondents under the E Frame treatment than those under U Frame treatment. In
addition, differences among experimental groups are less obvious in D2 than those in D1.
Therefore we can suggest that H1, together with its sub-hypotheses of H1E and H1U, is
generally supported by our data in the Canada while not quite supported by our US part data.
But we can still suggest cautiously that differences between experimental groups in the US
data are mainly induced by our treatments. Meanwhile, we suggest that E Frame treatment
has a bigger impact upon our respondents either in Canada or US.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Discussion
Upon our data analysis and hypothesis tests above, we can therefore suggest generally that
salience does have effects upon respondents in changing their opinions about the Google case.
U Frame would help to decrease respondents’ support to Google’s leaving China and E
Frame would help to increase respondents’ support to Google’s leaving China.
With the design and implementation, this study confirms Zaller and Feldman (1992)’s theory
of public opinion, which claims that public opinion can be instantly influenced by outside
stimulating factor. It also approves that Nelson and Kinder (1996)’s approach of priming
simulation in experiments is feasible. With regard to the Google case, the study suggests that
conflicting values of economic interest and human rights is understandable and accessible by
the university students in North America.
With the comparison of the frames, this study suggests that on the case of Google leaving
mainland China, egalitarianism frame is stronger in influencing university students in North
America than utilitarianism frame. However, it also indicates that the effects of either frame
might be different when considering different questions.
5.2. Implications
As to the possible policy suggestions either to Chinese government or Google, this study
indicates that utilitarianism frame are more likely to discourage university students in North
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
America to support Google’s choice while egalitarianism frame are more likely to encourage
them.
Although this research was finished merely in Canadian and American campus, the
representativeness of the respondents, with our randomization within the sample, is not
limited to college students on the basis of a shared culture background of North Americans.
However, a study of a wider sampling population and a more controlled experiment setting
would improve the representativeness of this research.
In addition, a pre-test, a forget phase and a post-test design would provide a more concrete
evidence of the effects of priming treatments. This experimental design would reduce the risk
of a non-significant difference between experimental groups like the US part of the study.
The conclusions from the study can be generalized to an even higher level once the same
experiment can be implemented in China, which may introduce a stronger cultural difference
to the study and provide more universal information. Text analysis of mass media and social
networking upon the Google case in both China and North America would help to rule out
the effects of the social influence already made upon the respondents, which can help to
expand the application of this research’s conclusions.
As to the policy implications, more detailed and practical suggestions can be proposed once
integrating findings of this study with studies upon online social networks. Suggestions to
both Chinese government and Google in making a better image and reputation would be of
great value once combination of the mass public research and online social network research
can be constructed. This study may shed light upon a new systematic approach in public
diplomacy policy making procedure.
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
APPENDIX IV REFERENCES
1. Carolyn P. Egri and David A. Ralston, Generation Cohorts and Personal Values: A
Comparison of China and the United States, Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Mar. Apr., 2004), pp. 210-220
2. Dennis Chong, How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties, American
Journal of Political Science, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Aug., 1993), pp. 867-899
3. Fei Shen, Ning Wang, Zhongshi Guo and Liang Guo, “Online Network Size, Efficacy,
and Opinion Expression: Assessing the Impacts of Internet Use in China”, International
Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. 21 No. 4, Nov. 2009
4. Fritz Gaenslen, Culture and Decision Making in China, Japan, Russia, and the United
States, World Politics, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Oct., 1986), pp. 78-103
5. The Gardian: “US asks China to explain Google hacking claims”, 13th January, 2010,
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/jan/13/china-google-hacking-attack-us>
6. William A. Gamson and Andre Modigliani, Media Discourse and Public Opinion on
Nuclear Power: A Constructionist Approach, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol.
95, No. 1 (Jul., 1989), pp. 1-37
7. William G. Jacoby, Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending,
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 750-767
8. William J. Cannici, Jr., “The Global Online Freedom Act: American Business that
Facilitate Internet Censorship in China”, Journal of Internet Law, May 2009
9. James S. O’Rourke IV, Brynn Harris and Allison Ogilvy, “Google in China: government
censorship and corporate reputation”, Journal of Business Strategy, VOL. 28 NO. 3 2007,
pp. 12-22
10. J. Brooke Hamilton, Stephen B. Knouse, Vanessa Hill, “Google in China: A
Manager-Friendly Heuristic Model for Resolving Cross-Cultural Ethical Conflicts”,
Journal of Business Ethics, 2009
11. John Zaller and Stanley Feldman, A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering
Questions versus Revealing Preferences, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36,
No. 3 (Aug., 1992), pp. 579-616
12. John Zaller, 'Elite Leadership of Mass Opinion: New Evidence from the Gulf War' in W.
Lance Bennett and David Paletz, eds., Taken By Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and
U. S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), pp.
201-2
13. Jonathan Zittrain and Benjamin Edelman, “Empirical Analysis of Internet Filtering in
China,” <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/> and Open Net Initiative,
<http://www.opennetinitiative.net>
14. Milton Lodge, Kathleen M. McGraw, Patrick Stroh, ‘An Impression-Driven Model of
Candidate Evaluation’, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 83, No. 2 (Jun.,
1989), pp. 399-419
15. Roger Tourangeau and Kenneth A. Rasinski, ‘Cognitive Processes Underlying Context
Effects in Attitude Measurement’, Psychological Bulletin, 1988, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp.
299-314
16. Sharon Hom, Amy Tai, “Human Rights and Spam: A China Case Study”, “Spam 2005:
Technology, Law and Policy”, Center for Democracy & Technology, Washington D.C.,
March 2005
17. Stanley Feldman and John Zaller, The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological
Responses to the Welfare State, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 1
(Feb., 1992), pp. 268-307
18. Thomas E. Nelson and Donald R. Kinder, Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in
American Public Opinion, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 58, No. 4 (Nov., 1996), pp.
ACADEMIC ENGLISH
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
1055-1078
Thomas E. Nelson and Zoe M. Oxley, Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and
Opinion, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 61, No. 4 (Nov., 1999), pp. 1040-1067
Thomas E. Nelson, Rosalee A. Clawson, Zoe M. Oxley, Media Framing of a Civil
Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance, The American Political Science Review,
Vol. 91, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 567-583
Thomas E. Nelson, Zoe M. Oxley, Rosalee A. Clawson, Toward a Psychology of
Framing Effects, Political Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Sep., 1997), pp. 221-246
William G. Jacoby, Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending,
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 4 (Oct., 2000), pp. 750-767
李振全：《从文化价值观透视美国的对外政策传统》，南京师大学报(社会科学版)，
2000年第3期，53－59页。
邱美荣，倪世雄：《文化与政治——浅析中美关系中的人权问题》，国际观察，2002
年第1期，33－38页。