Kalvas-Etal 2011 FramingAndA-S WAPOR-Amsterdam Without Personal Details

8/3/2019 Kalvas-Etal 2011 FramingAndA-S WAPOR-Amsterdam Without Personal Details

1/31

FRAMING AND AGENDA-SETTING 0

Framing and Agenda-Setting: Two Parallel Processes in Interaction

Frantiek Kalvas,Jan Vn,Martina tpkov, and Martin Kreidl


2/31


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 agenda-

setting process through the theory of cognitive dissonance. We use matched panel survey data

and media content analysis regarding one particular issuechurch 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.


3/31


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 timeeither because the issue is solved or its


4/31


(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 micro-

level (as we do), we talk aboutpersonal 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 wellsee methodology.

Framing


5/31


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 agenda-

setting and framing. They assumed that news carry information about an issuethis is how

agenda-setting takes place. At the same time news emphasizes or conceals some attributes of

the issuethis is how the framing of the issue takes place (McCombs & Shaw, 1993). The


6/31


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 Scheufeles critique and finds inspiration in the approach of

Lecheler et al. (2009). In our opinion, the framing process creates conditions for the agenda-

setting process. We do not argue that the framing process leads directly into the agenda-

setting 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


7/31


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,


8/31


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 individuals 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


9/31


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


10/31


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


11/31


people. On 30th December 1992, the Devotional Array (Nboensk 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 (AprilMay 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 vzkum veejnho mnn [CVVM]) from

the project Public and Media Agenda, quantitative content analysis of media performed by


12/31


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


13/31


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, Hospodsk noviny, Lidov noviny, MF Dnes, and Prvo), radio news (Ro 1

Radiournl, and Impuls), and the main TV news (T1, 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


14/31


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 churchs 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


15/31


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


16/31


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,Vn, & tpkov, 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 (alsopopulation averaged

or GEEmodels) 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 non-

monitored characteristics of respondents that stay the same in the whole survey period.


17/31


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 respondents 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


18/31


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

respondents 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


19/31


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

relativelynews 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

(7292 years, and 5271 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 3151 years of age had 3 times lower odds that they would

indicate church restitutions, and in the youngest group (1830 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


20/31


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 ofPrevious 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 ofPrevious 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


21/31


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


22/31


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 persons 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,


23/31


References:

Allison, P. D. (1999).Logistic regression using the SAS system: Theory and Application.

Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.

Centrum vzkumu veejnho mnn [Public Opinion Research Center]. (2008). Veejn a

mediln 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, 4859.

Dias, . 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,


24/31


Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 355379). 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).Nastolovn agendy: Role masov a interpersonln komunikace, osobn

zkuenosti a genderu [Agenda setting: Role of mass and interpersonal communication,

personal experience and gender]. Plze, Czech Republic: ZU v Plzni.

Kalvas, F. (2009b). Oven hypotzy o nastolovn agendy pomoc panelovch dat [Testing

agenda-setting hypothesis by panel data]. In kodov, M., & Neas, V. (Eds.), Veejn

a mediln agenda [Public and media agenda] (pp. 7697). Praha, Czech Republic:

Professional Publishing.

Kalvas, F., Kreidl, M., Vn, J., & tpkov, M. (2009). Modelovn panelovch dat s


25/31


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.

4760). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Asociates. (Original work published 1974).

Ministry of Culture of Czech Republic. (2008).Nvrh majetkovho narovnn (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), 93109.

Trampota, T. (2006).Zpravodajstv[News]. Praha, Czech Republic: Portl.

Vinopal, J. (2009). Konstrukce panelu respondent a datov soubor veten CVVM


26/31


Table 1Classification of frames according to theoretically substantiated typologies

episodic/

thematic

issue-specific/generic

value/

strategictype of

controversy

Frame 1: Rectification of a historical injustice thematic issue-specific value I and II

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 I

Note: types of controversies present in the frame:0present controversy does not relate to the issueIwhether the issue even existsIIwhether the issue should be solvedIIIhow the issue should be solved


27/31


Table 2Estimated 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 daysFrame 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)

Respondents genderMan 0.22 (0.187) 0.22 (0.182)Woman (reference category)

Respondents age18-30 -1.80** (0.364) -1.69** (0.353)31-51 -1.19** (0.205) -1.14** (0.200)52-71 (reference category)7292 0.08 (0.314) 0.14 (0.302)

Respondents educationBasic -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)

Respondents religionChristian 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.


28/31


Appendix 1Number 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 waveaccording 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 15Percentage 5.4 % 32.8 10.6 2.2 4.1Previous mentioning of restitutions

Number 0 20 121 39 8Percentage 0% 5.4 32.8 10.6 2.2


29/31


Appendix 2Respondents according to gender, age, education, and religion.

Analyzed sample (N=369) Original sample (N=658)

Number Percentage Number Percentage

Gender

Men 123 33.3 % 230 34.9 %Women 246 66.7 425 64.6Unascertained 0 0.0 3 0.5

Age

18-30 55 14.9 114 17.331-51 136 36.9 246 37.452-71 155 42.0 249 37.872-92 23 6.2 46 7.0Unascertained 0 0.0 3 0.5

Education

Basic 19 5.2 44 6.7Vocational 128 34.7 232 35.3Secondary school 155 42.0 277 42.1University 67 18.2 102 15.5Unascertained 0 0.0 3 0.5


30/31


Appendix 3Number 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

2nd wave

25.4.2008 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 426.4.2008 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 3 627.4.2008 0 8 1 0 0 0 0 2 928.4.2008 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 2 103rd wave2.5.2008 2 36 8 0 0 0 12 20 583.5.2008 3 39 8 2 0 0 13 25 654.5.2008 5 37 9 2 0 0 13 26 665.5.2008 6 39 11 3 0 0 13 26 724th wave

9.5.2008 7 53 9 5 1 1 3 10 7910.5.2008 6 51 8 3 2 1 2 5 7311.5.2008 4 54 8 3 2 1 2 6 7412.5.2008 3 54 6 2 2 1 2 6 705th wave16.5.2008 0 13 1 0 2 0 0 2 1617.5.2008 0 11 1 0 1 0 0 2 1318.5.2008 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 719.5.2008 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 46th wave

23.5.2008 0 19 2 0 1 0 0 0 2224.5.2008 0 19 2 0 1 0 0 0 2225.5.2008 0 19 4 0 1 0 0 0 2426.5.2008 0 19 4 0 1 0 0 0 24


31/31


Appendix 4Statistics of estimated multi-level models concerning the occurrence of church property restitutions on personal agenda.

Note: Respondents characteristics are: gender, age (3 dummy variables), religion (Christian vs. other), and education (3 dummy variables).

Test statistics

Indication and description of modelWald chi /

LR chi2

d.f. Nmacro Nmicro p-value

M1: media in total, previous answer (conditional logit) 275.0 2 170 850 < .001M2: media in total, previous answer (GEE) 153.9 2 369 1845 < .001M3: media in total, previous answer, characteristics of respondent (GEE) 193.1 10 369 1845 < .001M4: media in total, frames 1-4, previous answer (conditional logit) 284.2 6 170 850 < .001M5: media in total, frames 1-4, previous answer (GEE) 179.9 6 369 1845 < .001M6: media in total, frames 1-4, previous answer, characteristics of respondent (GEE) 220.2 14 369 1845 < .001

Contrasts

Extension with frames

M4M1 9.2 4 170 850 = .056

M5M2 26.0 4 369 1845 < .001M6M3 27.1 4 369 1845 < .001Extension with characteristics of respondent

M3M2 39.2 8 369 1845 < .001M6M5 40.3 8 369 1845 < .001

Documents

Kalvas-Etal 2011 FramingAndA-S WAPOR-Amsterdam Without Personal Details