All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions
Unformatted Document Text:  Framing Public Discussion 26 it in similar measure, but in opposite directions. This pattern was most pronounced in the volume of supportive arguments and positively valenced statements. In both cases, the gulf between liberal and conservative groups widened when the “marriage” frame introduced the discussion. Provocation by opponents’ frames. Another interesting pattern in the results deserves note: Responses by ideologically homogeneous groups to an “opposing” frame. Means in Table 1 suggest that conservative groups generated substantially more statements in response to the “civil unions” prompt than to the “homosexual marriage” prompt, and that the opposing frame (“civil unions”) also resulted in a larger number of mixed-valence comments. In mirror-like fashion, liberal groups produced substantially more statements in response to the “homosexual marriage” prompt than to the “civil unions” prompt (that is, to their opponents’ frame) and again a larger number of mixed-valence comments. Though not conclusive, these patterns suggest that exposure to opponents’ frames may be especially provocative, resulting both in heightened communicative response and in more complex (ambivalent) responses. Which aspect of the manipulation produced effects? We should also note that the frame manipulation used here was two-part, with the initial prompt highlighting either “civil union” or “homosexual marriage,” and the follow-up question highlighting either “equal rights” (in the “union” frame) or “special rights” (in the “marriage” frame). Observed effects might have stemmed from either one, or both, parts of our manipulation. To examine this question, we divided all 54 discussion transcripts at the point of the follow-up question, and analyzed each half of the conversations separately. Results of this analysis (focusing just on the interaction of frame and group type) are presented in Table 3.

Authors: Price, Vincent., Nir, Lilach. and Cappella, Joseph.
first   previous   Page 26 of 38   next   last



background image
Framing Public Discussion
26
it in similar measure, but in opposite directions. This pattern was most pronounced in the
volume of supportive arguments and positively valenced statements. In both cases, the gulf
between liberal and conservative groups widened when the “marriage” frame introduced the
discussion.
Provocation by opponents’ frames. Another interesting pattern in the results deserves
note: Responses by ideologically homogeneous groups to an “opposing” frame. Means in Table
1 suggest that conservative groups generated substantially more statements in response to the
“civil unions” prompt than to the “homosexual marriage” prompt, and that the opposing frame
(“civil unions”) also resulted in a larger number of mixed-valence comments. In mirror-like
fashion, liberal groups produced substantially more statements in response to the “homosexual
marriage” prompt than to the “civil unions” prompt (that is, to their opponents’ frame) and again
a larger number of mixed-valence comments. Though not conclusive, these patterns suggest that
exposure to opponents’ frames may be especially provocative, resulting both in heightened
communicative response and in more complex (ambivalent) responses.
Which aspect of the manipulation produced effects? We should also note that the frame
manipulation used here was two-part, with the initial prompt highlighting either “civil union” or
“homosexual marriage,” and the follow-up question highlighting either “equal rights” (in the
“union” frame) or “special rights” (in the “marriage” frame). Observed effects might have
stemmed from either one, or both, parts of our manipulation. To examine this question, we
divided all 54 discussion transcripts at the point of the follow-up question, and analyzed each
half of the conversations separately. Results of this analysis (focusing just on the interaction of
frame and group type) are presented in Table 3.


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 26 of 38   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.