Abstract
This research proposal goes in depth about the effects that media framing has on people’s opinions on global warming. Typically, mainstream media is where most people with easy access to technology gets their information from. It is seen to make a difference in changing people beliefs according to prior research in this area. The analysis for this paper will be conducted through a general survey asking participants to fill out a questionnaire about what they know about the environment through mainstream media. The method used to measure this will be a random sampling of media sources.
Key Words: Media Framing, Environment, Climate Change, Perception
Framing plays a factor in the belief of Global Warming
The research being presented focuses on what people already know and the perceptions that they have towards global warming because of media framing. Media framing is supported by the hypothesis that the media can lead to informational bias depending on the coverage being displayed. Through the media it is typically showing both sides of the arguments when speaking about global warming, 35.29% was sampled through a different research which showed the importance of what contributes to global warming. (Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M., 2004). This same research it was found that through the years of 1988 to 2002 the approaches that were being taken was that the US prestige press published 78.2% of articles that showed the course of actions that were being taken to combat global warming. It emphasized how everything was covered generally relevant to each other comparing voluntary and cautions articles that where being addressed. (Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M., 2004).
Media Framing identifies how perceptions impact thoughts about the environment.
Another large influence in the research is that has been seen is that there are risks of perceptions, that are strongly influenced by the demography, identity and ideological variables. They have not been able to see the inclusion of risk perception models to this day. (Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A., 2008). They vary through the different generations, and will use scare tactics to get people to care about the environment. People are not cognitive about the topic unless it is brought up and if it does not involve them directly they will not feel responsible. (Stamm, K. R., Clark, F., & Eblacas, P. R., 2000). As more information becomes available and populations are being bombarded with advertisements media has become more extreme to make a point or help enact a reaction from users.
H: The representation of global warming will change the perspectives of the people who don’t understand it well.
Method
Participants
Participant age will range from 18-60, and they will be asked to fill out a questionnaire. They will be asked to think about an experience they went through involving any type of climate change/global warming. Whether it be watching a movie or personal experience and have them think about it while they are filling out the questionnaire. A sample size needed for this research is around 500 people from different regions of the different states by using random sampling to pick the participant.
Procedure
The way that the questionnaires will be forwarded is by having an online survey which will be sent out to a random people in the states. They will be sent out to their work or school emails depending on their age category. The minimum requirement for this process is to be aware of current social trends so that they will be able to answer the questions. They have to have some knowledge about climate change/ global warming.
Measures
Personal effects
The research theories propose that a lot of people are less inclined to take risks when they consider something that is something they should avoid. The perceived notion that they have is that it is not in a dominant group so they do not feel the need to step up. (Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N., 2010) Other factors that come into place is that people who are well informed in the topic like global warming do not feel any more responsible. In addition, people that have a higher confidence believe that they are responsible. (Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A., 2008)
Results
Testing this theory, the independent variable is that information given to the people doing the surveys. While the dependent variable is the measurement of knowledge know by the people who did the questionnaire. The risk being that they are answering the questions and are able to know more about global warming and the impacts. The participants will evaluate how the experience has either changed/not changed. The results of the study will show if there is a positive or negative association of climate change and the way the media shapes it.
References
Boykoff, M. T., & Boykoff, J. M. (2004). Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change,14(2), 125-136. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.001
Davidsen, C., & Graham, D. (2014). Newspaper reporting on climate change, green energy and carbon reduction strategies across Canada 1999–2009. American Review of Canadian Studies, 44(2), 151–168. https://doi-org.mantis.csuchico.edu/10.1080/02722011.2014.91404
Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S., & Vedlitz, A. (2008). Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 28(1), 113-126.
Mazur, A., Lee, J., 1993. Sounding the alarm: environmental issues in the US national news. Social Studies of Science 23, 681–720.
McComas, K., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling stories about global climate change: Measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research, 26(1), 30-57.
Park, E. S. (2000). Warm-glow versus cold-prickle: a further experimental study of framing effects on free-riding. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 43(4), 405-421.
Stamm, K. R., Clark, F., & Eblacas, P. R. (2000). Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: the case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 219–237. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/302
Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667.
Trumbo, C. (1996). Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science, 5(3), 269-283. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/5/3/006
Zehr, S. C. (2000). Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science, 9(2), 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301