Figure - uploaded by Christel van Eck
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
While increasingly more is known about how to reframe the relevance of climate change, much less is known about how people deal with situations in which they are confronted with frames that are incompatible with their own frames. The current research conducts an interactional framing analysis to investigate how users in climate change blog comments...
Contexts in source publication
Context 1
... the basis of this concept of double interact, Dewulf and Bouwen (2012) identified five interaction strategies for "doing differences" that explain how actors deal with differences in issue framing in real-life conversations. They identified frame incorporation, accommodation, disconnection, polarization, and reconnection as the respective interaction strategies (see Table 1 for definitions of the strategies). In the current research, we will adopt this framework and use "framing interaction strategy" to refer to the user's choice to deploy one of these strategies. ...Context 2
... current research will apply interactional framing theory, as we are interested in how polarization is enacted in climate change blog comments. Table 1 presents an overview of the terms and their definitions that we use in this research (Dewulf & Bouwen, 2012;Dewulf et al., 2009). In sum, we will focus our analysis on the following three aspects: ...Citations
... The similarity of frames across countries can likely be attributed to influences from international SPIs and interactions between government representatives facilitated by organizations such as GIZ and the World Bank. There are still differences between the framings, however, so we do not find that the actors have created an 'echo chamber' by converging on all the same frames as has been found in other research on online climate change discussions (van Eck, Mulder, and Dewulf 2020). ...
... Also, many people are hesitant to get vaccinated against Covid-19 based on anecdotal risk reports and unscientific information on social media (Amazeen et al., 2022). Some people even doubt the reality of human made climate change, even though there is a 97% consensus among scientists about its existence (van Eck et al., 2020). In a democracy, where people's attitudes affect the decisions of policymakers, the prevalence of these attitudes give reason for concern. ...
... conducted on communicator's frames (e.g., Daub, 2010), journalist's frames (e.g., Engesser & Brüggemann, 2016), frame content (e.g., Feldman et al., 2017;O'Neill et al., 2015), as well as audiences frames (e.g., van Eck et al., 2020), and framing effects (e.g., Bilandzic et al., 2017;-allowing for an assessment across frame locations. (3) There is a limited number of systematic reviews available for framing in communication research overall (e.g., Borah, 2011;Matthes, 2009). ...
In line with the urgency of problems related to climate change, studies on the framing of this issue have flourished in recent years. However, as in framing research overall, a lack of definitions complicates the synthesis of theoretical/empirical insights. This systematic review contrasts trends of framing in climate change communication to those observed in reviews of communication research overall and harnesses framing's power to bridge perspectives by comparing frames across different frame locations (i.e., frame production, frame content, audience frames, and framing effects), as part of the wider cultural framing repository. Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches of content analysis, this review draws on 25 years of peer-reviewed literature on the framing of climate change (n = 275). Among the findings, we observe that research has not made use of framing's bridging potential. Hence, the conceptual (mis)fit between frame locations will be discussed, and directions for future research will be given.
... Characterized by its participatory nature, social media possess unique features such as user comments that may alter frame building practices by serving as novel framing devices. A growing body of research has examined framing in conjunction with user comments, such as the reciprocal effect of user comments and news frames (Conway et al., 2015;Neuman et al., 2014) and the negotiation of frames through user discourse (van der Meer, 2018;van Eck et al., 2020). These studies suggest that user comments may function as frames. ...
The shift in reliance from broadcast to online news sources has called into question the continued relevance and applicability of conventional frame building practices and frame setting processes in the new media environment. Findings from a 2 (frame direction: same vs different) × 2 (frame emphasis: environment vs health) × 2 (popularity cues: high vs low) between-subjects experiment ( N = 326) showed that user comments serve an egalitarian function by enabling laypeople to participate in the construction and dissemination of frames for a novel risk issue, cultured meat. Interestingly, the congruence between elite and lay perspectives was found to be more influential than the specific arguments put forth by different sources in influencing attitudes and behavioral intentions. Issue importance moderated the relationship between frame direction and framing outcomes while perceived source credibility mediated it. Suggestions to safeguard the democratic process and improve online science communication are provided.
... At the same time, a lot of environment-related content that circulates on these platforms is not professionally monitored and can contain unsubstantiated or distorted information about complex environmental issues (Bloomfield & Tillery, 2019). Furthermore, the social media environment, and particularly that of Facebook groups, supports the development of "echo chambers", facilitating audience exposure to content that is in line with audiences' pre-existing views and beliefs, strengthening fragmentation and polarisation around environmental issues such as climate change (Brüggeman et al., 2020;Edwards, 2013;Elgesem et al., 2015;Van Eck et al., 2020). Additionally, social media's accounts on the environment tend to offer fragmented and personalized approaches and concerns around complex issues, focusing often "on the individual as the location for change for the environment" (Joosse & Brydges, 2018, p. 697) and not so much on politics and coordinated collective action. ...
This article examines how Facebook groups in Sweden, that focus on the environment, address issues of sustainability. The research, conducted over a one-year period (May 2019–April 2020) combines mapping analysis, which identified a population of 152 environment-focused Facebook groups, and quantitative content analysis, which gives the overview of how these groups represent sustainability and human-nature relations. The analysis pointed to an overwhelming support for counterhegemonic, ecocentric positions, coupled with a strong critique against the hegemony of anthropocentrism. These findings relate to the general discussion concerning the potential of social media to function as spaces where hegemonies are contested and the vision of social change, in this case about the environment, takes shape, but also to the limitations of such possibilities.
... Serta konotasikonotasi tertentu sehingga dalam hal ini media telah melakukan bingkai, konstruksi, dan pemaknaannya terhadap suatu peristiwa (Malik et al., 2017). Suatu media melakukan proses framing dengan menyeleksi isu tertentu dan mengesampingkan isu yang lain serta menekankan aspek dari isu tertentu dengan menggunakan berbagai strategi wacana, seperti penggunaan headline, pengulangan, pemakaian label tertentu, pemakaian grafis, dan lain-lain (Eriyanto, 2002;Poirier et al., 2020;van Eck et al., 2020) Guna mengetahui bagaimana proses media diatas dalam melakukan proses seleksi isu dan penonjolan aspek tertentu dari peristiwa pemberhentian pegawai KPK maka digunakan analaisis Framing model Robert N. Entman yang dibagi menjadi 4 (empat) elemen yakni: Define Problems (pendefinisian masalah), yaitu bagaimana media melihat suatu peristiwa sebagai apa, Diagnose Causes (memperkirakan penyebab masalah), yaitu bagaimana media memperkirakan suatu masalah atau sumber dari masalah, Make Moral Judgement (membuat pilihan moral), yaitu bagaimana menilai moral apa yang ingin disajikan suatu media di dalam berita, Treatment Recommendation (menekankan penyelesaian), yaitu bagaimana media menawarkan penyelesaian untuk mengatasi suatu konflik yang diberitakan. ...
Penelitian ini membahas mengenai analisis framing berita pemberhentian pegawai Komisi Pemberatasan Korupsi (KPK) pada media daring Detik.com dan Tempo.co periode 13-30 September 2021. Dengan menggunakan paradigma konstruktivistik dengan pendekatan model framing Robert N. Entman yang memiliki perangkat analisis yakni pendefinisan masalah, penentuan penyebab masalah, keputusan moral, penyelesaian masalah. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukan bahwa Detik.com dan Tempo.co mamiliki bingkai berita yang berbeda terhadap peristiwa yang sama. Detik.com menjelaskan bahwa pemberhentian pegawai KPK merupakan dampak dari adanya alih status pegawai menjadi aparatur sipil negara (ASN) , sedangkan Tempo.co menjelaskan bahwa pemberhentian pegawai KPK merupakan upaya penyingkiran pegawai lewat adanya alih status pegawai menjadi ASN.
... Whilst the scientific community has reached a near-unanimous consensus on anthropogenic climate change (Anderegg et al., 2010), it still remains a polarized issue for some (Harvey et al., 2018;van Eck et al., 2020), underpinned by two opposing logics of "skeptics" and "the convinced" (Hoffman, 2011). With the rise of the "network society," defined by Castells (2004, p. 3) as "a society whose social structure is made up of networks powered by micro-electronics-based information and communications technologies," online discourse, particularly on social media, is of particular interest. ...
... A growing body of scholarship examines online discussion about climate change across a range of digital platforms, including major social media sites (Pearce et al., 2019), blogs (Elgesem et al., 2015;Sharman, 2014), and through studying user comments on climate-related news articles (de Kraker et al., 2014). Regardless of the platform, scholars often find evidence of polarization (van Eck et al., 2020), echo chambers (Walter et al., 2018), and misinformation, often linked with climate skepticism, denial, or alarmism (Treen et al., 2020). The presence of these characteristics in climate discourse have been found to have negative impacts such as political inaction (Brulle, 2014), stalled support or rejection of mitigation policies (Cook et al., 2018), and could even be considered a threat to a democratic society (Finkel et al., 2020). ...
Studies of climate discourse on social media platforms often find evidence of polarization, echo chambers, and misinformation. However, the literature’s overwhelming reliance on Twitter makes it difficult to understand whether these phenomena generalize across other social media platforms. Here we present the first study to examine climate change discourse on Reddit, a popular – yet understudied – locus for climate debate. This contributes to the literature through expansion of the empirical base for the study of online communication about climate change beyond Twitter. Additionally, platform architecture of Reddit differs from many social media platforms in several ways which might impact the quality of the climate debate. We investigate this through topic modeling, community detection, and analysis of sources of information on a large corpus of Reddit data from 2017. Evidence of polarization is found through the topics discussed and sources of information shared. Yet, while some communities are dominated by particular ideological viewpoints, others are more suggestive of deliberative debate. We find little evidence for the presence of polarized echo chambers in the network structure on Reddit. These findings challenge our understanding of social media discourse around climate change and suggest that platform architecture plays a key role in shaping climate debate online.
... The topic of Science also carried out by Van Eck, Mulder, & Dewulf (2020). they uncovered the practice of digital media in framing climate change. ...
This purpose of the study was to find the types of framing analysis and the purposes used by Joko Widodo during pandemic Covid-19. This research used a qualitative descriptive approach and the data were taken from the captions text of Joko Widodo's Instagram. Robert Entman's theory is used to find the types and the purposes of the uses of framing analysis. The data showed that there were 220 identified data from 55 captions found in the posts May and June 2020 about Covid-19. The findings of the research were classified into framing categories; Defining Problematic Effects, Identifying Causes, Conveying Moral Judgment, and Endorsing Remedy. The results found that Instagram framed Joko Widodo about the Covid-19 problem in Indonesia, where the Defining Problematic Effect that often appeared was that in the midst of a pandemic the government and society still commemorated national days well even though virtually it happened because of the Identifying Causes of the Covid-19 pandemic which continues to be the reason for the obstruction of community and government activities, therefore the government always urges the public to maintain the discipline that is always displayed in his posts in Conveying Moral Judgment and the Endorsing Remedy that Joko Widodo often calls for is to ask the local government and other ranks. to maximize safety during the Covid-19 pandemic.
... Previous work demonstrates sharp divergences in climate change beliefs and the emergence of interactionally polarized groups (Hamilton et al. 2015;Milfont et al. 2017;. In other words, online discussions about climate change are interactionally polarized, implying the persistence of echo chambers between Believers and Disbelievers (Jang and Hart 2015;Eck et al. 2020;Williams et al. 2015). ...
... A crucial limitation in prior work lies in the methodological options available to past researchers. Relying largely on manually annotated corpora and datasets of limited size, existing scholarship has faced barriers to measuring the emotional component of climate change discussions in a generalizable fashion (Anderson and Huntington 2017;Jang and Hart 2015;Eck et al. 2020). Drawing on recent advances in computational stance detection, targeted sentiment analysis, and network science measures, we design and deploy an integrated methodological pipeline for addressing this gap in the literature (Huang et al. 2018; Krackhardt and Stern 1988;Kumar 2020). ...
... On social media, studies suggest employing social network analysis have uncovered robust evidence that online climate change discussions tend to exhibit echo chamber-like interactions (Williams et al. 2015;. Qualitative analysis further showed that in rare instances of intergroup communication, more negative frames prevailed, featuring dismissal of climate change as a hoax, identity-based derailment of conversations, as well as overall higher levels of incivility (Anderson and Huntington 2017;Eck et al. 2020). Not withstanding the valuable idiographic insights derived from these studies, existing studies, however, rely on a minuscule fraction of the larger conversation to facilitate in-depth content analysis. ...
Climate change research describes online discourse as sharply polarized, echoing real-world divides in society. Yet while polarization in online climate change discourse has been extensively studied in terms of isolated communities and echo chambers, less is known about the extent of affective polarization that characterizes the hostile nature of intergroup interactions. Utilizing a combination of machine learning and network science tools, we design a methodological pipeline that quantifies the extent to which stance groups interact with more negative sentiment toward out-group members than in-group members. We apply this framework to 100 weeks of Twitter discourse about climate change. We find that deniers of climate change (Disbelievers) are more hostile towards people who believe (Believers) in the anthropogenic cause of climate change than vice versa. We also observe that Disbelievers use more words and hashtags related to natural disasters during more affectively polarized weeks as compared to Believers. Finally, using vector autoregression analysis, we find that climate anomalies in terms of both severe temperature and storms predict asymmetric shifts in online climate change discourse: Disbelievers grow more hostile toward out-groups, while Believers become less affectively polarized. These findings resonate with prior work on the asymmetric nature of polarization in contentious discourse, both around climate change and beyond. Our work also extends existing findings around temporal associations between climate anomalies, divided media representations, and real-world conflicts. We conclude with implications for science communication and studying affective polarization in online discourse, especially concerning the subject of climate change.
... Previous work demonstrates not only sharp divergences in climate change beliefs but also the emergence interactionally polarized groups [70,112,148]. In other words, online discussions about climate change are interactionally polarized, implying the persistence of echo chambers between Believers and Disbelievers [86,156,162]. Much less work, however, engages the question of a ective polarization in online climate change discourse. ...
... A crucial limitation in prior work lies in the methodological options available to past researchers. Relying consistently on manually annotated corpora and datasets of limited size, existing scholarship has faced barriers to measuring the emotional component of climate change discussions in a generalizable fashion [6,86,156]. Drawing on recent advances in computational stance detection, targeted sentiment analysis, and network science measures, we present an integrated methodological pipeline for addressing this gap in the literature. ...
... On social media, studies suggest employing social network analysis have uncovered robust evidence that online climate change discussions tend to exhibit echo chamber-like interactions [148,162]. alitative analysis further showed that in rare instances of intergroup communication, more negative frames prevailed, featuring dismissal of climate change as a hoax, identity-based derailment of conversations, as well as overall higher levels of incivility [6,156]. Notwithstanding the valuable idiographic insights derived from these studies, Existing studies, however, rely on a minuscule fraction of the larger conversation to facilitate in-depth content analysis. ...
