Content uploaded by Christian Burgers
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Christian Burgers on Jan 08, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 1
Language intensity as a sensationalistic news feature:
The influence of style on sensationalism perceptions and effects
Christian Burgers*
Department of Communication Science, VU University Amsterdam
Anneke de Graaf
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of Amsterdam
Paper published in Communications, volume 38, issue 2 (May 2013), pp. 167-188, doi:
10.1515/commun-2013-0010. Please refer to publisher’s site for final version:
http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/comm.2013.38.issue-2/commun-2013-0010/commun-2013-
0010.xml
Contact information
Christian Burgers (* Corresponding author)
Department of Communication Science
VU University Amsterdam
De Boelelaan 1081
1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
phone: +31 20 5987889
e-mail: c.f.burgers@vu.nl
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 2
Biographical information
Christian Burgers (PhD 2010, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands) is an Assistant
Professor at the Department of Communication Science at VU University Amsterdam (the
Netherlands).
Anneke de Graaf (PhD 2010, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands) is a Post-Doctoral
Researcher at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR), University of
Amsterdam (the Netherlands).
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Tineke van der Zwaag for her assistance in designing the
stimulus materials and collecting the data for Experiment 1 and Charlotte Brussee, Lisa van der
Heijden, Myrna van Lente, Ester Szymanska and Daniël Verheij for their assistance in designing
the stimulus materials and collecting the data for Experiment 2. The authors would also like to
thank Mark J. W. Bos for his constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper. A
previous version of this paper was presented at the 61st Annual Conference of the International
Communication Association (ICA), Boston, MA, 26-30 May 2011.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 3
Language intensity as a sensationalistic news feature:
The influence of style on sensationalism perceptions and effects
Abstract
This article extends the definition of sensationalism to print media by arguing that language
intensifiers may be an aspect of sensationalism. In addition, this paper investigates if an indirect
effect can be established by which sensationalistic message features influence news reception
through the perception of sensationalism. Two between-subjects experiments show that
sensationalistic message features like intensifiers increase perceived language intensity (PLI). In
experiment 1, intensifiers had a negative effect on news article appreciation, which was not
influenced by PLI. Experiment 2 revealed positive indirect effects of intensifiers through PLI on
newsworthiness and news article appreciation.
Key words: language intensity, sensationalism, journalism, printed news, linguistic style
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 4
Language intensity as a sensationalistic news feature:
The influence of style on sensationalism perceptions and effects
Over the past decades, many social actors expressed their concerns about what they perceive as
the declining quality of news (cf. Kalayanko & Eckler, 2010; McChesney, 2012; Plasser, 2005).
One of the reasons for this perceived decline in quality is the increase of tabloidization (Esser,
1999) and sensationalism (Hendriks Vettehen, Nuijten & Beentjes, 2005). In tabloidization, news
values from tabloid newspapers “spill-over to the quality press”, which implies that “serious
media adopt the tabloid agenda” (Esser, 1999, p. 293). In other words, the process of
tabloidization entails a convergence between the tabloid and quality media in that they become
more alike.
One way in which this process of tabloidization can take place is by using sensationalistic
ways to present the news. Sensationalistic news features are defined as “content features or
formal features of messages that have the capability to provoke attention and arousal responses
in viewers” (Kleemans & Hendriks Vettehen, 2009, p. 229). More and more, such
sensationalistic news features such as zoom-in camera action and a fast editing pace are used in
news (cf. Grabe, Zhou & Barnett, 2001; Hardy, De Swert & Sadicaris, 2010; Hendriks Vettehen,
Nuijten & Peeters, 2008).
Most studies that investigate sensationalism focus on television news (e.g., Hardy et al.,
2010; Hendriks Vettehen et al., 2008; Kleemans, Hendriks Vettehen, Beentjes & Eisinga, 2012).
However, sensationalism may be present in printed news as well. Although camera action is not
relevant to printed news, specific features of the form of the message may be related to
sensationalism in written texts. This paper posits that intensifiers may be one textual feature that
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 5
make a printed news item more sensationalistic. As such, the present paper sets out to extend the
concept of sensationalism to the textual domain.
In addition to the textual features that make a printed news message sensationalistic, it is
important to study the readers’ responses to these features (Hendriks Vettehen et al., 2008). As
the root of the term already suggests, sensationalism refers to a sensation or experience of the
recipients of the message. Therefore, this perception of sensationalism – or whether recipients
actually find a news item more “sensation arousing” – is a very important aspect of
sensationalism, which is likely responsible for subsequent effects (Hendriks Vettehen et al.,
2008). This is in line with O’Keefe (2003), who posits that specific message characteristics may
evoke a state in a recipient, which in turn may lead to effects of the message. As sensationalism
is expected to have several effects, such as recipient appreciation and perceptions of reality
(Grabe et al., 2001; Slattery et al., 2001), this study will address the role of sensationalistic
message characteristics as well as readers’ perceptions of sensationalism.
Extending the definition of sensationalism to printed news
While sensationalism has been defined in different ways by different authors (cf. Kleemans &
Hendriks Vettehen, 2009, for a review), one of the most used definition is that sensationalistic
news features are “content features or formal features of messages that have the capability to
provoke attention and arousal responses in viewers” (Kleemans & Hendriks Vettehen, 2009, p.
229). This definition of sensationalism states a duality in message features that can be called
sensationalistic: they can be either related to the content or to the form of the news message.
Scholars that connect sensationalism to content mainly argue that some topics are
inherently sensationalistic. For instance, Slattery et al. (2001) argue that news stories are
sensationalistic if they deal with such topics like violence and crime or accidents and disaster.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 6
Other topics that have been associated with sensationalism are topics that can be associated with
soft news like human interest stories (Slattery & Hakanen, 1994). For instance, in January 2013,
the Dutch media widely reported about the divorce of Dutch soccer player Rafael van der Vaart
and TV personality Sylvie van der Vaart. In the Dutch quality media, however, the question
mainly centered around the question whether the topic was fit for discussion in quality media
(e.g., De Rek, 2013), indicating that quality media were unsure whether a topic like a celebrity
divorce should only be dealt with in the tabloid media or whether the quality media should also
discuss the topic.
Besides content features, formal features can be sensationalistic as well. For instance,
formal features of sensationalism include video maneuvers like zoom movements and an eye-
witness perspective as well as audio manipulations like the use of music or an obtrusive tone of
voice (Grabe et al., 2001). Hendriks Vettehen et al. (2008) add another formal element to this
definition of sensationalism: the use of interviews with laypersons about a certain news topic.
Finally, Hendriks Vettehen et al. (2010) propose that close-ups of human faces are aspects of
sensationalism as well. These perspectives on sensationalism have in common that they analyze
formal features of sensationalism from the perspective of television news. In printed news,
however, other aspects of the form of the message may lead to an increase in sensationalism.
Formal features of sensationalism in print news are related to the article’s style. In
Shapiro’s (2010) framework to evaluate newspaper quality, the dimension of “style” includes
such elements as word choices and linguistic packaging. When looking at word choices and
linguistic packaging, quality reporting is typically associated with presenting information in a
sober style, while sensationalistic reporting can be considered the opposite (cf. Semetko and
Valkenburg’s 2000 distinction between sober and sensationalist newspapers). In a content
analysis of science news in the UK and US press, Jensen (2012) also connected word choice to
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 7
journalistic quality. He observed that the UK tabloid press were especially sensationalistic,
because they “operated unfettered by the norms of journalistic balance or objectivity” (Jensen,
2012, p. 50). Therefore, the degree to which a newspaper article refrains from using neutral
language may be an indicator of sensationalistic news.
One of the ways in which an article can refrain from using neutral language is the use of
intensifiers. In the persuasion literature, this is a stylistic choice that is described as language
intensity (cf. Hamilton, Hunter & Burgoon, 1990; Hamilton & Stewart, 1993). According to
Hamilton and colleagues, language intensity has two dimensions: (1) specificity and (2)
emotionality. Specificity refers to “the degree to which a source makes precise reference to
attitude objects in a message” (Hamilton & Stewart, 1993, p. 231). This means that more specific
(and more intense) language is typically more concrete and vivid, while less specific (and less
intense) language is typically more abstract and vague (Hamilton & Stewart, 1993). The
Linguistic Category Model (LCM, Semin & Fiedler, 1988, 1992) provides actual suggestions on
what distinguishes concrete from abstract language. According to the LCM, concrete language
typically uses descriptive action verbs (e.g., John hits Pete): these give an actual description of
the situation under discussion. The LCM posits that abstract language is typically conveyed
through adjectives (e.g., John is aggressive): these do not describe the situation under discussion,
but rather infer dispositional qualities about the person being described.
Next to specificity, emotionality is the second dimension of language intensity (Hamilton
& Stewart, 1993). Emotionality is seen as the “degree of affect expressed in the source's
language” (Hamilton & Stewart, 1993, p. 231). It is particularly this dimension of language
intensity that is relevant to our discussion. After all, a sensationalistic style is also categorized by
the degree to which the report differs from objective (non-evaluative) reporting.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 8
Various authors provide overviews of linguistic means that can be used to increase
emotionality. For instance, Renkema (1997) makes a distinction between semantic and lexical
intensifiers. Semantic intensifiers are words that can be replaced with a less extreme version
(e.g., gigantic is an intensifier of large). Lexical intensifiers are words that can be removed from
the text, resulting in a decrease in intensity (e.g., very intensifies large in the expression very
large). Pander Maat (2004) expands upon Renkema’s (1997) scheme and argues that intensifiers
can be found in a variety of grammatical categories like adjectives (gigantic as intensifier of
large), adverbs (e.g., even as in the expression even faster), quantifiers (e.g., millions) and
connectives (e.g., furthermore). Pander Maat (2004) also argues that so-called detensifiers that
reduce the intensity (e.g., words like probably) are a part of language intensity, because they
reduce emotionality and thus also explain variance in the variable of language intensity. Van
Mulken and Schellens (2012), finally, introduced the Language Intensity Model (in Dutch: Taal
IntensiteitsModel or TIM) which presents an overview of categories of intensifiers which – next
to the categories already mentioned – also includes nouns (e.g., spectacle instead of trial), verbs
(e.g., gobble instead of eat), exaggerations (e.g., I had to wait for a century) and repetition (e.g.,
very, very, very bad).
Many authors treat the concept of language intensity as a message characteristic (e.g.
Pander Maat, 2004; Renkema, 1997). However, some researchers have acknowledged that a
message also needs to be perceived as intense in order to have effects (Hamilton et al., 1990;
Hamilton & Stewart, 1993). To test if the use of intensifiers indeed increases the intensity of the
message, Hamilton and Stewart (1993) developed the language intensity scale and used this test
as a manipulation check in their experiments to see if the intensified version was indeed
perceived as more intense than the version without intensifiers. However, the manipulation
checks that were reported demonstrate that that the use of intensifiers does not always increase
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 9
the intensity readers see in a text and subsequently, the effects of the message (Hamilton et al.,
1990; Hamilton & Stewart, 1993). In other studies, intensifiers did impact readers’ perceived
language intensity (cf. Van Mulken & Schellens, 2012, exp. 1-2). This is in line with research on
sensationalism in television news, which showed that perceptions of sensationalism are
important in recipients’ responses to the message (Hendriks Vettehen et al., 2008)
Since we see language intensity as an aspect of sensationalism in printed news, it is
important to investigate whether language intensity functions similarly in printed news messages.
Our first hypothesis is thus:
H1. The use of intensifiers in news articles increases perceived language intensity.
An increase in perceived language intensity may in turn have specific message effects. For
instance, some studies on language intensity in persuasive communication demonstrated that an
increase in intensity can positively impact such variables as attitudes (Bankhead, Bench,
Peterson, Place & Seiter, 2003), behavioral intentions (Craig & Blankenship, 2011) and behavior
(Anderson & Blackburn, 2004). Various studies have also shown that sensationalism in TV news
can have effects on thoughts about the news article (e.g., Zhou, 2005), recognition (e.g., Lang et
al., 2005), the attitude towards the news article (e.g., Hendriks Vettehen et al., 2008) and news
preferences (e.g. Kleemans et al., 2012). Thus, we propose that language intensity in news
reports may also have effects: By increasing the emotional intensity attached to a subject in a
news article, readers may find it more relevant that the story in question is reported upon (and
thus may find the article more newsworthy) and may appreciate the article more. Furthermore,
given that intensifiers can be effective persuasive devices (Anderson & Blackburn, 2004;
Bankhead et al., 2003; Craig & Blankenship, 2011), they may also help to shift the beliefs of
news readers to become more in line with those presented in the news article.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 10
Yet, in order for sensationalistic news features to have effect, it is first important that
these features are noticed. For instance, for the attitude towards the story, Hendriks Vettehen et
al. (2008) demonstrate that, in television news, emotional arousal mediates the relationship
between sensationalistic news features and the attitude towards the story. For written news
stories, perceived language intensity may serve a similar function: only when a news text is
perceived as intense, is it possible that the news article has a differential impact compared to an
article that is perceived as less intense. Our second hypothesis is thus:
H2. Perceived language intensity mediates intensifier effects on (a) newsworthiness, (b)
attitude towards the news article and (c) belief content.
Finally, various studies suggest that the level of negativity can be an important moderator
of language intensity effects. Many studies in social psychology document the negativity bias
(e.g., Baumeister, Bratslahvsky, Finkenauer & Vohs, 2001; Ito, Larsen, Smith & Cacioppo,
1998; Vaish, Grossmann & Woodward, 2008 and many others) which posits that negative
information has a greater impact on individuals than positive information. When comparing
positive and negative words on intensity, various scholars argue that negative words are
perceived as more intense than their positive counterparts (e.g., Crandall, 1975; Jing-Schmidt,
2007; Liebrecht, Hustinx & Van Mulken, 2012). These findings have implications for language
intensity in news texts: after all, if equivalent information is presented in negative rather than
with positive terms (cf. valence framing, Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), it may be assumed that
the information presented in the negative frame is perceived as more intense, especially when
intensifiers are used. Thus, we expect a moderation of valence framing in that, especially in a
negative frame, information with intensifiers is perceived as more intense than information
without intensifiers. Thus, our third hypothesis is:
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 11
H3. (a) In a negative frame, using intensifiers in news articles increases perceived
language intensity. (b). In a positive frame, using intensifiers does not increase perceived
language intensity.
Experiment 1
Method
Participants and design.
A total of 151 adult respondents participated in an online experiment in which they were
randomly assigned to one of the conditions in a 2 (use of intensifiers: intensifiers vs. no
intensifiers) x 2 (framing: positive vs. negative) between-subjects design. The average age was
34.2 years (SD = 16.7). A small majority of participants (55.0%) was female. A large majority of
participants (96.7%) reported to read at least one newspaper in an average week.
Materials.
When conducting a study on the effects of printed news, it is possible that the opinion on
various political and social actors may change rapidly depending on the public agenda of the day.
To control for these influences, it was decided to create a news article from the journalistic genre
of “general news”, i.e., economic, social or cultural news that is not on the present public agenda
(Lehman-Wilzig & Seletzky, 2010). The issue that was used in this experiment was the
introduction of a ban on bringing flowers as presents to hospital visits. The rationale behind this
ban was that flowers could contain bacteria that could further damage the immune system of
hospital patients.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 12
The article opened with two opening sections in which the problem of the bacteria in
flowers was introduced. The final section contained our framing manipulation: our condition
with negative framing contained a loss frame, because it emphasized the negative effects of
continuing to allow people to bring flowers to hospital. The condition with positive framing
contained a gain frame, because it emphasized the positive effects of forbidding people to bring
flowers into hospitals.
For the manipulation of intensifiers, we followed the models of Pander Maat (2004) and
Renkema (1997) and added both semantic and linguistic intensifiers to the article. Semantic
intensifiers are intensifiers that can be replaced by a more moderate version (e.g., gigantic
number is a semantic intensifier of large number). Linguistic intensifiers are words that can be
removed, which should result in a decrease in emotionality (e.g., extremely dangerous is a
linguistic intensifier of dangerous). All intensifiers focused on the dimension of emotionality
(Hamilton & Stewart, 1993), because they exaggerated the evaluative valence of the subject
under discussion. The version with intensifiers contained 16 intensifiers. In their original Dutch
version, the number of words of the versions differed between 283 and 304, depending on
condition. Appendix A contains an English translation of our stimuli.
Instrumentation.
A questionnaire was developed that measured perceived language intensity,
newsworthiness, attitude towards the article, and belief content.
To measure perceived language intensity, six items from the perceived language intensity
scale (Hamilton & Stewart, 1993) were used. On 7-point Likert scales, participants were asked to
which degree they felt the article to be intense, strong, extreme, forceful, emotional and vivid (α
= .75).
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 13
As a measure of newsworthiness, participants were asked how they rated the importance
of the news. They were presented with four items on 7-point Likert scales (α = .86). Sample
items include “I think that this news article is important” and “I think that this news article
should be printed on the front page of the newspaper”.
For the attitude towards the article, participants were asked five questions on 7-point
semantic differential scales (α = .83). Participants were asked if they considered the article’s
language to be bad-good, boring-interesting, negative-positive, horrible-fantastic and stupid-
great.
As measures of belief content, participants were asked to assess four items about the
dangers of bringing flowers to a hospital (e.g., “Flowers are bad for your health” and “Many
patients get ill from flowers”). These four items formed a reliable scale (α = .73).
Results
The first hypothesis suggested that the use of intensifiers (in this case: exaggerations) would
increase perceived language intensity. Table 1 shows the average scores and standard deviations
of this variable per condition.
With regard to H1, the use of intensifiers had an effect on perceived language intensity
(F(1,147) = 4.40, p < .05, ηp2 = .03). Confirming the first hypothesis, the news article with
intensifiers was perceived as more intense (M = 4.19, SD = .99) than the news article without
intensifiers (M = 3.89, SD = .84). We found no main effect of framing (F < 1) or interaction
effect of framing and intensifiers (F(1,147) = 2.87, p = .093), providing no support for H3.
The second hypothesis, then, suggested that perceived language intensity would mediate
the effects of intensifiers on the dependent variables. However, no indirect effects could be
established (Preacher & Hayes, 2008), because perceived language intensity was not related to
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 14
any of the dependent variables (attitude towards the article: r = .07, p = .41, newsworthiness: r =
.01, p = .94 and belief content: r = -.008, p = .92).
We subsequently conducted a 2 (intensifiers vs. no intensifiers) x 2 (positive vs. negative
framing) MANOVA with attitude towards the article, newsworthiness and belief content as
dependent variables. We observed a main effect of intensifiers (Wilks’ λ = .93, F(3, 145) = 3.90,
p < .05, ηp2 = .08). Subsequent univariate analyses showed that intensifiers had no effects on
newsworthiness (F < 1) and belief content (F(1,147) = 3.63, p = .059). However, the use of
intensifiers had a negative effect on the attitude towards the news article (F(1,147) = 6.55, p <
.05, ηp2 = .04), which indicated that a text with intensifiers (M = 3.88, SD = .90) was appreciated
less than a text without intensifiers (M = 4.30, SD = 1.01). We found neither a main effect of
framing (Wilks’ λ = .97, F(3, 145) = 1.42, p = .24) nor an interaction effect of framing x
intensifiers (Wilks’ λ = .99, F(3, 145) < 1).
Conclusion and discussion
Results support the first hypothesis. The data demonstrate that the use of exaggerations can
indeed increase the perceived language intensity. This implies that perceived language intensity
could be a possible mediating state that could explain the effects of the use of intensified
language.
Hypothesis 2 which predicted that perceived language intensity would mediate the effects
of the use of intensifiers could not be confirmed. The same was true for hypothesis 3, which
argued that the effects of intensifiers would be most pronounced in the version with negative
framing. However, the attitude towards the article was more negative for the news texts that used
intensifiers. On the one hand, this finding is in line with the negative link that has been made
between sensationalism and newspaper quality (e.g., Gladney, 1996): the use of sensationalistic
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 15
features like intensifiers may decrease the credibility of an article and thus its appreciation as
well. The results also demonstrate that intensifiers may operate distinctly from perceived
language intensity. After all, perceived language intensity was successfully manipulated, but
intensifiers had an effect independently of perceived language intensity. On the other hand, the
negative relationship between the use of intensifiers and the attitude towards the article may also
have come from an unnatural perception of the article. It is possible that our participants were
surprised by the news topic and did not find the statement that flowers could make patients sicker
very believable. To investigate this question further, Experiment 2 was conducted. In this
experiment, another issue was chosen which was expected to receive more newspaper attention:
diabetes.
Experiment 2
Method
Participants and design.
A total of 114 adult respondents participated in an online experiment in which they were
randomly assigned to one of the conditions in a 2 (intensifiers vs. detensifiers) x 2 (positive vs.
negative framing) between-subjects design. The average age was 28.0 years (SD = 11.1). A small
majority of participants (57.0%) was female. A large majority of participants (93.9%) reported to
read at least one newspaper in an average week.
Materials.
In this experiment, another news article was constructed from the journalistic genre of
‘general news’ (Lehman-Wilzig & Seletzky, 2010). This article was about diabetes and had a
similar set-up to the article in the first experiment. Again, we first introduced the topic after
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 16
which the final section contained either a loss frame (negative framing) or a gain frame (positive
framing).
In order to keep the number of words more equal between versions than in Experiment 1,
we changed our manipulation of intensifiers slightly. Following Pander Maat (2004), we
included either linguistic intensifiers or linguistic detensifiers. Intensifiers were either quantifiers
(e.g., “a big part of the increase of diabetes”) or qualifiers (e.g., “the number of diabetics in the
Netherlands will inevitably increase”), which are both considered as language devices that may
signal an increase in language intensity (Pander Maat, 2004; Renkema, 1997). In the detensifier
version, the strength of the quantifiers and qualifiers was manipulated when they were replaced
with linguistically moderate versions (e.g., “a small part of the increase” and “the number of
diabetics in the Netherlands will probably increase”). With this manipulation, the number of
words differed between 252 and 257 in their original Dutch version. Appendix B contains an
English translation of our materials.
Instrumentation.
The same items to measure newsworthiness (α = .79) as in experiment 1 were used. To
measure perceived language intensity, we used five items from the perceived language intensity
scale (Hamilton & Stewart, 1993) and asked to which degree they felt the article to be intense,
strong, forceful, emotional and vivid (α = .83). In the context of diabetes, we did not include the
item of ‘extreme’, because we felt that this item did not fit the article which favors an increase in
measures battling diabetes.
To tap the attitude towards the news article, we used a different scale from experiment 1,
because items like great and fantastic did not seem appropriate for an article on diabetes.
Participants were asked to which degree they thought the article to be interesting, useful,
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 17
informative, pleasant to read, and nice to read (α = .81). For belief content, participants were
asked six questions related to the solutions that were mentioned in the text (e.g., “the government
should stimulate programs aimed at persuading people to adopt a healthier lifestyle”, α = .72).
Results
The first hypothesis suggested that the use of intensifiers in a news article would increase
perceived language intensity. Table 2 shows the average scores and standard deviations of this
variable per condition.
Our first hypothesis stated that intensifiers could increase the perceived language
intensity of a news article. This hypothesis was confirmed, because the news article with
intensifiers (M = 4.49, SD = .99) was perceived as more intense than the news article with
detensifiers (M = 4.11, SD = 1.08; F(1,110) = 4.09, p < .05, ηp2 = .04). We found neither a main
effect of framing (F(1,110) = 2.04, p = .16) nor an interaction effect of framing and intensifiers
(F < 1), which disconfirms H3.
Our second hypothesis stated that perceived language intensity mediates framing effects
on newsworthiness, the attitude towards the news article, and belief content. We first
investigated whether framing and intensifiers have direct effects on these dependent variables by
conducting a 2 (intensifiers vs. no intensifiers) x 2 (positive vs. negative framing) MANOVA
with attitude towards the article, newsworthiness and belief content as dependent variables. We
observed no main effects of intensifiers (Wilks’ λ = .99, F(3, 108) < 1) and framing (Wilks’ λ =
.94, F(3, 108) = 2.13, p = .11) or an interaction effect of framing and intensifiers (Wilks’ λ = .97,
F(3, 108) = 1.20, p = .31). Even though we found no direct effects of our independent variables
on our dependent variables, recent statistical research into mediation analysis argues that
mediation can still occur (Hayes, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2008)
1
.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 18
For mediation to be possible, two prior assumptions should be satisfied. First, the
independent variable should have an effect on the proposed mediator. As demonstrated above,
this is the case for the effect of intensifiers on perceived language intensity. Second, the
proposed mediator should be associated with the dependent variable. Correlation analyses show
that perceived language intensity was not associated with belief content (r = .10, p = .30).
However, language intensity was positively associated with both newsworthiness (r = .38, p <
.001) and the attitude towards the article (r = .43, p < .001).
These analyses show that the use of intensifiers leads to an increase of perceived
language intensity and that perceived language intensity is positively associated with
newsworthiness and the attitude towards the article. This means that it is possible to test for an
indirect effect of intensifiers (through perceived language intensity) on these two dependent
variables, even in the absence of a direct effect of intensifiers on the dependent variables. To test
for an indirect effect, the method and macro developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) were used.
Preacher and Hayes’ (2008) macro uses a bootstrapping procedure to estimate the indirect
effect by multiplying the direct effect of the independent variable on the mediator with the direct
effect of the mediator on the dependent variable, controlling for the influence of other variables
(in this case: framing). Table 3 shows descriptive information. These mediation analyses show
significant indirect effects of intensifiers via perceived language intensity on both
newsworthiness (.0715, SE = .0413, 95%CI = [.0061, .1708]) and attitude towards the article
(.0752, SE = .0409, 95%CI = [.0089, .1730]). This means that hypotheses 2a and 2b can be
confirmed.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 19
Conclusion and discussion
This second experiment also confirmed the first hypothesis and showed that intensifiers can
increase perceived language intensity compared to detensifuers. In addition, indirect effect
analyses showed an indirect link between intensifiers and newsworthiness and the attitude
towards the article: intensifiers increased perceived language intensity which in turn increased
newsworthiness and the attitude toward the article, confirming hypotheses 2a and 2b. These
results provide the first empirical evidence to suggest that perceived language intensity can be a
mediating state between the use of intensifiers in news articles and the responses to the news
article in question. Finally, an interaction between intensifiers and framing could not be
established which disconfirms H3.
General conclusion and discussion
This paper looked at the influence of intensifiers and framing on the reception of news articles. It
started out by extending the definition of sensationalism to print media and argued that, in print
media, the intensity of the language could be one of the indicators of sensationalism. In addition,
it was argued that the perception of a news article as intense is an important aspect of
sensationalism in printed news. The results of both experiments provide empirical support for
hypothesis 1. The use of intensifiers in news articles increased the perceived language intensity
of both texts, indicating that readers indeed experienced texts with intensifiers as more intense
and arousing.
However, with regard to hypothesis 2, the effects of intensifiers on responses to the news
articles differed in the two experiments. In the first experiment, perceived language intensity was
not related with one of the dependent variables, while intensifiers decreased the attitude towards
a news article, which is line with studies that have investigated newspaper quality (Gladney,
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 20
1996; Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). This first experiment suggests that the use of a
sensationalistic message feature like language intensity decreases the credibility of an article and
thus its quality as well. However, in order to bolster this argument, future research should
replicate our study and include an explicit measure of credibility. Additionally, the results of the
first experiment suggest that intensifiers accomplish this goal through other means than a
perception of language intensity.
However, the materials in the first experiment were about a topic that participants may
have found unnatural as a newspaper article. They may have found the claims unlikely and thus
have believed the article even less when the claims were exaggerated. The second experiment
used a different, more natural topic and showed different results from the first experiment. In this
experiment, the indirect effect of intensifiers through perceived language intensity was positive
on newsworthiness and the attitude towards the article. These results show that language
intensity as an aspect of sensationalism can have positive effects on the perceptions of news
articles.
These findings also have important implications for discussions on sensationalism and
tabloidization (e.g., Esser, 1999; Kleemans & Hendriks Vettehen, 2009) as our findings show
that using sensationalistic message features like intensifiers impacts participants’ evaluation of
the article (both experiments, albeit in different directions) and participants’ perceived
newsworthiness of the article (experiment 2). Interestingly, adding intensifiers to increase the
emotionality of a topic did not affect participants’ belief content about the topic (both
experiments).
While it is possible that the topics of the materials were responsible for the differences
between experiments 1 and 2, it may also be possible that the effects of intensifiers depend on
the type of intensified language that is used. Renkema (1997) argues that various lexical
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 21
elements like qualifiers, quantifiers, and prefixes can be examples of intensified language.
However, he states that intensifiers can also be semantic or stylistic. It may be possible that
different types of intensifiers may have different reader effects. Future research should take up
on the challenge of unraveling under which conditions the use of intensifiers leads to which
kinds of message effects.
Across our two experiments, we also consistently found no effects of our framing
manipulation, indicating that positive vs. negative framing does not moderate the effects of
intensifiers. This is in contrast to earlier studies that found that negative intensifiers were
perceived as stronger than positive intensifiers (e.g., Crandall, 1975; Liebrecht et al., 2012). Yet,
these studies investigated either single words or very short scenarios. The fact that we used
longer texts may account for these differences. Future research may want to investigate this issue
further and investigate under which conditions the perceived intensity of positive and negative
intensifiers differs in longer texts.
Some other caveats of our study can be noted. Our experimental materials were presented
to participants in isolation (i.e., outside of the context of a newspaper) and on a computer screen.
This could imply that participants processed the texts differently from when they would have
read the article in a newspaper. Presenting the articles in the context of a (fake) newspaper could
have the added advantage that the article could be manipulated on other aspects of
sensationalism. For instance, the lay-out of this newspaper could be manipulated to look like a
sensationalistic tabloid paper, which may induce a feeling of sensationalism by other means than
language. The use of big headlines and relatively large and shocking visuals may also evoke a
sense of sensationalism. Secondly, measures of attitude towards the article differed between the
two experiments, which may have influenced results on this variable. We suggest that future
research uses the measure of the second study, because this measure is more appropriate across
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 22
different topics. Finally, this study did not include dispositional characteristics that could also
moderate effects of sensationalism in print media (cf. Kleemans et al., 2012). Future research
could investigate what kinds of dispositional characteristics have what kind of effects on the
perception of sensationalism.
This paper extended the definition of sensationalism to print media to also include
language intensity. Of course, language intensity may not only play a role in print media: future
research may also investigate if language intensity in television news can evoke a sense of
intensity and sensationalism as well. In sum, this study has provided a promising avenue for
further research by showing that the presence of intensifiers in newspaper articles increases the
perception of language intensity and that this perception can make the article more newsworthy
and appreciated.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 23
Notes
1
According to the well-known logic of Baron and Kenny (1986), mediation can only occur when
the independent variable has a direct effect on the dependent variable, which was not the case in
this experiment. However, Hayes (2009) has recently challenged this assumption of mediation
analysis in the classical, Baron and Kenny way and argued that mediation can also be found in
the absence of a direct effect of the independent on the dependent variable (see Hayes, 2009, pp.
413-415 and Rucker, Preacher, Tormala and Petty, 2011). To distinguish between the classical
mediation analysis advocated by Baron and Kenny (1986) and this type of mediation analysis,
the term indirect effect is used to describe the effect of the independent variable x the mediator
on the dependent variable.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 24
References
Andersen, P. A., & Blackburn, T. R. (2004). An experimental study of language intensity and
response rate in e-mail surveys. Communication Reports, 17(2), 73-84.
Bankhead, T.D., Bench, A., Peterson, T., Place, R., & Seiter, J.S. (2003). Intensity and color of
language in attitude change and emotion. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(2), 492-494.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than
good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323-335.
Craig, T. Y., & Blankenship, K. L. (2011). Language and persuasion: Linguistic extremity
influences message processing and behavioral intentions. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 30(3), 290-310.
Crandall, J. E. (1975). “Negativity Bias” in evaluative ratings. Journal of Social Psychology,
95(1), 109-116.
De Rek, W. (2013). De Rek over liefdesnieuws [De Rek discusses romance news]. De
Volkskrant, January 5, 2013, p. V2.
Esser, F., (1999). ‘Tabloidization of news’: A comparative analysis of Anglo-American and
German press journalism. European Journal of Communication, 14(3), 291-324
Gladney, G. A. (1996). How editors and readers rank and rate the importance of eighteen
traditional standards of newspaper excellence. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, 73(2), 319-331.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 25
Grabe, M. E., Zhou, S., & Barnett, B. (2001). Explicating sensationalism in television news:
Content and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
45(4), 635-655.
Hamilton, M. A., Hunter, J. E., & Burgoon, M. (1990). An empirical test of an axiomatic model
of the relationship between language intensity and persuasion. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 9(4), 235-255.
Hamilton, M.A., & Stewart, B. L. (1993). Extending an information processing model of
language intensity effects. Communication Quarterly, 41(2), 231-246.
Hardy, A., De Swert, K., Sadicaris, D. (2010). Does market-driven journalism lead to
sensationalism in television news? Explaining sensationalism in 11 countries. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association,
Singapore, June 22, 2010.
Hayes, A. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408-420.
Hendriks Vettehen, P., Beentjes, J, Nuijten, K., & Peeters, A. (2010). Arousing news
characteristics in Dutch television news 1990–2004: An exploration of competitive
strategies. Mass Communication and Society, 14(1), 93-112.
Hendriks Vettehen, P., Nuijten, K., & Beentjes, J. (2005). News in an age of competition: The
case of sensationalism in Dutch television news, 1995-2001. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 49(3), 282-295.
Hendriks Vettehen, P., Nuijten, K, & Peeters, A. (2008). Explaining effects of sensationalism on
liking of television news stories: The role of emotional arousal. Communication Research,
35(3), 319-338.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 26
Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs
more heavily on the brain: The negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 887-900.
Jensen, E. (2012). Scientific sensationalism in American and British press coverage of
therapeutic cloning. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 40-54.
Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2007). Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive
intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 417-443.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). “Prospect theory:” An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kalyango, Y., & Eckler, P. (2010). International journalists’ expectations from the US media
coverage of Hurricane Katrina. Journalism, 11(3), 277-292.
Kleemans, M., & Hendriks Vettehen, P. (2009). Sensationalism in television news: a review. In
R. Konig, P. Nelissen & F. Huysmans (eds). Meaningful media: Communication research
on the social construction of reality (pp. 226-243). Nijmegen (The Netherlands): Tandem
Felix.
Kleemans, M., Hendriks Vettehen, P., Beentjes, J., & Eisinga, R. (2012). The influence of age
and gender on preferences for negative content and tabloid packaging in television news
stories. Communication Research, 39(5), 676-697.
Lang, A., Shin, M., Bradley, S. D., & Wang, Z. (2005). Wait - Don't turn that dial - More
excitement to come - The effects of story length and production pacing in local television
news on channel changing behavior and information processing in a free choice
environment. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 49(1), 3-22.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 27
Lehman-Wilzig, S. N., & Seletzky, M. (2010). Hard news, soft news, ‘general’ news: The
necessity and utility of an intermediate classification. Journalism, 11(1), 37-56.
Liebrecht, C., Hustinx, L., & Van Mulken, M. (2012). Waarom goed niet goed genoeg is:
Onderzoek naar de kracht van positieve en negatieve evaluaties [Why good is not good
enough: Research into the power of positive and negative evaluations]. In N. de Jong, K.
Juffermans, M. Keijzer & L. Rasier (Eds.). Papers of the Anéla 2012 Applied Linguistics
Conference (pp. 161-169). Delft (the Netherlands): Eburon.
McChesney, R. W. (2012). Farewell to journalism? Journalism Studies, 13(5-6), 682-694.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims,
evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research.
Communication Theory, 13(3), 251-274.
Pander Maat, H. (2004). Wervend taalgebruik in persberichten – werkt het? Hoe journalisten
omgaan met persberichten in de luchtvaartsector [Promotional language use in press
releases – does it work? How journalists deal with press releases from the aviation sector].
Tijdschrift voor Taalbeheersing, 26(3), 209-225.
Plasser, F. (2005). From hard to soft news standards? How political journalists in different media
systems evaluate the shifting quality of news. The Harvard International Journal of
Press/Politics, 10(2), 47-68.
Preacher, K., & Hayes, A. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,
40(3), 879-891.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 28
Renkema, J. (1997). Geïntensiveerd taalgebruik: Een analyseschema [Intensified language: a
classification]. In. H. van den Bergh (ed.), Taalgebruik ontrafeld (pp. 495-505). Dordrecht:
Foris.
Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in
social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 5(6), 359-371.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of
press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93-109.
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing
persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
558-568..
Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1992). The inferential properties of interpersonal verbs. In G. R.
Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 58-78).
Newbury Park, CA (USA): Sage.
Shapiro, I. (2010). Evaluating journalism. Journalism Practice, 4(2), 143-162.
Slattery, K. L., Doremus, M., & Marcus, L. (2001). Shifts in public affairs reporting on the
network evening news: A move toward the sensational. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 45, 290-302.
Slattery, K. L., & Hakanen, E. A. (1994). Sensationalism versus public affairs content of local
TV news: Pennsylvania revisited. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38(2),
205-216.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science, 211, 453-458.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 29
Vaish, A., Grossmann, T., & Woodward, A. (2008). Not all emotions are created equal: The
negativity bias in social-emotional development. Psychological Bulletin, 134(3), 383.
Van Mulken, M., & Schellens, P. J. (2012). Over loodzware bassen en wapperende broekspijpen:
Gebruik en perceptie van taalintensiverende stijlmiddelen [On extremely heavy basses and
trouser legs blowing in the wind: Use and perception of intensifiers]. Tijdschrift voor
Taalbeheersing, 34(1), 26-53.
Zhou, S. (2005). Effects of arousing visuals and redundancy on cognitive assessment of
television news. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49(1), 23-42.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 30
Table 1
Experiment 1: Average scores (and standard deviations) of perceived language intensity (1 = low
perceived intensity, 7 = high perceived intensity), newsworthiness (1 = low newsworthiness, 7 = high
newsworthiness), attitude towards the news article (1 = very negative attitude, 7 = very positive
attitude) and belief content (1 = belief implied by text very unbelievable, 7 = beliefs implied by text
very believable), by intensifier condition.
Without intensifiers
With intensifiers
Negative framing
Positive framing
Negative framing
Positive framing
Perceived language intensity
3.71 (.88)
4.03 (.80)
4.28 (.92)
4.10 (1.08)
Newsworthiness
4.26 (1.24)
4.69 (1.48)
4.29 (1.11)
5.53 (1.59)
Attitude towards the article
4.17 (.85)
4.40 (1.12)
3.87 (.88)
3.90 (.94)
Belief content
3.97 (1.30)
3.76 (1.14)
3.50 (1.17)
3.48 (1.23)
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 31
Table 2
Experiment 2: Average scores (and standard deviations) of perceived language intensity (1 = low
perceived intensity, 7 = high perceived intensity), newsworthiness (1 = low newsworthiness, 7 = high
newsworthiness), attitude towards the news article (1 = very negative attitude, 7 = very positive
attitude) and belief content (1 = belief implied by text very unbelievable, 7 = beliefs implied by text
very believable), by intensifier condition.
With detensifiers
With intensifiers
Negative framing
Positive framing
Negative framing
Positive framing
Perceived language intensity
4.23 (1.19)
3.96 (.93)
4.64 (.71)
4.34 (1.21)
Newsworthiness
5.05 (.89)
5.00 (.87)
5.01 (.76)
5.02 (1.33)
Attitude towards the article
5.07 (.71)
5.24 (.77)
4.94 (.92)
4.79 (1.26)
Belief content
5.20 (.78)
5.45 (.61)
5.45 (.71)
5.36 (.73)
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 32
Table 3
Indirect effects analysis with of intensifiers on newsworthiness and the attitude towards the
article via perceived language intensity (PLI). The main effect of framing is included as a
covariate.
B
SE
Normal theory p
Bootstrap 95% CI
Newsworthiness
Covariate main effect of framing
Effect of intensifiers on PLI (a path)
Effect of PLI on newsworthiness (b path)
Effect of intensifiers on newsworthiness
Total effect (c path)
Direct effect (c’path)
Indirect effect (via PLI)
.08
.20
.36
-.008
-.08
.07
.17
.10
.08
.09
.09
.04
.45
< .05
< .001
.93
.36
.006 - .17*
Model R2adj (p)
.12 (< .001)
Attitude towards the article
Covariate main effect of framing
Effect of intensifiers on PLI (a path)
Effect of PLI on attitude towards the article (b path)
Effect of intensifiers on attitude towards the article
Total effect (c path)
Direct effect (c’path)
Indirect effect (via PLI)
-.18
.20
.38
.009
-.07
.08
.16
.10
.08
.09
.08
.04
.26
< .05
< .001
.92
.41
.009 - .17*
Model R2 adj (p)
.18 (< .001)
Note: mediation with 5,000 bootstrap samples.
* indirect effect is significant with a certainty of p < .05, because the confidence interval does not include zero.
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 33
Appendix A: Stimulus materials used in Experiment 1
CBS: Flowers extremely [linguistic intensifier] dangerous for hospital patients
ROTTERDAM – It can be extremely [linguistic intensifier] dangerous for the health of patients if they have
flowers placed nearby. Ten percent of hospital patients got seriously [linguistic intensifier] ill when they had
flowers placed next to their bed.
This is shown in statistics that were presented by the Central Bureau for Statistics (CBS) earlier today. Based on this
study, the CBS estimates that, on an annual basis, more than 5000 patients are involved: a gigantic [semantic
intensifier]/ large [no intensifier] number, indicating four times a sold-out Carré [famous theater in Amsterdam,
linguistic intensifier]. Next to their existing symptoms, these patients developed a serious [linguistic intensifier]
shortness of breath and dizziness. Other patients recovered more slowly and some patients lost consciousness. The
cause for these problem is the excessive [linguistic intensifier] amount of pathogens and micro organisms living in
flowers and flower water, making patients critically [linguistic intensifier] ill.
Negative framing
Positive framing
If it remains allowed to bring flowers into any hospital
in the Netherlands, a terrifyingly [linguistic intensifier]
high number of people will get ill unnecessarily in
hospitals, according to Willem van der Velde, a
Professor of Molecular Microbiology at the University
of Groningen. He thinks that the CBS statistics are a
“cause for major alarm” [semantic intensifier]/
worrying [no intensifier]. These statistics are not new. In
1999, the Department of Health Services conducted a
similar study into the alleged negative effects of flowers
on patients’ health, which showed similar disturbing
[linguistic intensifier] results. Based on the previous
study, the Department of Health Services took action.
Van der Velde says: “In 71 of 142 Dutch hospitals, it is
still allowed to bring in flowers. We know that in these
hospitals a sea of patients [semantic intensifier]/ many
patients [no intensifier] get much more [linguistic
intensifier] ill than in hospitals were it is forbidden to
bring in flowers. It is disastrous [semantic intensifier]/
bad [no intensifier] that so many hospitals took so few
measures; the health risk will only increase enormously
[linguistic intensifier] in this way.
If it is forbidden to bring flowers into any hospital in the
Netherlands, so much fewer [linguistic intensifier]
people will get ill unnecessarily in hospitals, according
to Willem van der Velde, a Professor of Molecular
Microbiology at the University of Groningen. He thinks
that the CBS statistics are a “cause for major alarm”
[semantic intensifier]/ worrying [no intensifier]. These
statistics are not new. In 1999, the Department of Health
Services conducted a similar study into the alleged
negative effects of flowers on patients’ health, which
showed similar disturbing [linguistic intensifier] results.
Based on the previous study, the Department of Health
Services took action. Van der Velde says: “In 71 of 142
Dutch hospitals, it is now forbidden to bring in flowers.
We know that in these hospitals a sea of patients
[semantic intensifier]/ many patients [no intensifier] do
not get much more [linguistic intensifier] ill than in
hospitals were it is forbidden to bring in flowers. It is
fantastic [semantic intensifier]/ good [no intensifier] that
so many hospitals took so many measures; the health
risk will only decrease enormously [linguistic
intensifier] in this way.
Note. English translation from original Dutch; intensifiers marked in bold and italics, framing manipulation
underlined
Running head: LANGUAGE INTENSITY AS A SENSATIONALISTIC NEWS FEATURE 34
Appendix B: Stimulus materials used in Experiment 2
Number of diabetics on the rise
GRONINGEN – The number of people in the Netherlands with diabetes will certainly [intensifier]/likely
[detensifier] increase in the coming years. This is shown in a new study by the RIVM [The Dutch national
institute for public health]. Last year, only 740,000 Dutch people were known to suffer from diabetes. It is
expected that this number will increase to 1.3 million in the coming years.
Because of the ageing population and because people generally live longer, the number of diabetics in the
Netherlands will inevitably [intensifier]/ probably [detensifier] increase in the coming years. A big [intensifier]/
small [detensifier] part of this increase can be ascribed to the number of people with obesity and a lack of physical
exercise. This part can largely [intensifier]/somewhat [detensifier] be prevented, which is why more attention for
preventive measures is needed.
Negative framing
Positive framing
Diabetes specialists of the Medical Center of the
University of Groningen (UMCG) have proposed a
number of measures that are aimed to prevent diabetes in
the future. It argues that physical exercise, quitting
smoking and a regular and healthy diet should be
stimulated. Without these measures, we will have an
immense [intensifier]/fair [detensifier] increase in new
diabetics in the next fifteen years.
Dr. Arianne van den Hark, a diabetes specialist at the
UMCG warns for the domino effect that can be caused
by diabetes: “Besides fatigue and returning infections,
diabetes can lead to many other illnesses such as heart
and vascular diseases, and a reduction of eyes and
kidneys. When the Netherlands stops to invest in the
search for effective measures to stimulate healthy
nutrition and plenty of physical exercise, diabetes, along
with obesity and inactivity, will definitely
[intensifier]/probably [detensifier] increase.
Diabetes specialists of the Medical Center of the
University of Groningen (UMCG) have proposed a
number of measures that are aimed to prevent diabetes in
the future. It argues that physical exercise, quitting
smoking and a regular and healthy diet should be
stimulated. These measures should prevent , an immense
[intensifier]/fair [detensifier] increase in new diabetics
in the next fifteen years.
Dr. Arianne van den Hark, a diabetes specialist at the
UMCG warns for the domino effect that can be caused
by diabetes: “Besides fatigue and returning infections,
diabetes can lead to many other illnesses such as heart
and vascular diseases, and a reduction of eyes and
kidneys. When the Netherlands continues to invest in the
search for effective measures to stimulate healthy
nutrition and plenty of physical exercise, diabetes, along
with obesity and inactivity, will definitely
[intensifier]/probably [detensifier] be prevented.
Note. English translation from original Dutch; intensifiers marked in bold and italics, framing manipulation
underlined
