Patrick Haack untersucht in seiner politikwissenschaftlichen Diplomarbeit den Einfluss des Textframings auf politische Einstellungen zu einer fiktiven Ausweitung des Libanon-Einsatzes der Bundeswehr auf die syrisch-libanesische Grenze. Aufgrund einer quantitativen Inhaltanalyse der Bundestagsdebatte zum Libanon-Einsatz identifiziert er zunächst zwei grundlegende Frames (Verantwortungs- und Risiko-Frame) die jeweils von Befürwortern und Gegnern des Bundeswehr-Einsatzes ins Spiel gebracht werden. Der Autor verwendet diese Frames schließlich um drei Versionen eines fiktiven Zeitungsartikels (pro, contra und neutral) zu konstruieren und in einer experimentellen Studie deren Einfluss auf die Meinungsbildung der Probanden zu untersuchen.
Die Analyse und Auswertung der Antworten mit Hilfe von linearen und logistischen Regressionstechniken bestätigt die zentrale Annahme dieser Arbeit: Der Einfluss von politischer Argumentation kann nur unter Einbeziehung individueller Merkmale der Bürger vollständig nachvollzogen werden. Im Vergleich zur neutralen Version reduziert der Risikoframe die Zustimmung zum Bundeswehreinsatz, wohingegen der Verantwortungsframe wirkungslos bleibt. Der Einfluss des Risikoframes ist jedoch abhängig vom individuellen Vorwissen und den politischen Prädispositionen der Probanden. Je besser sie über deutsche Außenpolitik informiert sind, umso eher erweist sich der Risikoframe als wirkungslos. Inkongruenz zu politischen Prädispositionen erhöht hingegen die Wirkungsweise des Risikoframes. Darüber hinaus ergibt die Modellierung eines dreifachen Interaktionseffekts, dass die Wirksamkeit des Verantwortungsframes bei gegebener dispositiver Kongruenz positiv vom Grad des politischen Vorwissens abhängt.
In inhaltlicher Hinsicht liefert die Arbeit eine experimentelle Bestätigung der militärischen Opfer-Aversion in Deutschland und knüpft an die wachsende Literatur des „Body-Bag-Effect“ an. Jedoch zeigt sich, dass die Sichtweise einer manipulierbaren Bevölkerung zu vereinfachend ist, da sie unter bestimmten Umständen die ihr offerierten Begründungsmuster mit ihren Prädispositionen in Einklang bringen und sie als Heuristiken zur politischen Willensbildung benutzen kann. Indem diese Diplomarbeit das Framingkonzept vor dem Hintergrund einer interaktiven Sichtweise verfeinert, setzt sie in theoretischer und methodologischer Hinsicht jüngste Vorschläge der politischen Kommunikationsliteratur um.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 Theory and Preliminary Analysis
2.1 The Rationale of Talking Intervention
2.1.1 The Discourse on Intervention as Frame Contest
2.1.2 Framing and the Banality of the Body-Bag Hypothesis
2.1.3 Rethinking the Role of the Media
2.1.4 The Need for a Psychology of Discourse
2.2 Towards an Interactionist Perspective of Framing
2.2.1 Framing – Still a Messy Paradigm
2.2.2 Framing as Manipulation
2.2.3 Framing as Interaction
2.2.4 The Notion of Frame Congruence
2.2.5 The Salience of Political Sophistication
2.2.6 Testing Foreign Policy Frames – So Far
2.2.7 Summary
2.3 The German Experience of Talking Intervention
2.3.1 The Changing Conception of German Foreign Policy
2.3.2 A Case in a Point: The Debate on the Lebanon Mission
2.3.3 Risk versus Responsibility Framing
2.3.4 Testing the Frame-Attitude Connection: Hypotheses
2.3.5 Summary
3 Data and Methods
3.1 Survey Design and Variables
3.1.1 Structure and Procedure of the Survey Experiment
3.1.2 First Part: Measuring of Independent Variables
3.1.3 Second Part: Newspaper Article
3.1.4 Third Part: Measuring of Dependent Variables
3.1.5 Summary
3.2 Data Screening and Sample Characteristics
3.2.1 Cleaning up the Act
3.2.2 Sample Characteristics
3.2.3 Summary
3.3 Statistical Analysis
3.3.1 Estimation Strategies
3.3.2 Analysis of Interactions
3.3.3 Summary
4 Findings
4.1 Findings for Support
4.1.1 Descriptive Statistics
4.1.2 Inferential Statistics
4.1.3 Summary
4.2 Findings for Overall Opinion
4.2.1 Descriptive Statistics
4.2.2 Inferential Statistics
4.2.3 Summary
4.3 Discussion
4.3.1 Control Variables – in Brief
4.3.2 Risk Outperforming Responsibility
4.3.3 Surprises for Frame Congruence and Political Sophistication
4.3.4 The Competent Citizen?
4.3.5 Practical Relevance of the Findings
4.3.6 A Very Last Word on Theory
5 Conclusion
Research Objective and Core Themes
This thesis investigates how political discourse, specifically "interventionist talking," influences individual attitudes toward German foreign military assignments. The central research question examines whether the persuasiveness of different frames—specifically "responsibility" versus "risk" frames—is conditional upon individual characteristics such as political knowledge (sophistication) and existing political predispositions.
- The role of "frame contests" in democratic foreign policy discourse.
- The influence of "responsibility framing" vs. "risk framing" on public approval.
- The interaction between political sophistication and framing sensitivity.
- The concept of "frame congruence" as a determinant of public persuasion.
- The empirical investigation of the "body-bag effect" within the German context.
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.1 The Discourse on Intervention as Frame Contest
I substantiate and objectify the contention that discourse matters by means of the framing concept, borrowed from the psychological and political communication literature. Framing refers to the definition and remedy of a decision problem and mirrors the strategic construction of political discourse. To be precise, I employ a classical framing definition put forward by Entman: “To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation” (1993, 52). This definition satisfies the political debate on foreign assignments as it captures changes in the problem definition (we witness a humanitarian disaster), causal interpretation (something or somebody can be blamed), moral evaluation (we are responsible to act), and/or treatment recommendation (we ought to intervene).
In most democracies political debates about military assignments can be conceived as a frame contest where proponents and adversaries of intervention battle for audience attention by disseminating two alternative narratives or moral evaluations of a particular military assignment. On the one hand, proponents of interventions highlight the moral obligation to act on behalf of the “international community” of “civilized” states to receive public support. The invocation of moral values is a powerful weapon in the persuader’s arsenal and has been found to constitute a strong and pervasive factor on public opinion (Zaller, 1992, 23) and provide recipients an important cue to attach their general attitudes and beliefs to a more specific policy (i.e. intervention). On the other hand, adversaries of intervention will put together an alternative narrative that potentially possesses as much strength and resonance with the target audience as the humanitarian frame. Instead of appealing to cosmopolitan principles, they will emphasize specific risks and uncertainties associated with foreign assignments, aimed at intensifying public skepticism and concerns.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Introduces the shift in German foreign policy toward multilateral military commitments and establishes the study's goal to analyze the discursive impact of interventionist rhetoric on public attitudes.
2 Theory and Preliminary Analysis: Examines the framing literature, proposes an interactionist perspective, and identifies two core "frames" (responsibility vs. risk) found in the German parliamentary debate regarding the Lebanon mission.
3 Data and Methods: Details the design of a survey experiment conducted among students at the University of Konstanz to test the hypotheses derived in the theoretical section.
4 Findings: Presents the statistical results from linear and logistic regression analyses, demonstrating that while risk framing is generally influential, its impact is significantly moderated by political sophistication and predisposition.
5 Conclusion: Summarizes the thesis, highlighting that the impact of interventionist rhetoric is not uniform but contingent on individual cognitive and dispositional factors.
Keywords
Foreign Policy, Framing, Interactionist Perspective, Political Sophistication, Political Predisposition, Lebanon Mission, Bundeswehr, Responsibility Framing, Risk Framing, Body-Bag Effect, Frame Congruence, Public Opinion, Germany, Survey Experiment, Discourse Analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this thesis?
The thesis explores how political leaders "talk intervention" to gain public support for military missions and investigates the psychological mechanisms that determine whether citizens accept or reject these rhetorical arguments.
What are the primary themes addressed in the work?
The work centers on the interplay between political communication (framing), individual audience characteristics (political knowledge and predispositions), and public approval of foreign military operations.
What is the central research question?
The research asks if political discourse, specifically through emphasis framing, can influence individual attitudes, and whether this influence is conditional upon a citizen's level of political sophistication and their pre-existing political leanings.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a mixed-method approach: a qualitative and quantitative content analysis of German parliamentary debates, followed by a controlled survey experiment with students to test the influence of different "frames" on opinion.
What topics are discussed in the main body?
The main body treats theoretical frameworks of framing (manipulation vs. interaction), analyzes the German legislative discourse on the Lebanon mission, and reports the statistical findings of a survey experiment testing these dynamics.
Which keywords best describe the research?
Key terms include Foreign Policy, Framing, Political Sophistication, Political Predisposition, and the Body-Bag Effect, highlighting the thesis's focus on political psychology and international relations.
How do "risk" and "responsibility" frames differ?
Responsibility frames emphasize moral duties and global humanitarian obligations to justify action, whereas risk frames prioritize the potential dangers, costs, and loss of human life to justify caution or non-intervention.
Does political sophistication always increase susceptibility to framing?
No, the study reveals that higher political sophistication often acts as a counterweight, allowing citizens to reject framing attempts that conflict with their established political principles, particularly in the case of risk-averse framing.
- Quote paper
- Patrick Haack (Author), 2007, 'Talking Intervention' - attitudes towards German Foreign Policy and the conditional influence of emphasis frames, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/80560
