Complementary and competitive framing of driverless cars: framing effects, attitude volatility, or attitude resistance?

Abstract

This study answers two research questions regarding framing theory. First, what happens when frames are challenged? Second, how resistant are the opinions that initial frames induce? 1,006 participants completed an online experiment where they were randomly assigned to first view a blog post with either complementary or competitive framing on driverless cars. Participants also viewed a blog post that challenged the stance of the first blog post. Results revealed that complementary frames polarized opinions, while competitive frames neutralized framing effects. Competitive frames induced more resistant opinions than complementary frames did. Attitude and support were susceptible to new, antagonistic information. This study concludes that framing effects are ephemeral and easily challenged by different information. Media coverage of controversial issues from technology trends like driverless cars to political issues like elections are often multi-faceted, showing both complementary and competing frames of such issues. The framing literature has extensively examined how exposure to a single frame can shape attitudes (Cacciatore, Scheufele, & Iyengar, 2016), without considerations for how simultaneous exposure to two or more frames might shape attitudes (e.g., Borah, 2011). Even fewer studies have explored how exposure to different, competing information would alter attitudes (de Vreese, 2012). To realistically reflect the contemporary media environment, it is important to examine the effects of complementary and competing frames on public opinion. According to de Vreese (2012), an important question in framing studies require an answer: what happens when frames are challenged? Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Shirley S. Ho, Wee Kim Wee School of Communications and Information, Nanyang Technological University, 31 Nanyang Link, Singapore 637718, Singapore. E-mail: tsyho@ntu.edu.sg International Journal of Public Opinion Research VC The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edab001 D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /ijpor/advance-arti.1093/ijpor/edab001/6134888 by N TU Lrary user on 04 M arch 2021 This study aims to answer the question by examining how complementary and competitive frames might shape opinions. Considering the abundance of information online, exposing participants to two emphases frames simultaneously emulates a more realistic situation compared with exposing participants to only one frame. Another major question in framing research pertains to: how durable are framing effects? (Baden & Lecheler, 2012). Although most studies attempt to answer this question by testing how long framing effects persist in a longitudinal sense (e.g., Chong & Druckman, 2012; Lecheler & de Vreese, 2011), this study interprets this question as whether framing effects can persist in the face of different information. To answer this question, this study exposes participants to a second stimulus that presents different information to participants to explore how opinions will change when challenged. Specifically, applying framing theory and cognitive dissonance theory, this study examines framing effects and the durability of these effects caused by the different types of frames on attitudes toward driverless cars and support for driverless cars. Further, as the theory of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) posits that individuals with formed opinions might ignore different information that contradicts their current beliefs, this may make framing effects very durable. Alternatively, individuals might ignore existing beliefs in the face of different information, hence making framing effects ephemeral. This study uses the context of driverless cars in Singapore to examine framing effects. Policymakers and scientists have forecasted that the widespread use of driverless vehicles can reduce traffic accidents by eliminating human error (Miles, 2018) and alleviating traffic congestion (Autonomous Vehicles, 2019). Further, driverless vehicles are more efficient in fuel consumption which helps to protect the environment (Worland, 2016). However, driverless cars may also eliminate delivery jobs and fail to react spontaneously to unexpected events (Miles, 2018). The presence of supportive and opposing arguments for driverless cars makes it a suitable context for framing studies. It is also timely to examine the different strategies to communicate about driverless cars to the Singapore public. From year 2022, three areas in Singapore will be ready to include driverless vehicles as a daily commuting option (Lim, 2017). In 10–15 years, the Singapore government expects self-driving technology to be ready for widespread application (Cheah, 2017). Hence, this study will provide insights on the best practices that stakeholders can employ to communicate about driverless cars to the public. Studying both attitude and support allows this study to evaluate the degree to which framing can shape opinions. According to the hierarchy of effects, there are three categories of behavior in increasing levels of involvement (Chen & Yang, 2008). The first category with the lowest level of involvement is the cognitive phase, where individuals gain awareness and knowledge of an issue. The second category with a moderate level of involvement is the affective phase, where individuals decide if they like or dislike a product or an issue. The third category with the highest level of involvement is the conative phase, where individuals have a desire to perform a behavior or to carry out an actual behavior. Attitude and support belong to different phases and indicate different levels of involvement. An attitude is an evaluation of an issue (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) that motivates behavior (Fazio, 1990). Attitudes are either positive or negative (Ajzen, 1991), representing overall like or dislike of an issue. On the other hand, support requires considerations beyond whether individuals like or dislike an issue as support contains behavioral elements (Dreyer, Polis, & Jenkins, 2017). Attitudes are classified under the affective 2 I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H D ow naded rom http/academ ic.p.com /ijpor/advance-arti.1093/ijpor/edab001/6134888 by N TU Lrary user on 04 M arch 2021 phase, which represents a moderate level of involvement; support is categorized under the conative phase (Palda, 1966). Overall, support indicates a higher level of involvement than attitudes, as seen by how attitudes are considered a precursor of support (Prayag, Hosany, Nunkoo, & Alders, 2013). Hence, even if framing effects can shape attitudes, these effects might not be strong enough to shift support. Indeed, scholars have called for future studies to delineate attitude and support when examining framing effects (Detenber, Ho, Ong, & Lim, 2018). Nonetheless, some scholars argue that support is a type of attitudinal outcome, as individuals can support an issue without acting on it (e.g., Whitmarsh, 2009). Hence, another objective of this study is to compare whether framing affects attitudes and support differently. Complementary and Competitive Framing Framing refers to selecting some aspects of an issue and making these aspects more salient in society (Entman, 1993). Framing is a communication technique that occurs naturally—when informing the public about an issue, communicators often need to present selected aspects of an issue or highlight certain aspects over others. Frames highlight the essence of an issue (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989) and guide individuals’ orientations and conceptualizations of an issue (Chong & Druckman, 2007). Each frame comprises a frame emphasis and a frame direction. A frame emphasis refers to the aspect of an issue being discussed or highlighted (Detenber et al., 2018). Frame direction refers to the stance toward the issue that the frame adopts. Frame directions can be positive or negative, with positive frame being supportive of an issue and negative frames being antagonistic of an issue. Framing studies that exposed participants to a single frame revealed that positive frames improved attitude and support for an issue, whereas negative frames worsened attitude and support for an issue (Lecheler & de Vreese, 2011). These findings suggest that exposure to a single frame can successfully sway opinion of an issue. However, to reflect reality, framing studies should examine how simultaneous exposure to more than one frame might shape attitude and support (Nisbet, Hart, Myers, & Ellithorpe, 2013), especially in the age of the Internet. Most people turn to online sources as their first and main information source (Ho, Leong, Looi, & Chuah, 2019). Without the space restrictions that used to constrain traditional media sources (Wilding, Fray, Molitorisz, & McKewon, 2018), online sources can simultaneously expose individuals to multiple frames. Unfortunately, relatively few studies have explored how simultaneous exposure to multiple frames shapes attitudes (Borah, 2011; Chong & Druckman, 2007). When there is more than one frame in a single exposure, frames can be either complementary or competing (Wise & Brewer, 2010). Complementary frames have different frame emphases but have the same frame direction. That is, complementary frames involve using two or more aspects of an issue to present only reasons to support or reasons to oppose an issue (Wise & Brewer, 2010). On the other hand, competitive frames can have the same or different frame emphases, but the frames have different frame directions (Wise & Brewer, 2010). Competitive frames present one or more aspects of an issue, and one frame might be positive, whereas the other is negative. When viewing competitive frames, individuals view reasons to both support and oppose an issue. 3 COMPLEMENTARY AND COMPETITIVE FRAMI