https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/issue/feed DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis 2022-11-29T20:45:46+01:00 Franziska Oehmer mfg@ikmz.uzh.ch Open Journal Systems <p>DOCA is a database that presents and discusses content analytical constructs and their operationalizations.</p> https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/1c Frames (Automated Content Analysis) 2020-07-10T15:01:59+02:00 Valerie Hase v.hase@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>Frames describe the way issues are presented, i.e., what aspects are made salient when communicating about these issues.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>The concept of frames is directly based on the theory of “<u>Framing</u>”. However, many studies using automated content analysis are lacking a clear theoretical definition of what constitutes a frame. As an exception, Walter and Ophir (2019) use automated content analysis to explore issue and strategy frames as defined by Cappella and Jamieson (1997). Vu and Lynn (2020) refer to Entman’s (1991) understanding of frames.</p> <p>The datasets referred to in the table are described in the following paragraph:</p> <p>Van der Meer et al. (2010) use a dataset consisting of Dutch newspaper articles (1991-2015, N = 9,443) and LDA topic modeling in combination with k-means clustering to identify frames. Walter and Ophir (2019) use three different datasets and a combination of topic modeling, network analysis and community detection algorithms to analyze frames. Their datasets consist of political newspaper articles and wire service coverage (N = 8,337), newspaper articles on foreign nations (2010-2015, N = 18,216) and health-related newspaper coverage (2009-2016, N = 5,005). Lastly, Vu and Lynn (2020) analyze newspaper coverage of the Rohingya crisis (2017-2018, N = 747) concerning frames.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>While most approaches only rely on automated data collection and analyses, some also combine automated and manual coding. For example, a recent study by Vu and Lynn (2020) proposes to combine semantic networks and manual coding to identify frames.</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Measurement of “Frames” using automated content analysis.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="106%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Procedure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Formal validity check with manual coding as benchmark*</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Code </strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Vu &amp; Lynn (2020)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Semantic networks; manual coding</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>van der Meer et al.</p> <p>(2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>LDA topic modeling; k-means clustering</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Walter &amp; Ophir</p> <p>(2019)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>(a) U.S. newspapers and wire service articles</p> <p>(b) Newspaper articles</p> <p>(c) Newspaper articles</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>LDA topic modeling, network analysis; community detection algorithms</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><a href="https://github.com/DrorWalt/ANTMN">https://github.com/DrorWalt/ANTMN</a></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p>*<em>Please note that many of the sources listed here are tutorials on how to conducted automated analyses – and therefore not focused on the validation of results. Readers should simply read this column as an indication in terms of which sources they can refer to if they are interested in the validation of results.</em></p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Cappella, J. N., &amp; Jamieson, K. H. (1997). <em>Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good</em>. New York: Oxford University Press.</p> <p>Entman, R. M. 1991. Framing U.S. coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. <em>Journal of Communication</em>, 41(4), 6-7.</p> <p>van der Meer, T. G. L. A., Kroon, A. C., Verhoeven, P., &amp; Jonkman, J. (2019). Mediatization and the disproportionate attention to negative news: The case of airplane crashes. <em>Journalism Studies</em>, <em>20</em>(6), 783–803.</p> <p>Walter, D., &amp; Ophir, Y. (2019). News frame analysis: an inductive mixed-method computational approach. <em>Communication Methods and Measures</em>, <em>13</em>(4), 248–266.</p> <p>Vu, H. T., &amp; Lynn, N. (2020). When the news takes sides: Automated framing analysis of news coverage of the rohingya crisis by the elite press from three countries. <em>Journalism Studies</em>. Online first publication. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2020.1745665</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/1b Actors (Automated Content Analysis) 2020-07-10T15:00:52+02:00 Valerie Hase v.hase@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>Actors in coverage might be individuals, groups, or organizations, which are discussed, described, or quoted in the news.</p> <p>The datasets referred to in the table are described in the following paragraph:</p> <p>Benoit and Matuso (2020) uses fictional sentences (N = 5) to demonstrate how named entities and noun phrases can be identified automatically. Lind and Meltzer (2020) demonstrate the use of organic dictionaries to identify actors in German newspaper articles (2013-2017, N = 348,785). Puschmann (2019) uses four data sets to demonstrate how sentiment/tone may be analyzed by the computer. Using tweets (2016, N = 18,826), German newspaper articles (2011-2016, N = 377), Swiss newspaper articles (2007-2012, N = 21,280), and debate transcripts (1970-2017, N = 7,897), he extracts nouns and named entities from text. Lastly, Wiedemann and Niekler (2017) extract proper nouns from State of the Union speeches (1790-2017, N = 233).</p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em> </strong></p> <p>Related to theories of “<u>Agenda Setting</u>” and “<u>Framing</u>”, analyses might want to know how much weight is given to a specific actor, how these actors are evaluated and what perspectives and frames they might bring into the discussion how prominently.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Oftentimes, studies use both manual and automated content analysis to identify actors in text. This might be a useful tool to extend the lists of actors that can be found as well as to validate automated analyses. For example, Lind and Meltzer (2020) combine manual coding and dictionaries to identify the salience of women in the news.</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Measurement of “Actors” using automated content analysis.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Procedure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Formal validity check with manual coding as benchmark*</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Code </strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Benoit &amp; Matuso (2020)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Fictional sentences</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Part-of-Speech tagging; syntactic parsing</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spacyr/vignettes/using_spacyr.html">https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spacyr/vignettes/using_spacyr.html</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Lind &amp; Meltzer</p> <p>(2020)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Newspapers</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Dictionary approach</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://osf.io/yqbcj/?view_only=369e2004172b43bb91a39b536970e50b">https://osf.io/yqbcj/?view_only=369e2004172b43bb91a39b536970e50b</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Puschmann (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>(a) Tweets</p> <p>(b) German newspaper articles</p> <p>(c) Swiss newspaper articles</p> <p>(d) United Nations General Debate Transcripts</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Part-of-Speech tagging; syntactic parsing</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/ner.html">http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/ner.html</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Wiedemann &amp; Niekler (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>State of the Union speeches</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Part-of-Speech tagging</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><a href="https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/Tutorial_8_NER_POS.html">https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/Tutorial_8_NER_POS.html</a></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <div>*<em>Please note that many of the sources listed here are tutorials on how to conducted automated analyses – and therefore not focused on the validation of results. Readers should simply read this column as an indication in terms of which sources they can refer to if they are interested in the validation of results.</em></div> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Benoit, K., &amp; Matuso. (2020). <em>A Guide to Using spacyr</em>. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/spacyr/vignettes/using_spacyr.html</p> <p>Lind, F., &amp; Meltzer, C. E. (2020). Now you see me, now you don’t: Applying automated content analysis to track migrant women’s salience in German news. <em>Feminist Media Studies</em>, 1–18.</p> <p>Puschmann, C. (2019). <em>Automatisierte Inhaltsanalyse mit R</em>. Retrieved from http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/index.html</p> <p>Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A. (2017). <em>Hands-on: a five day text mining course for humanists and social scientists in R</em>. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop Teaching NLP for Digital Humanities (Teach4DH@GSCL 2017), Berlin. Retrieved from https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/index.html</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/1d Sentiment/tone (Automated Content Analysis) 2020-07-23T14:01:02+02:00 Valerie Hase v.hase@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>Sentiment/tone describes the way issues or specific actors are described in coverage. Many analyses differentiate between negative, neutral/balanced or positive sentiment/tone as broader categories, but analyses might also measure expressions of incivility, fear, or happiness, for example, as more granular types of sentiment/tone. Analyses can detect sentiment/tone in full texts (e.g., general sentiment in financial news) or concerning specific issues (e.g., specific sentiment towards the stock market in financial news or a specific actor).</p> <p>The datasets referred to in the table are described in the following paragraph:</p> <p>Puschmann (2019) uses four data sets to demonstrate how sentiment/tone may be analyzed by the computer. Using Sherlock Holmes stories (18th century, N = 12), tweets (2016, N = 18,826), Swiss newspaper articles (2007-2012, N = 21,280), and debate transcripts (2013-2017, N = 205,584), he illustrates how dictionaries may be applied for such a task. Rauh (2019) uses three data sets to validate his organic German language dictionary for sentiment/tone. His data consists of sentences from German parliament speeches (1991-2013, N = 1,500), German-language quasi-sentences from German, Austrian and Swiss party manifestos (1998-2013, N = 14,008) and newspaper, journal and news wire articles (2011-2012, N = 4,038). Silge and Robinson (2020) use six Jane Austen novels to demonstrate how dictionaries may be used for sentiment analysis. Van Atteveldt and Welbers (2020) use state of the Union speeches (1789-2017, N = 58) for the same purpose. The same authors (van Atteveldt &amp; Welbers, 2019) show based on a dataset of N = 2,000 movie reviews how supervised machine learning might also do the trick. In their Quanteda tutorials, Watanabe and Müller (2019) demonstrate the use of dictionaries and supervised machine learning for sentiment analysis on UK newspaper articles (2012-2016, N = 6,000) as well as the same set of movie reviews (n = 2,000). Lastly, Wiedemann and Niekler (2017) use state of the Union speeches (1790-2017, N = 233) to demonstrate how sentiment/tone can be coded automatically via a dictionary approach.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Related to theories of “<u>Framing</u>” and “<u>Bias</u>” in coverage, many analyses are concerned with the way the news evaluates and interprets specific issues and actors.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Manual coding is needed for many automated analyses, including the ones concerned with sentiment. Studies for example use manual content analysis to develop dictionaries, to create training sets on which algorithms used for automated classification are trained, or to validate the results of automated analyses (Song et al., 2020).</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Measurement of “Sentiment/Tone” using automated content analysis.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Procedure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Formal validity check with manual coding as benchmark*</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Code </strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Puschmann (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>(a) Sherlock Holmes stories</p> <p>(b) Tweets</p> <p>(c) Swiss newspaper articles</p> <p>(d) German Parliament transcripts</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Dictionary approach</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/sentiment.html">http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/sentiment.html</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Rauh (2018)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>(a) Bundestag speeches</p> <p>(b) Quasi-sentences from German, Austrian and Swiss party manifestos</p> <p>(c) Newspapers, journals, agency reports</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Dictionary approach</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/BKBXWD">https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/BKBXWD</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Silge &amp; Robinson (2020)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Books by Jane Austen</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Dictionary approach</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://www.tidytextmining.com/sentiment.html">https://www.tidytextmining.com/sentiment.html</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>van Atteveldt &amp; Welbers (2020)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>State of the Union speeches</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Dictionary approach</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/sentiment_analysis.md">https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/sentiment_analysis.md</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>van Atteveldt &amp; Welbers</p> <p>(2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Movie reviews</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Supervised Machine Learning Approach</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/r_text_ml.md">https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/r_text_ml.md</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Watanabe &amp; Müller (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Dictionary approach</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://tutorials.quanteda.io/advanced-operations/targeted-dictionary-analysis/">https://tutorials.quanteda.io/advanced-operations/targeted-dictionary-analysis/</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Watanabe &amp; Müller (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Movie reviews</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Supervised Machine Learning Approach</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://tutorials.quanteda.io/machine-learning/nb/">https://tutorials.quanteda.io/machine-learning/nb/</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Wiedemann &amp; Niekler (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>State of the Union speeches</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Dictionary approach</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><a href="https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/Tutorial_3_Frequency.html">https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/Tutorial_3_Frequency.html</a></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p>*<em>Please note that many of the sources listed here are tutorials on how to conducted automated analyses – and therefore not focused on the validation of results. Readers should simply read this column as an indication in terms of which sources they can refer to if they are interested in the validation of results.</em></p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Puschmann, C. (2019). <em>Automatisierte Inhaltsanalyse mit R</em>. Retrieved from http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/index.html</p> <p>Rauh, C. (2018). Validating a sentiment dictionary for German political language—A workbench note. <em>Journal of Information Technology &amp; Politics</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 319–343. doi:10.1080/19331681.2018.1485608</p> <p>Silge, J., &amp; Robinson, D. (2020). <em>Text mining with R. A tidy approach.</em> Retrieved from <a href="https://www.tidytextmining.com/">https://www.tidytextmining.com/</a></p> <p>Song, H., Tolochko, P., Eberl, J.-M., Eisele, O., Greussing, E., Heidenreich, T., Lind, F., Galyga, S., &amp; Boomgaarden, H.G. (2020) In validations we trust? The impact of imperfect human annotations as a gold standard on the quality of validation of automated content analysis. <em>Political Communication, 37</em>(4), 550-572.</p> <p>van Atteveldt, W., &amp; Welbers, K. (2019). <em>Supervised Text Classification</em>. Retrieved from https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/r_text_ml.md</p> <p>van Atteveldt, W., &amp; Welbers, K. (2020). <em>Supervised Sentiment Analysis in R</em>. Retrieved from https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/sentiment_analysis.md</p> <p>Watanabe, K., &amp; Müller, S. (2019). <em>Quanteda tutorials</em>. Retrieved from https://tutorials.quanteda.io/</p> <p>Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A. (2017). <em>Hands-on: a five day text mining course for humanists and social scientists in R</em>. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop Teaching NLP for Digital Humanities (Teach4DH@GSCL 2017), Berlin. Retrieved from https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/index.html</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/1e Topics (Automated Content Analysis) 2020-07-10T15:03:50+02:00 Valerie Hase v.hase@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>Topics describe the main issue discussed in an article, for example: Does an article deal with politics, economics or sports?</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>In the context of “<u>Agenda Setting</u>”, studies analyze which issues are on the public agenda. In the context of “<u>News Values</u>”, studies may analyze why some topics are more prominently covered than others.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Many studies combine manual inspection of topics with their automated detection. Quinn et al. (2010) demonstrate for their analyses of legislative speeches how manual inspection may increase the validity of results. Similarly, Hase et al. (2020) use automated content analysis to find and map similar topics for which manual coding is then conducted. Such combinations may contribute to a better and more detailed understanding of topics than automated analyses by themselves.</p> <p>The datasets referred to in the table are described in the following paragraph:</p> <p>Puschmann (2019a) uses <em>New York Times</em> articles (1996-2006, N = 30,862) as well as articles from <em>Die Zeit</em> (2011-2016, N = 377) to identify topics using supervised machine learning. In another tutorial, Puschmann (2019b) uses Sherlock Holmes stories (18<sup>th</sup> century, N = 12), articles from <em>Die Zeit</em> (2011-2016, N = 377) and debate transcripts (1970-2017, N = 7,897) to apply LDA and structural topic modeling. In her tutorials, Silge (2018a, 2018b) also uses Sherlock Holmes stories (18<sup>th</sup> century, N = 12) and a news corpus also containing comments (2006-ongoing, N = 100,000). Silge and Robinson (2020) apply LDA topic modeling on news stories by the <em>Associated Press</em> (1992, N = 2,246) as well as books by Dickens, Wells, Verne and Austen (18<sup>th</sup> century, N = 4). Roberts et al. (2019) use blogposts (2008, N = 13,248) for structural topic modeling. Watanabe and Müller (2019) apply LDA topic modeling on newspaper articles from <em>The </em>G<em>uardian</em> (2016, N = 6,000). Van Atteveldt and Welbers (2019, 2020) use State of the Union speeches (1981-2017, N = 10 and 1789-2017, N = 58) for their analyses. Lastly, Wiedemann and Niekler (2017) use the same data containing State of the Union speeches (1790-2017, N = 223).</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Measurement of “Topics” using automated content analysis.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="102%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Procedure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Formal validity check with manual coding as benchmark*</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Code </strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Puschmann (2019a)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>(a) Newspaper articles</p> <p>(b) Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Supervised machine learning</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/maschinelles_lernen.html">http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/maschinelles_lernen.html</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Puschmann (2019b)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>(a) Sherlock Holmes stories</p> <p>(b) Newspaper articles</p> <p>(c) United Nations General Debate Transcripts</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>LDA topic modeling; structural topic modeling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/themenmodelle.html">http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/themenmodelle.html</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Silge (2018a) &amp; Silge (2018b)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>(a) Sherlock Holmes stories</p> <p>(b) News stories and comments</p> </td> <td class="">t <p>Structural topic modeling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://juliasilge.com/blog/sherlock-holmes-stm/">https://juliasilge.com/blog/sherlock-holmes-stm/</a> &amp; <a href="https://juliasilge.com/blog/evaluating-stm/">https://juliasilge.com/blog/evaluating-stm/</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Silge &amp; Robinson</p> <p>(2020)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>(a) News articles</p> <p>(b) Books</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>LDA topic modeling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://www.tidytextmining.com/topicmodeling.html">https://www.tidytextmining.com/topicmodeling.html</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Roberts et al.</p> <p>(2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Blogposts</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Structural topic modeling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v091i02">https://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v091i02</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Watanabe &amp; Müller</p> <p>(2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>LDA topic modeling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://tutorials.quanteda.io/machine-learning/topicmodel/">https://tutorials.quanteda.io/machine-learning/topicmodel/</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>van Atteveldt &amp; Welbers</p> <p>(2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>State of the Union speeches</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Structural topic modeling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/r_text_stm.md">https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/r_text_stm.md</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>van Atteveldt &amp; Welbers</p> <p>(2020)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>State of the Union speeches</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>LDA topic modeling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/r_text_lda.md">https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/r_text_lda.md</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Wiedemann &amp; Niekler (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>State of the Union speeches</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>LDA topic modeling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><a href="https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/Tutorial_6_Topic_Models.html">https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/Tutorial_6_Topic_Models.html</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Wiedemann &amp; Niekler (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>State of the Union speeches</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Supervised machine learning</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Reported</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><a href="https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/Tutorial_7_Klassifikation.html">https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/Tutorial_7_Klassifikation.html</a></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p>*<em>Please note that many of the sources listed here are tutorials on how to conducted automated analyses – and therefore not focused on the validation of results. Readers should simply read this column as an indication in terms of which sources they can refer to if they are interested in the validation of results.</em></p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Hase, V., Engelke, K., Kieslich, K. (2020). The things we fear. Combining automated and manual content analysis to uncover themes, topics and threats in fear-related news. <em>Journalism Studies, 21</em>(10), 1384-1402.</p> <p>Puschmann, C. (2019). <em>Automatisierte Inhaltsanalyse mit R</em>. Retrieved from http://inhaltsanalyse-mit-r.de/index.html</p> <p>Quinn, K. M., Monroe, B. L., Colaresi, M., Crespin, M. H., &amp; Radev, D. R. (2010). How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. <em>American Journal of Political Science</em>, <em>54</em>(1), 209–228.</p> <p>Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., &amp; Tingley, D. (2019). stm: An R Package for Structural Topic Model. <em>Journal of Statistical Software</em>, <em>91</em>(2), 1–40.</p> <p>Silge, J. (2018a). <em>The game is afoot! Topic modeling of Sherlock Holmes stories</em>. Retrieved from https://juliasilge.com/blog/sherlock-holmes-stm/</p> <p>Silge, J. (2018b). <em>Training, evaluating, and interpreting topic models</em>. Retrieved from https://juliasilge.com/blog/evaluating-stm/</p> <p>Silge, J., &amp; Robinson, D. (2020). <em>Text Mining with R. A tidy approach.</em> Retrieved from https://www.tidytextmining.com/</p> <p>van Atteveldt, W., &amp; Welbers, K. (2019). <em>Structural Topic Modeling</em>. Retrieved from https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/r_text_stm.md</p> <p>van Atteveldt, W., &amp; Welbers, K. (2020). <em>Fitting LDA models in R</em>. Retrieved from https://github.com/ccs-amsterdam/r-course-material/blob/master/tutorials/r_text_lda.md</p> <p>Watanabe, K., &amp; Müller, S. (2019). <em>Quanteda tutorials</em>. Retrieved from https://tutorials.quanteda.io/</p> <p>Wiedemann, G., Niekler, A. (2017). <em>Hands-on: a five day text mining course for humanists and social scientists in R</em>. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop Teaching NLP for Digital Humanities (Teach4DH@GSCL 2017), Berlin. Retrieved from https://tm4ss.github.io/docs/index.html</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4a Political issues (Self-Presentation of Political Actors) 2020-07-23T14:07:08+02:00 Sina Blassnig s.blassnig@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>Political issues, in general, focus on the content of political actors’ communication and most often describe either the main issue or several issues that are in the focus of a political actor’s statement or any other relevant text (e.g., press release, news article, tweet, etc.). The basic premise of analyzing political issues in the self-presentation of political actors is that one major goal of political actors’ communication is to place specific issues on the political agenda (Strömbäck &amp; Esser, 2017). Political issues are most often coded based on a list of pre-defined issues that refer to different policies and sometimes also to polity or politics. The scope and detail of the individual issues depend on the purpose and the focus of the analysis.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Apart from being a common descriptive and control variable, the coding of issues in political actors’ communication can serve as the basis for more complex variables or concepts such as <strong>agenda building</strong> or <strong>issue ownership</strong>.</p> <p><strong>Agenda building</strong>, at large, refers to the process of how media content is shaped by societal forces (Lang &amp; Lang, 1981). With regard to analyses of politicians’ self-presentation, most work focuses on the processes of communication by which political actors aim to obtain media coverage for <em>their</em> issues (Norris et al., 1999; Seethaler &amp; Melischek, 2019). Analyses on agenda building usually compare issue agendas between at least two different forms of communication, e.g., between channels where political actors have high control (such as press releases, party manifestos, social media messages) and journalistic outlets where political actors have less control (e.g., Harder et al., 2017; Kiousis et al., 2006; Seethaler &amp; Melischek, 2019).</p> <p>Content analyses on agenda building usually start by, first, identifying relevant issue fields and categories (inductively or deductively). Second, the dominant political issues in political actors’ communication and/or other forms of communication (e.g., news articles) are coded according to predefined lists. Third, the occurrence of specific issues or issue agendas are compared between the different forms of communication, often over time (see, e.g., Seethaler &amp; Melischek, 2019).</p> <p><strong>Issue ownership</strong>, in broad terms, means that some parties are considered by the public in general as being more adept to deal with, or more attentive to, certain issues (Lachat, 2014; Petrocik, 1996; Walgrave et al., 2015). Traditionally, issue ownership has been analyzed from a demand-side perspective, based on surveys, as the connection between issues and parties in voters’ minds. Definitions of issue ownership usually comprise at least two dimensions: competence issue ownership (parties’ perceived capacity to competently handle or solve a certain issue) and associative issue ownership (the spontaneous link between some parties and some issues) (Walgrave et al., 2015). Content analyses build on these definitions to investigate to what extent political actors focus on issues that they (respectively their parties) own and what factors may explain the (non-)reliance on owned issues (e.g., Dalmus et al., 2017; Peeters et al., 2019). Other content analyses use issue ownership as an independent variable, for example, to explain user reactions to parties’ social media messages (e.g., Staender et al., 2019).</p> <p>Content analyses on issue ownership usually start by, first, identifying relevant issue fields and categories (inductively or deductively). Second, the dominant political issues in political actors’ communication are coded according to predefined lists. Third, political actors are assigned issue ownership for specific issues based on theoretical considerations, existing literature, and/or survey data. Fourth, an index for owned issues is calculated at the statement or text level based on the coded issues and the predefined ownership for specific issues.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Political issues can be analyzed using both manual and automated content analysis (e.g. topic modeling or dictionary approach). Analyses use both inductive or deductive approaches and/or a combination of both to identify issue categories and extend or amend previous lists of political issues.</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Dalmus et al. (2019), Peeters et al. (2019); Seethaler &amp; Melischek (2019)</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1: Summary of a selection of studies on agenda building and/or issue ownership</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Unit of Analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Seethaler &amp; Melischek (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Content type:</em> parties’ news releases and tweets, media reports</p> <p><em>Country: </em>Austria</p> <p><em>Political actors:</em> all parliamentary parties (ÖVP, SPÖ, FPÖ, Grüne, NEOS, Liste Pilz)</p> <p><em>Outlets:</em> all party news releases, parties’ and top candidates’ twitter accounts, five legacy media outlets</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>6 weeks before the national election day in 2017 (4 September 2017–14 October 2017)</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>1,009 news releases, 9,088 tweets, 2,422 news stories</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Unit of analysis: </em>individual news releases, tweets, and news stories</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> issue agendas</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Dominant issue:</em> 13 issue areas based on the <a href="http://www.comparativeagendas.net/">Comparative Agendas Project</a>: civil rights, government operations, law and crime, international affairs and defence, European integration, macroeconomics, domestic commerce, transportation and technology, environment and agriculture, education, labour, social welfare and housing, health</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa between .91 and .95</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Harder, Sevenans, &amp; Van Aelst (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Content type:</em> newspaper, television, radio, news website, and Twitter items featuring a political topic, a domestic political actor, or an election-specific term</p> <p><em>Country:</em> Belgium</p> <p><em>(Political) actors: </em>tweets by 678 professional journalists, 44 accounts affiliated with legacy media organizations, 467 politicians, 19 civil society organizations, 109 “influentials”</p> <p><em>Outlets: </em>5 print newspapers, 3 news websites, 2 daily television newscasts, 6 daily radio newscasts, current affairs tv programs, and election-specific tv shows</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>Belgian 2014 election campaign (1 May to 24 May 2014)</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>n = 9,935</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Unit of analysis: </em>news items and tweets</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> news items (n = 5,260) / news stories (n = 414)</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Issues (up to three issues per item): </em>list of 28 broad issues based on the <a href="http://www.comparativeagendas.net/">Comparative Agendas Project</a></p> <p><em>Categorization of news stories: </em>inductive coding of individual time- and place-specific events based on news items from traditional news outlets. Non-news items and tweets were then assigned to the already-identified news stories</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Krippendorff’s alpha = .70</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p>Krippendorff’s alpha = .76 (for assigning news story to tweet)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Dalmus, Hänggli, Bernhard (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Content type:</em> party manifestos, party press releases, and newspaper coverage</p> <p><em>Countries: </em>CH, DE, FR, UK</p> <p><em>Political actors: </em>parties</p> <p><em>Outlets: </em>1 quality newspaper and 1 tabloid per country, all party press releases and manifestos</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>election campaigns between 2010 and 2013 (8 weeks prior to the respective election days)</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>4,191</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Unit of analysis: </em>Actor statements on issues concerning national politics and containing either an explicitly mentioned position or interpretation/ elaboration on the issue</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> text level</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Main issue:</em> Economy, Welfare, Budget, Freedom and Rights, Europe/ Globalization, Education, Immigration, Army, Security, Ecology, Institutional Reforms, Infrastructure, Elections and Events (each of these top-issue categories is made up of several more detailed sub-issues leading to a total of 127 issue options)</p> <p><em>Issue emphasis: </em>percentage of statements devoted to a certain issue</p> <p><em>Issue ownership: </em>issue fully belongs to one party (1), issue belongs to center-left / center-right parties (0.5), issue is unowned (0) (based on Seeberg, 2016; Tresch et al., 2017, for more details see the paper)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa ?.3 for sub-issues; Cohen’s Kappa ?.5 for top-issues</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Peeters, Van Aelst, &amp; Praet (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>Content type: </em>politicians’ tweets, online media coverage, and parliamentary documents</p> <p><em>Country:</em> Belgium (Flemish part)</p> <p><em>Political actors: </em>144 MPs from the 6 parties represented in the Flemish and federal parliament</p> <p><em>Outlets: </em>13 Flemish news outlets</p> <p><em>Sampling period:</em> 1 January to 1 September, 2018</p> <p><em>Sample size:</em> n = 51,691 tweets, n = 8,857 articles, n = 12,638 parliamentary documents</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>Unit of analysis: </em>text level</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> issue agendas</p> <p><em>Index for issue concentration: </em>Herfindahl index (to assess how diverse/ concentrated the individual issue agendas are across platforms)</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>Issues: </em>automated coding of 20 issue topics using the Dutch dictionary based on the <a href="http://www.comparativeagendas.net/">Comparative Agendas Project</a></p> <p><em>Issue ownership: </em>operationalization based on survey data; relative party ownership scores for each politician were assigned based on the percentage of respondents that linked a certain party with the topic</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>NA</em></p> <p>(A manual check on 200 randomly selected documents shows that a little over 70% of the automated non-codings were in fact non-classifiable documents. For the other 30%, the dictionary was not able to properly classify the documents.)</p> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Dalmus, C., Hänggli, R., &amp; Bernhard, L. (2017). The charm of salient issues? Parties’ strategic behavior in press releases. In P. van Aelst &amp; S. Walgrave (Eds.), <em>How Political Actors Use the Media: A Functional Analysis of the Media’s Role in Politics </em>(pp. 187–205). Springer International Publishing. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60249-3_10">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60249-3_10</a></p> <p>Harder, R. A., Sevenans, J., &amp; van Aelst, P. (2017). Intermedia Agenda Setting in the Social Media Age: How Traditional Players Dominate the News Agenda in Election Times. <em>The International Journal of Press/Politics</em>, <em>22</em>(3), 275–293. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217704969">https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217704969</a></p> <p>Kiousis, S., Mitrook, M., Wu, X., &amp; Seltzer, T. (2006). First- and Second-Level Agenda-Building and Agenda-Setting Effects: Exploring the Linkages Among Candidate News Releases, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion During the 2002 Florida Gubernatorial Election. <em>Journal of Public Relations Research</em>, <em>18</em>(3), 265–285. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1803_4">https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1803_4</a></p> <p>Lachat, R. (2014). Issue ownership and the vote: the effects of associative and competence ownership on issue voting. <em>Swiss Political Science Review</em>, 20(4), 727–740. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12121">https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12121</a></p> <p>Lang, G.E., &amp; Lang, K. (1981). Watergate: An exploration of the agenda-building process. In: Wilhoit, G.C., &amp; De Bock, H. (Eds.). <em>Mass Communication Review Yearbook</em>. SAGE, pp. 447–468.</p> <p>Norris, P., Curtice, J., Sanders, D., et al. (1999). <em>On Message: Communicating the Campaign</em>. SAGE.</p> <p>Peeters, J., van Aelst, P., &amp; Praet, S. (2019). Party ownership or individual specialization? A comparison of politicians’ individual issue attention across three different agendas. <em>Party Politics</em>, <em>55</em>(4), 135406881988163. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819881639">https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068819881639</a></p> <p>Petrocik, J.R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. <em>American Journal of Political Science, 40</em>(3), 825–850.</p> <p>Seeberg, H. B. (2017). How stable is political parties’ issue ownership? A cross-time, cross-national analysis. <em>Political Studies, 65</em>(2), 475–492. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716650224">https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716650224</a></p> <p>Seethaler, J., &amp; Melischek, G. (2019). Twitter as a tool for agenda building in election campaigns? The case of Austria. <em>Journalism</em>, <em>20</em>(8), 1087–1107. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919845460">https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884919845460</a></p> <p>Staender, A., Ernst, N., &amp; Steppat, D. (2019). Was steigert die Facebook-Resonanz? Eine Analyse der Likes, Shares und Comments im Schweizer Wahlkampf 2015. <em>SCM Studies in Communication and Media</em>, <em>8</em>(2), 236–271. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2019-2-236">https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2019-2-236</a></p> <p>Strömbäck, J., &amp; Esser, F. (2017). Political Public Relations and Mediatization: The Strategies of News Management. In P. van Aelst &amp; S. Walgrave (Eds.), How Political Actors Use the Media: A Functional Analysis of the Media’s Role in Politics (pp. 63–83). Springer International Publishing. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60249-3_4">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60249-3_4</a></p> <p>Tresch, A., Lefevere, J., Walgrave, S. (2018). How parties’ issue emphasis strategies vary across communication channels: The 2009 regional election campaign in Belgium. <em>Acta Politica, 53</em>(1), 25–47. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-016-0036-7">https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-016-0036-7</a></p> <p>Walgrave, S., Tresch, A., &amp; Lefevere, J. (2015). The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Issue Ownership. <em>West European Politics</em>, <em>38</em>(4), 778–796. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2015.1039381">https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2015.1039381</a></p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4b Populist communication: content and style elements (Self-Presentation of Political Actors) 2020-07-23T14:09:21+02:00 Sina Blassnig s.blassnig@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>Populist communication, in this entry, refers to the occurrence of a) specific messages that are seen as the expression of populist ideology and b) characteristic style elements that are often associated with these messages expressing populist ideology in political actors’ (or other actors such as journalists’ or citizens’) communication (Ernst et al., 2019; De Vreese et al., 2018).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Populism has been defined in various terms; e.g., as Ideology (Canovan, 1999; Mudde, 2004), set of ideas (Hawkins et al., 2018, Taggart, 2000), discourse (Laclau, 2005; Mouffe, 2018), political style (Moffit, 2016), communication style (Jagers &amp; Walgrave, 2007), or political strategy (Weyland, 2017). Thus, there have been numerous operationalizations of populism or populist communication in content analyses that cannot all be accounted for here. This entry specifically follows a communication-centered perspective (Stanyer et al., 2016; De Vreese et al., 2018). Jagers &amp; Walgrave (2007), in a pioneer study on populist communication, define populism as a political communication style “essentially displaying proximity of the people, while at the same time taking an anti-establishment stance and stressing the (ideal) homogeneity of the people by excluding specific population segments.” In a more recent study, Ernst et al. (2019) differentiate between populist communication <em>content</em> and populist communication <em>style. </em><strong>Populist communication content</strong> refers to the communicative representation of the populist ideology (<em>what</em> is being said) that can be expressed in the form of <strong>populist key messages</strong>. Depending on the parsimony of the definition, populist ideology comprises three or four dimensions: people-centrism, anti-elitism, restoring sovereignty, and exclusion (e.g., De Vreese et al., 2018; Mudde, 2004; Jagers &amp; Walgrave, 2007; Wirth et al., 2016). In distinction to the content, Ernst et al. (2019) define <strong>populist communication style</strong> as the use of <strong>populism-related style elements</strong> (<em>how</em> something is said) (see also De Vreese et al., 2018; Bracciale &amp; Martella, 2018).</p> <p>Communication-centered content analyses of populist communication are often carried out in three steps. First, specific characteristics of populist communication (e.g., populist key messages or stylistic elements) are identified. Second, the occurrence of these individual elements is then coded either on the statement level (e.g. Ernst et al., 2019; Wirth et al., 2016), excerpts level (Jagers &amp; Walgrave, 2007), or on the text/article level (e.g. Blassnig et al, 2019). Third, the level of populism is determined using different indices for populist communication as a whole (e.g. maximum indices; Blassnig et al., 2019; Ernst et al., 2019) or for the individual dimensions separately (e.g., Jagers &amp; Walgrave, 2007). Populism indices can be calculated at the statement level, text level, or actor level.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Whereas this entry focuses on quantitative and deductive approaches, populist communication has also been investigated using qualitative or inductive approaches (e.g., Wodak, 2015), especially in studies following a more actor-centered approach (Stanyer et al., 2016). Most studies on populist communication have used manual content analysis. Yet, some analyses have also applied automated approaches to investigate the occurrence of populist communication in texts (e.g., Hawkins &amp; Castanho Silva, 2018).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Blassnig et al., (2019); Bracialle &amp; Martella (2017); Ernst et al., (2019); Jagers &amp; Walgrave, (2007)</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 2: Summary of a selection of studies on populist communication</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Unit of Analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Jagers &amp; Walgrave, 2007</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Content type: </em>political party broadcasts (PPB)</p> <p><em>Country: </em>Belgium (Flemish part)</p> <p><em>Political actors: </em>six Belgian-Flemish parties</p> <p><em>Outlets: </em>20 PPBs per party</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>1999 - 2001</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>1,200 PPB excerpts</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Unit of analysis: </em>excerpts including ‘thin’ populism (references to the people)</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> excerpt level and actor level</p> <p><em>People-index: </em>multiplication of the proportion and intensity of references to the people for each party</p> <p><em>Anti-state-index: </em>number of anti-state excerpts * average intension anti-state excerpts (1-5) per party</p> <p><em>Anti-politics-index: </em>number of anti-politics excerpts * average intension anti-politics excerpts (1-5) per party</p> <p><em>Anti-media-index: </em>number of anti-media excerpts * average intension anti-media excerpts (1-5) per party</p> <p><em>Anti-establishment-index: </em>anti-state + anti-politics + anti-media per party</p> <p><em>Exclusivity-index: </em>J-scores; (positive – negative evaluations) / (positive + neutral + negative evaluations of specific population categories)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>References to the people: </em>terms referring to the population (as a whole or population categories), that cover the people “in political terms”, meaning the “political entity”</p> <p><em>Anti-state: </em>failure of the state with regard to (1) single failure, (2) systematic failure, (3) public service should be abolished, (4) all public services are criticized at once, (5) the system</p> <p><em>Anti-politics: </em>criticism directed towards (1) policy measure or present situation, (2) policy, (3) politician, (4) party, (5) group of parties, (6) all parties. (7) the system</p> <p><em>Anti-media: </em>media targets of criticism; (1) newspaper/ magazine/ tv channel, (2) group of media, (3) all (the) media</p> <p><em>Evaluation of specific population categories: </em>positive, neutral, negative</p> <p>(for further restrictions for the individual variables and more detailed instructions see the methodological appendix by Jagers &amp; Walgrave, 2007)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Reliability is not reported</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Ernst, Blassnig, Engesser, Büchel, &amp; Esser (2019)</p> <p>(See also Ernst et al., 2018; Ernst, Esser et al., 2019; Wirth et al., 2016)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Content type:</em> statements by politicians expressing either a political position, an elaboration on a political issue, or an evaluation/ attribution of a target actor</p> <p><em>Countries:</em> CH, DE, IT, FR, UK, US</p> <p><em>Political actors: </em>98 politicians from 31 parties</p> <p><em>Outlets:</em> political talk shows (2 per country), politicians’ Facebook and Twitter accounts</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>April through May 2015</p> <p><em>Sample size: n = 2’067 (n </em>= 969 talk show statements, <em>n </em>= 734 Facebook posts, and <em>n </em>= 364 Tweets</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Unit of analysis: </em>a single statement by a politician on a target actor or an issue</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> statement level and actor level</p> <p><em>Populism index: </em>Maximum index based on the nine populist key messages and seven stylistic elements (0/1)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Populist key messages:</em></p> <p><em>Anti-elitism: </em>discrediting the elite, blaming the elite, detaching the elite from the people</p> <p><em>People-centrism:</em> stressing the people’s virtues, praising the people’s achievements, stating a monolithic people, demonstrating closeness to the people</p> <p><em>Restoring sovereignty:</em> demanding popular sovereignty, denying elite sovereignty</p> <p><em>Populist style elements: </em></p> <p><em>Negativity: </em>negativism, crisis rhetoric</p> <p><em>Emotionality:</em> emotional tone, absolutism, patriotism)</p> <p><em>Sociability:</em> colloquialism, intimization</p> <p>(all items were coded as dummy variables based on more detailed sub-categories)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Brennan &amp; Prediger’s kappa average = 0.91 (³0.65)</p> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Blassnig, Ernst, Büchel, Engesser, &amp; Esser (2019)</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Content type: </em>election news coverage about immigration and adjacent reader comments</p> <p><em>Countries:</em> CH, FR, UK</p> <p><em>Actors/Speakers: </em>politicians, journalists, and citizens</p> <p><em>Outlets:</em> 6 online news outlets per country</p> <p><em>Sampling period:</em> six weeks before the respective election days. CH: September to October 2015; FR: April to May 2017; UK: April to May 2015</p> <p><em>Sample size:</em> n = 493 news articles and n = 2904 reader comments</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Unit of analysis: </em>news article / reader comment</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> article level</p> <p><em>Populism index: </em>Maximum index based on the twelve populist key messages (0/1)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>Populist key messages:</em></p> <p><em>Anti-elitism:</em> discrediting the elite, blaming the elite, detaching the elite from the people</p> <p><em>People-centrism:</em> praising the people’s virtues, praising the people’s achievements, describing the people as homogenous, demonstrating closeness to the people</p> <p><em>Restoring sovereignty:</em> demanding popular sovereignty, denying elite sovereignty</p> <p><em>Exclusion: </em>discrediting specific social groups, blaming specific social groups, excluding specific social groups from the people</p> <p>(all items were coded as dummy variables)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Brennan &amp; Prediger’s kappa average = 0.75</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Bracciale &amp; Martella (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>Content type: </em>politicians’ tweets</p> <p><em>Country: </em>Italy</p> <p><em>Political actors: </em>5 party leaders</p> <p><em>Outlets: </em>leaders’ Twiter timelines</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>1 January 2015 to 1 July 2016</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>n = 7,772</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>Unit of analysis: </em>tweets</p> <p><em>Level of analysis: </em>tweets, actors</p> <p><em>Indices:</em></p> <p><em>Populist ideology: </em>three additive synthetic dichotomous indices adding together the indicators for each of the three dimensions of populism (s<em>overeignty of the people, attacking the elite, ostracizing others</em>)</p> <p>The variables for political communication style were summarized using multiple correspondence analysis (MCA) into two dimensions: <em>communicative mode</em> (positive vs. negative) and <em>communicative focus </em>(personalization vs. political/ campaign)</p> <p><em> </em></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>Political communication style:</em></p> <p><em>Stagecraft: </em>emotionalisation; informality, instrumental actualization, intimisation, negative affect, simplification, storytelling, taboo breaker, vulgarism</p> <p><em>Register (communicative tone): </em>referential/ neutral, aggressive/ provocative, humorous/ ironic, conversational/ participatory</p> <p><em>Topic: </em>political issues, policy issues, campaign issues, personal issues, current affairs</p> <p><em>Function: </em>campaign updating, self-promotion, setting the agenda, position-taking, call to action, opposition/ violence, endorsement, irony, request for interaction, pointless babble</p> <p><em>Populist ideology:</em></p> <p><em>Emphasizing sovereignty of the people: </em>refers to the people, refers to ‘ad hoc’ people, direct representation</p> <p><em>Attacking the elite: </em>generic anti-establishment, political anti-establishment, economic anti-establishment, EU anti-establishment, institutional anti-establishment, anti-elitism media, anti-elitism intellectuals</p> <p><em>Ostracizing others: </em>dangerous others, authoritarianism</p> <p>(all individual indicators were coded as dummy variables)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Krippendorff's Alpha &gt; .83</p> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Blassnig, S., Ernst, N., Büchel, F., Engesser, S., &amp; Esser, F. (2019). Populism in online election coverage. <em>Journalism Studies</em>, <em>20</em>(8), 1110–1129. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1487802">https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1487802</a></p> <p>Bracciale, R., &amp; Martella, A. (2017). Define the populist political communication style: the case of Italian political leaders on Twitter. <em>Information, Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(9), 1310–1329. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328522">https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328522</a></p> <p>Canovan, M. (1999). Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. <em>Political Studies</em>, <em>47</em>(1), 2–16. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00184">https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00184</a></p> <p>Cranmer, M. (2011). Populist communication and publicity: An empirical study of contextual differences in Switzerland. <em>Swiss Political Science Review, 17</em>(3), 286–307. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1662-6370.2011.02019.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1662-6370.2011.02019.x</a></p> <p>De Vreese, C. H., Esser, F., Aalberg, T., Reinemann, C., &amp; Stanyer, J. (2018). Populism as an expression of political communication content and style: A new perspective. <em>The International Journal of Press/Politics, 23</em>(4), 423-438. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218790035">https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161218790035</a></p> <p>Engesser, S., Fawzi, N., &amp; Larsson, A. O. (2017). Populist online communication: Introduction to the special issue. <em>Information, Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(9), 1279–1292. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328525">https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1328525</a></p> <p>Ernst, N., Blassnig, S., Engesser, S., Büchel, F., &amp; Esser, F. (2019). Populists prefer social media over talk shows: An analysis of populist messages and stylistic elements across six countries. <em>Social Media + Society, 5</em>(1), 1-14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118823358">https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118823358</a></p> <p>Hawkins, K. A., Carlin, R. E., Littvay, L., &amp; Rovira Kaltwasser, C. (Eds.). (2018). <em>Extremism and democracy. The ideational approach to populism: Concept, theory, and analysis</em>. Routledge.</p> <p>Haswkins, K. A., &amp; Castanho Silva, B. (2018). Textual analysis: big data approaches. In K. A. Hawkins, R. E. Carlin, L. Littvay, &amp; C. Rovira Kaltwasser (Eds.). <em>Extremism and democracy. The ideational approach to populism: Concept, theory, and analysis </em>(pp. 27-48). Routledge.</p> <p>Jagers, J., &amp; Walgrave, S. (2007). Populism as political communication style: An empirical study of political parties' discourse in Belgium. <em>European Journal of Political Research, 46</em>(3), 319–345. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00690.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2006.00690.x</a></p> <p>Laclau, E. (2005). <em>On populist reason</em>. London: Verso.</p> <p>Moffitt, B. (2016). <em>The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation</em>. Stanford University Press.</p> <p>Mudde, C. (2004). The populist Zeitgeist. <em>Government and Opposition, 39</em>(4), 542–563. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x</a></p> <p>Stanyer, J., Salgado, S., &amp; Strömbäck, J. (2017). Populist actors as communicators or political actors as populist communicators: Cross-national findings and perspectives. In T. Aalberg, F. Esser, C. Reinemann, J. Strömbäck, &amp; C. H. de Vreese (Eds.), <em>Populist political communication in Europe </em>(pp. 353–364). Routledge.</p> <p>Taggart, P. (2000). <em>Populism. Concepts in the social sciences</em>. Open University Press.</p> <p>Wirth, W., Esser, F., Engesser, S., Wirz, D. S., Schulz, A., Ernst, N., . . . Schemer, C. (2016). The appeal of populist ideas, strategies and styles: A theoretical model and research design for analyzing populist political communication. Zurich: NCCR Democracy, Working Paper No. 88, pp. 1–60. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-127461">https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-127461</a></p> <p>Wodak, R. (2015). <em>The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean</em>. SAGE Publications.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2700 Negative campaigning (Election Campaigning Communication) 2021-04-18T16:33:54+02:00 Desiree Steppat desiree.steppat@medienanstalt-nrw.de Laia Castro Herrero laiacastro31@gmail.com <p>One of the most crucial decisions political candidates make ahead of an election is whether they want to focus on their image or that of their their political opponents in their advertisement (Lau and Rovner , 2009). During electoral campaigns, candidates need to decide whether they use political advertisement to display a positive image of themselves or whether they try to make the opponent look bad. The first strategy is referred to as <strong>Acclaim</strong> or <strong>Positive Ads</strong>. The second approach, according to Surlin and Gordon is called <strong>Negative Campaigning</strong> and is applied by a political candidate when (s)he “attacks the other candidate personally, the issues for which the other candidate stands, or the party of the other candidate” (1977, p. 93). However, measuring negative campaigning poses a challenge to academic research since content analyses often fail to address the grey areas of this concept. To begin with, many political ads compare positive characteristics of a candidate against opponents’ more negative ones. (Lau &amp; Rovner, 2009). Ads that contain both strategies, shedding positive light on the candidate while also highlighting negative aspects about the opponent’s character or policies are called <strong>Comparison</strong> or <strong>Comparative Ads</strong>. These comparisons are difficult to code with straightforward approaches. For example, analyzing campaigns along a positive/negative dichotomy by discounting attacks to the opponent from positive self-presentations may equate strongly positively and negatively charged political advertising to neutral campaigns. Also, negativity in political campaigning is studied in different contexts and has been extended as a number of studies on negative campaigning look in particular at <strong>Attacks</strong> and <strong>Rebuttals/Defense</strong> from opponents after an attack (Benoit, 2000; Benoit &amp; Airne, 2009; Erigha &amp; Charles, 2012; Lee &amp; Benoit, 2004; Torres, Hyman, &amp; Hamilton, 2012). This distinction raises other important methodological and theoretical implications. Sweeping measures of negativity based on common scholarly definitions do not consider voters’ tolerance towards the use of certain forms of negativity by candidates (for example, rebutting an attack from an opponent) that may be perceived as legitimate. Not accounting for such nuances is what makes many negativity measures unable to accurately gauge the effects of negative campaigning among the electorate (Sigelman &amp; Kugler, 2003).</p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>Negative campaigning and its related constructs (such as attacks or rebuttals) have been often associated with current trends in political communication of modernization and professionalization of election campaigns (Voltmer, 2004). Negative campaigning is indeed a development that can be observed across many different political contexts (Kaid &amp; Holtz-Bacha, 2006). Campaign strategies using negative messages about a political opponent have been studied relying on theories from social and cognitive psychology (Kahn &amp; Kenney, 1999; Lau, 1985) and mostly in regard to their potential consequences for a healthy democracy (Lau &amp; Rovner, 2009). Their operationalization follows a simple schema by coding whether a certain construct is present in a given advertising piece or not. Alternatively, it is coded which kind of category best reflects on the content of a given political advertisement.</p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Negative campaigning and related constructs have been studied through content analysis both of paid advertisement (Benoit, 2000) and news coverage by the mass media (Lau &amp; Pomper, 2004); The features and effects of negative campaigning have also been analyzed through voter surveys (Brader, 2005, 2006) and interviews with campaign managers (Kahn &amp; Kenney, 1999). Its effects were furthermore more precisely measured through numerous experimental studies (Ansolabehere, Iyengar, Simon, &amp; Valentino, 1994; overview see: Lau et al., 2007).<strong> </strong></p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Example studies:</strong></p> <p><em>Table 1: Overview exemplary studies measuring of negative campaigning and related constructs</em><em> </em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p><strong>Authors</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p><strong>Unit of analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p><strong>Constructs</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Benoit (2000), Benoit &amp; Airne (2009), Lee &amp; Benoit (2004)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Television ads, direct mail, newspaper ads, and candidate web pages</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Acclaim</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>Acclaims portray the sponsored candidate in a favorable light, both his/her character and/or policy (Benoit, 2000, 281, 295)</p> <p> </p> <p>0 = not present</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Cohen’s kappa average = .96</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Erigha &amp; Charles (2012)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Television and web advertisements</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Non-negative/ advocacy</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>A non-negative/advocacy ad favors a party’s candidate, focusing solely on that individual.</p> <p> </p> <p>1 = non-negative / advocacy</p> <p>2 = comparison</p> <p>3= attack ads</p> <p>(exclusive options)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Cohen’s kappa average = .96</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Torres et al. (2012)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Presidential candidate–sponsored TV ads</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Non-comparative ad</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>If the ad simply mentions positive attributes of a particular candidate without mentioning an opponent, the ad is coded as a non-comparison</p> <p>(positive) ad (p. 196)</p> <p> </p> <p>1 = comparative ad</p> <p>2 = negative ad</p> <p>3= non-comparative ad</p> <p>(exclusive options)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Cohen’s kappa average = .98</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Steffan &amp; Venema (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Campaign posters</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Textual negative campaigning</p> <p> </p> <p>Visual negative campaigning</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>Based on Lau and Pomper’s (2002), textual/visual negative campaiging indicates whether the image / text on the campaign posters referred to other political parties or candidates. (p. 273)</p> <p> </p> <p>0 = not present</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p><em>Visual negative campaigning:</em></p> <p>Krippendorff’s α = .82</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Textual negative campaigning:</em></p> <p>Krippendorff’s α = .84</p> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Torres et al. (2012)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Presidential candidate–sponsored TV ads</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Negative ad</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>If the ad criticizes the opposing party and/or candidate but offers no alternative (in essence, the ad presents negative information about an opponent but no information about the candidate on whose behalf it is run), then the ad is coded as a negative ad.</p> <p> </p> <p>1 = comparative ad</p> <p>2 = negative ad</p> <p>3= non-comparative ad</p> <p>(exclusive options)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Cohen’s kappa average = .98</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Ceccobelli (2018)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Facebook posts</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Negative rhetorical strategy</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>The posts taken into consideration are those in which leaders employ a purely negative campaigning strategy. Cases in which a hypothetic leader A attacks one or more political opponents by comparing his/her own figure or policy proposal with the one(s) of her/his competitor(s) are not coded, since they denote a comparative rhetorical strategy (p. 129)</p> <p> </p> <p>0 = not present</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Krippendorff’s α average = .85</p> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Benoit (2000), Benoit &amp; Airne (2009), Lee &amp; Benoit (2004)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Television spots, direct mail pieces, newspaper ads, and candidate web pages</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Attack</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>Portrays the opposing candidate in an unfavorable light, both his/her character and/or policy (Benoit, 2000, 281, 295)</p> <p> </p> <p>0 = not present</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Cohen’s kappa average = .96</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Erigha &amp; Charles (2012)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Television and web advertisements</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Attack ads</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>Attack ads criticize the opposing candidate without referencing the sponsoring party’s candidate (p. 443)</p> <p> </p> <p>1 = non-negative / advocacy</p> <p>2 = comparison</p> <p>3= attack ads</p> <p>(exclusive options)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Cohen's kappa average = .96</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Benoit (2000), Benoit &amp; Airne (2009), Lee &amp; Benoit (2004)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Television spots, direct mail pieces, newspaper ads, and candidate web pages</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Defense</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>Defense responds to (refutes) an attack on the candidate, both on his/her character and/or policy (Benoit, 2000, 281, 295)</p> <p> </p> <p>0 = not present</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Cohen’s kappa average = .96</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Erigha &amp; Charles (2012)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Television and web advertisements</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Comparison</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>A comparison ad weighs two credentials, characteristics, or policystances (p. 443)</p> <p> </p> <p>1 = non-negative / advocacy</p> <p>2 = comparison</p> <p>3= attack ads</p> <p>(exclusive options)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Cohen's kappa average = .956</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 70px;"> <p>Torres et al. (2012)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 56px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 106px;"> <p>Presidential candidate–sponsored TV ads</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Comparative ad</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 220px;"> <p>If the ad criticizes the opposing party and/or candidate and recommends alternative courses of action by comparing two candidates on specific points so as to present one in a more positive and the other in a more negative light, then the ad is coded as a comparative ad (p. 195)</p> <p> </p> <p>1 = comparative ad</p> <p>2 = negative ad</p> <p>3= non-comparative ad</p> <p>(exclusive options)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 104px;"> <p>Cohen’s kappa average = .98</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Ansolabehere, S., Iyengar, S., Simon, A., &amp; Valentino, N. (1994). Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate? <em>American Political Science Review</em>, <em>88</em>(4), 829–838. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2082710">https://doi.org/10.2307/2082710</a></p> <p>Benoit, W. L. (2000). A Functional Analysis of Political Advertising across Media, 1998. <em>Communication Studies</em>, <em>51</em>(3), 274–295. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970009388524">https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970009388524</a></p> <p>Benoit, W. L., &amp; Airne, D. (2009). Non-Presidential Political Advertising in Campaign 2004. <em>Human Communication</em>, <em>12</em>(1), 91–117.</p> <p>Brader, T. (2005). Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions. <em>American Journal of Political Science</em>, <em>49</em>(2), 388. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/3647684">https://doi.org/10.2307/3647684</a></p> <p>Brader, T. (2006). <em>Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work</em>. <em>Studies in communication, media, and public opinion</em>. Chicago, Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press. Retrieved from <a href="http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0622/2005009159-b.html">http://www.loc.gov/catdir/enhancements/fy0622/2005009159-b.html</a></p> <p>Buell, E. H., &amp; Sigelman, L. (2008). <em>Attack politics: Negativity in presidential campaigns since 1960</em>. <em>Studies in government and public policy</em>. Lawrence, Kan.: Univ. Press of Kansas.</p> <p>Ceccobelli, D. (2018). Not Every Day is Election Day: a Comparative Analysis of Eighteen Election Campaigns on Facebook. <em>Journal of Information Technology &amp; Politics</em>, <em>15</em>(2), 122–141. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1449701">https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1449701</a></p> <p>Erigha, M., &amp; Charles, C. Z. (2012). Other, Uppity Obama: A Content Analysis of Race Appeals in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. <em>Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race</em>, <em>9</em>(2), 439–456. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X12000264">https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X12000264</a></p> <p>Geer, J. G. (2010). <em>In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns</em>. <em>Studies in communication, media, and public opinion</em>. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from <a href="http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;scope=site&amp;db=nlebk&amp;db=nlabk&amp;AN=319130">http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&amp;scope=site&amp;db=nlebk&amp;db=nlabk&amp;AN=319130</a></p> <p>Kahn, K. F., &amp; Kenney, P. J. (1999). Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying the Relationship between Negativity and Participation. <em>American Political Science Review</em>, <em>93</em>(4), 877–889. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2307/2586118">https://doi.org/10.2307/2586118</a></p> <p>Kaid, L. L., &amp; Holtz-Bacha, C. (Eds.) (2006). <em>The SAGE handbook of political advertising</em>. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE Publications.</p> <p>Kanouse, D. E., &amp; Hansen, L. R. (1987). Negativity in evaluations. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, &amp; B. Weiner (Eds.), <em>Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior</em>. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.</p> <p>Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. <em>American Journal of Political Science</em>. (29), 119–138.</p> <p>Lau, R. R., &amp; Pomper, G. M. (2004). <em>Negative campaigning: An analysis of U.S. Senate elections</em>. <em>Campaigning American style</em>. Lanham, Md.: Rowman &amp; Littlefield.</p> <p>Lau, R. R., &amp; Rovner, I. B. (2009). Negative Campaigning. <em>Annual Review of Political Science</em>, <em>12</em>(1), 285–306. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071905.101448">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.071905.101448</a></p> <p>Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., &amp; Rovner, I. B. (2007). The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment. <em>The Journal of Politics</em>, <em>69</em>(4), 1176–1209. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00618.x</a></p> <p>Lee, C., &amp; Benoit, W. L. (2004). A Functional Analysis of Presidential Television Spots: A Comparison of Korean and American Ads. <em>Communication Quarterly</em>, <em>52</em>(1), 68–79. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370179">https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370409370179</a></p> <p>Sigelman, L., &amp; Kugler, M. (2003). Why Is Research on the Effects of Negative Campaigning So Inconclusive? Understanding Citizens’ Perceptions of Negativity. <em>The Journal of Politics</em>, <em>65</em>(1), 142–160. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00007">https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00007</a></p> <p>Steffan, D., &amp; Venema, N. (2019). Personalised, De-Ideologised and Negative? A Longitudinal Analysis of Campaign Posters for German Bundestag Elections, 1949–2017. <em>European Journal of Communication</em>, <em>34</em>(3), 267–285. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323119830052">https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323119830052</a></p> <p>Surlin, S. H., &amp; Gordon, T. F. (1977). How Values Affect Attitudes Toward Direct Reference Political Advertising. <em>Journalism Quarterly</em>, <em>54</em>(1), 89–98. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/107769907705400113">https://doi.org/10.1177/107769907705400113</a></p> <p>Torres, I. M., Hyman, M. R., &amp; Hamilton, J. (2012). Candidate-Sponsored TV Ads for the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election: A Content Analysis. <em>Journal of Political Marketing</em>, <em>11</em>(3), 189–207. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2012.703907">https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2012.703907</a></p> <p>Voltmer, K. (2004). <em>Mass media and political communication in new democracies</em>: Routledge.</p> 2021-04-18T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2699 Interaction (Election Campaigning Communication) 2021-04-18T16:14:52+02:00 Desiree Steppat desiree.steppat@medienanstalt-nrw.de Laia Castro Herrero laiacastro31@gmail.com <p><strong>Interaction</strong> is described as a way to persuade citizens through direct contact allowing for a dialogical encounter between political actors and citizens (Magin, Podschuweit, Haßler, &amp; Russmann, 2017). Although the new online environment can facilitate direct communication between politicians and citizens, empirical findings indicate that, to date, a unidirectional communication style between voters and politicians predominates (Jackson &amp; Lilleker, 2010; Lilleker &amp; Koc-Michalska, 2013; Stromer-Galley, 2000). To a large extent, politicians still employ the broadcasting style for campaign communication (Graham, Broersma, Hazelhoff, &amp; van 't Haar, 2013) and retain communication strategies from the mass media era (Margolis &amp; Resnick, 2000), as few voters visit their websites on a regular basis (Gibson &amp; McAllister, 2011) or follow politicians' profiles on social media (Vaccari &amp; Nielsen, 2013). However, research in campaign communication also shows that the Web 2.0 provide new opportunities for politicians to address an expanded, new electorate and <strong>engage</strong> them. As an example, studies show that posts that are frequently liked, commented, or shared can reach a much wider circle of users known as secondary audience or second-degree followers (Jacobs &amp; Spierings, 2016; Vaccari &amp; Valeriani, 2015). Interaction through social media channels furthermore enables face-to-face-like communication with individual voters, with whom politicians can also exchange ideas and negotiate <strong>campaign strategies</strong>&nbsp; (Magin et al., 2017).</p> <p><strong><em>&nbsp;</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In recent years, interaction has been recognized as a central aspect of dialogical communication in the field of public relations (Sweetser &amp; Lariscy, 2008; Taylor &amp; Kent, 2004). The theory states that symmetrical and dialogical two-way communication between an organization and its audience can sustainably support relationship building and their maintenance (Zhang &amp; Seltzer, 2010). By applying this approach to the field of online political communication, it is possible to understand the interactions between politicians and citizens as a form of strategic communication and how they attract and persuade voters.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection</em></strong></p> <p>Interaction in the last twenty years has been mostly studied in the context of the online environment either by looking at structural features of candidates’ online tools that enable interactions with users (e.g., Druckman, Kifer, &amp; Parkin, 2007, 2009; Schweitzer, 2008); or by studying actual interactions between candidates and citizens on social media (e.g., Graham et al., 2013; Klinger, 2013). Both quantitative manual and automated content analyses thereof have been employed to in research on social media interactions). Quantitative content analysis have been also been combined and compared with qualitative interviews with campaign managers (e.g., Magin et al., 2017).</p> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><strong>Example studies</strong></p> <p><em>Table 1: Overview exemplary studies measuring interaction, discussion, participation, and related constructs</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Study</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Medium</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Constructs</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Coding</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Druckman et al. (2007); Druckman et al. (2009)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Candidate websites</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Interactivity</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Web sites were scrutinized in light of their ability to create someform of interaction by e.g.enabling users to personalize information, arrange information, add information, and/or communicate with other voters and/or the candidate</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Additive index</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Schweitzer (2008)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Candidate websites</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Interactivity provision strategies</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Possibility to comment on news; Agenda can be updated by visitors; A channel on video sharing websites; Possibility to comment (a video sharing website); Life webcam; Online photo gallery; Possibility to comment (online photo gallery); Easy contact; Online polls; Profile on SNS; Online forum or chat (among visitors); Online forum or chat (with politicians); Possibility to share content of the website; Possibility to share content on social media; Information about political program (interactive format)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Additive index</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Magin et al. (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Facebook posts</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Interaction</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Index including (1) number of parties’ comments, (2) the number of users’ comments per 1,000,000 eligible voters, and (3) the share of posts in which the parties encourage the voters to discuss politics on the parties’ Facebook page (reciprocity).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Combined index</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Graham et al. (2013), Graham, Jackson, &amp; Broersma (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Twitter posts</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Interaction</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Tweets including: Debating/position taking; Acknowledging; Organizing/mobilizing; Advice giving/helping; and/or Consulting</p> <p>Furthermore @Tweets were scrutinized with whom politicians interacted: Public; Politician/candidate; journalist/media; Party activist; Lobbyist; Expert; Celebrity; Industry; and/or Authority</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>(0)&nbsp; Not present</p> <p>(1)&nbsp; Present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Lukamto &amp; Carson (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Twitter comments, @mentions, and retweets (RTs)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Discussion</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Measures quantity of one-way and two-way messages between members of parliament (MPs) and citizens and who they interact with: ‘citizen to politician’; ‘politician to citizen’; or ‘politician to politician’</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Count variable</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Bene (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Facebook posts</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Engagement</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Engagement content is coded if the post contains either requests for likes, comments, and/or sharing or whether it</p> <p>poses a question. All of these individual elements were also coded on their own and analyzed in specified models with all dependent variables</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>(0)&nbsp; Not present</p> <p>(1)&nbsp; Present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Klinger (2013)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Facebook &amp; Twitter posts</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Participation</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Posts including calls for discussion, appeals to collect signatures and mobilize other people to participate and to vote as well as general community-building</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>(0)&nbsp;&nbsp; Not present</p> <p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; Present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Keller &amp; Kleinen-von Königslöw (2018)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Facebook &amp; Twitter posts</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Pseudo discursive style</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>(0)&nbsp;&nbsp; Not present</p> <p>(1)&nbsp;&nbsp; Present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Graham et al. (2013), Graham et al. (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Twitter posts</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Interaction</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Tweets including: Debating/position taking; Acknowledging; Organizing/mobilizing; Advice giving/helping; and/or Consulting</p> <p>@Tweets were also scrutinized with whom politicians interacted: Public; Politician/candidate; journalist/media; Party activist; Lobbyist; Expert; Celebrity; Industry; and/or Authority</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>(0)&nbsp; Not present</p> <p>(1)&nbsp; Present</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Bene,&nbsp;M. (2017). Go Viral on the Facebook! Interactions between Candidates and Followers on Facebook during the Hungarian General Election Campaign of 2014. <em>Information, Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(4), 513–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1198411">https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1198411</a></p> <p>Druckman,&nbsp;J.&nbsp;N., Kifer,&nbsp;M.&nbsp;J., &amp; Parkin,&nbsp;M. (2007). The Technological Development of Congressional Candidate Web Sites. <em>Social Science Computer Review</em>, <em>25</em>(4), 425–442. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439307305623">https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439307305623</a></p> <p>Druckman,&nbsp;J.&nbsp;N., Kifer,&nbsp;M.&nbsp;J., &amp; Parkin,&nbsp;M. (2009). Campaign Communications in U.S. Congressional Elections. <em>American Political Science Review</em>, <em>103</em>(3), 343–366. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990037">https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990037</a></p> <p>Gibson,&nbsp;R.&nbsp;K., &amp; McAllister,&nbsp;I. (2011). Do online election campaigns win votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” election. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>28</em>(2), 227–244.</p> <p>Graham,&nbsp;T., Broersma,&nbsp;M., Hazelhoff,&nbsp;K., &amp; van 't Haar,&nbsp;G. (2013). Between Broadcasting Political Messages and Interacting with Voters. <em>Information, Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>16</em>(5), 692–716. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581">https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.785581</a></p> <p>Graham,&nbsp;T., Jackson,&nbsp;D., &amp; Broersma,&nbsp;M. (2016). New Platform, Old Habits? Candidates’ Use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch General Election Campaigns. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>18</em>(5), 765–783. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814546728">https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814546728</a></p> <p>Jackson,&nbsp;N., &amp; Lilleker,&nbsp;D.&nbsp;G. (2010). Tentative Steps towards Interaction. <em>Internet Research</em>, <em>20</em>(5), 527–544. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241011084103">https://doi.org/10.1108/10662241011084103</a></p> <p>Jacobs,&nbsp;K., &amp; Spierings,&nbsp;N. (2016). <em>Social Media, Parties, and Political Inequalities</em>. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137533906">https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137533906</a></p> <p>Keller,&nbsp;T.&nbsp;R., &amp; Kleinen-von Königslöw,&nbsp;K. (2018). Pseudo-Discursive, Mobilizing, Emotional, and Entertaining: Identifying Four Successful Communication Styles of Political Actors on Social Media during the 2015 Swiss National Elections. <em>Journal of Information Technology &amp; Politics</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 358–377. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1510355">https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2018.1510355</a></p> <p>Klinger,&nbsp;U. (2013). Mastering the Art of Social Media. <em>Information, Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>16</em>(5), 717–736. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782329">https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.782329</a></p> <p>Lilleker,&nbsp;D.&nbsp;G., &amp; Koc-Michalska,&nbsp;K. (2013). Online Political Communication Strategies: MEPs, E-Representation, and Self-Representation. <em>Journal of Information Technology &amp; Politics</em>, <em>10</em>(2), 190–207. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.758071">https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2012.758071</a></p> <p>Lukamto,&nbsp;W., &amp; Carson,&nbsp;A. (2016). Politweets: Social Media as a Platform for Political Engagement between Victorian Politicians and Citizens. <em>Communication Research and Practice</em>, <em>2</em>(2), 191–212. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2016.1186485">https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2016.1186485</a></p> <p>Magin,&nbsp;M., Podschuweit,&nbsp;N., Haßler,&nbsp;J., &amp; Russmann,&nbsp;U. (2017). Campaigning in the Fourth Age of Political Communication. A Multi-Method Study on the Use of Facebook by German and Austrian Parties in the 2013 National Election Campaigns. <em>Information, Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(11), 1698–1719. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1254269">https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1254269</a></p> <p>Margolis,&nbsp;M., &amp; Resnick,&nbsp;D. (2000). <em>Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace "Revolution"</em>. <em>Contemporary American politics</em>. Thousand Oaks: Sage.</p> <p>Schweitzer,&nbsp;E.&nbsp;J. (2008). Innovation or Normalization in E-Campaigning? <em>European Journal of Communication</em>, <em>23</em>(4), 449–470. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323108096994">https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323108096994</a></p> <p>Stromer-Galley,&nbsp;J. (2000). On-line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It. <em>Journal of Communication</em>, <em>50</em>(4), 111–132.</p> <p>Sweetser,&nbsp;K.&nbsp;D., &amp; Lariscy,&nbsp;R.&nbsp;W. (2008). Candidates make good friends: An analysis of candidates' uses of Facebook. <em>International Journal of Strategic Communication</em>, <em>2</em>(3), 175–198.</p> <p>Taylor,&nbsp;M., &amp; Kent,&nbsp;M.&nbsp;L. (2004). Congressional web sites and their potential for public dialogue. <em>Atlantic Journal of Communication</em>, <em>12</em>(2), 59–76.</p> <p>Vaccari,&nbsp;C., &amp; Nielsen,&nbsp;R.&nbsp;K. (2013). What drives politicians' online popularity? An analysis of the 2010 US midterm elections. <em>Journal of Information Technology &amp; Politics</em>, <em>10</em>(2), 208–222.</p> <p>Vaccari,&nbsp;C., &amp; Valeriani,&nbsp;A. (2015). Follow the leader! Direct and indirect flows of political communication during the 2013 Italian general election campaign. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>17</em>(7), 1025–1042. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813511038">https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444813511038</a></p> <p>Zhang,&nbsp;W., &amp; Seltzer,&nbsp;T. (2010). Another piece of the puzzle: Advancing social capital theory by examining the effect of political party relationship quality on political and civic participation. <em>International Journal of Strategic Communication</em>, <em>4</em>(3), 155–170.</p> 2021-04-18T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2702 Issue salience (Public Diplomacy) (see also theme or media coverage salience) 2021-04-18T16:59:27+02:00 Sarah Marschlich s.marschlich@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>The variable “issue salience” refers to the visibility or prominence of a given topic or theme occurring in the news coverage and is used to explore first-level agenda-setting (McCombs &amp; Shaw, 1972). In addition to actor salience and valence, issue salience is analyzed to describe and explore the news coverage on different events and public debates. Mostly, issue salience is measured as the number of mentioning a particular issue, topic, or theme.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation: </strong></p> <p>Issue salience is analyzed using content analysis across different subfields of communication and media research, including the field of public diplomacy. In public diplomacy research, scholars measure issue salience in the context of governmental communication on their official channels online and offline or the representation of countries in social or mass media. Researchers embed the concept of issue salience primarily in agenda-setting theory (McCombs &amp; Shaw, 1972), analyzing it as an independent variable from which to derive implications of news media coverage on audiences’ perceptions on a certain object or examining the relationship between issue salience in the media and the public agenda.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection: </strong></p> <p>When it comes to analyses on issue salience and its link to public perceptions, a mixed-method study design incorporating content analysis in combination with surveys is used to validate issue salience.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Example study: </strong></p> <p>Zhou et al., 2013</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Information about Zhou et al., 2013</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors</strong>: Zhang et al.</p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest</strong>: Comparison between news coverage on Great Britain (in terms of themes) in U.S.-American and Chinese news media during the Olympic Games 2012</p> <p>RQ: What were the most salient themes in British, U.S., and Chinese media when they covered the opening ceremony of the London Olympics?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: Newspaper (30 media outlets across three countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, and China, not explicated)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis</strong>: 24 July 2012 to 12 August 2012</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Media coverage salience: Number of mentions given to a particular theme</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Story</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>(1) Countryside (e.g., emphasis of British natural beauty and scenic sites)</p> <p>(2) Creativity (e.g., focus on British creative sector, such as arts, film, and literature)</p> <p>(3) Entrepreneurship (e.g., portrayals on entrepreneurs and investors, or global investment)</p> <p>(4) Green (e.g., emphasis on Great Britain’s sustainability and environmental protection efforts)</p> <p>(5) Heritage (e.g., focus on British royalty, museums, and historical landmarks)</p> <p>(6) Innovation (e.g., discussion of science and technology in Great Britain)</p> <p>(7) Knowledge (e.g., portrayals of research and development at British universities)</p> <p>(8) Music (e.g., mentions of British and music artists)</p> <p>(9) Shopping (e.g., emphasis on British shopping venues such as London as shopping city)</p> <p>(10) Sport (e.g., emphasis on sporting events or athletes, such as David Beckham)</p> <p>(11) Technology (e.g., focus on digital media, e-commerce, and IT services in Great Britain)</p> <p><strong>Scales:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability:</strong> Krippendorf’s alpha = .90</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>McCombs, M. E., &amp; Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. <em>Public Opinion Quarterly</em>, <em>36</em>(2), 176–187.</p> <p>Zhou, S., Shen, B., Zhang, C., &amp; Zhong, X. (2013). Creating a Competitive Identity: Public Diplomacy in the London Olympics and Media Portrayal. <em>Mass Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>16</em>(6), 869–887.</p> 2021-04-18T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2701 Attribute salience (Public Diplomacy) (see also issue attributes) 2021-04-18T16:55:05+02:00 Sarah Marschlich s.marschlich@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>The variable “attribute salience” is described as the characteristics of a given issue that is portrayed in media coverage or other communication channels. It is generally measured in addition to issue salience and issue valence in order to analyze media portrayals of events, actors, or public discourses. Attribute salience is often measured in order to explore how particular issues are presented (instead of which in general), thereby contributing to second-level agenda-setting effects (McCombs et al., 1997).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation: </strong></p> <p>Attribute salience is analyzed across different subfields of communication and media research, including the field of public diplomacy. In public diplomacy research, scholars measure attribute salience in the context of political communication or the representation of countries in the news media as well as on social media. Researchers embed the concept of attribute salience or issue attributes mainly in agenda-setting theory (McCombs &amp; Shaw, 1972), analyzing it as an independent variable to derive with implications of news media coverage on audiences’ evaluations of certain issues.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection: </strong></p> <p>When it comes to analyses on attribute salience in the context of issues and its link to public perceptions, a mixed-method study design incorporating content analysis in combination with surveys is used to validate attribute salience.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Example study: </strong></p> <p>Zhang et al. (2018)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Zhang et al., 2018</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors</strong>: Zhang et al.</p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest</strong>: Effects of agenda-building of Chinese state-sponsored media on news media coverage in Taiwan and Singapore during Hong Kong Protest</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: Newspaper (several English newspapers and newswires published in China, Singapore, and Taiwan; not explicated)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis</strong>: 1 May 2014 to 30 April 2015</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Information about Variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Article</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>(1) Substantive issue attributes (frame):</p> <p>(a) Conflict</p> <p>(b) Cooperation</p> <p>(c) Problem definition</p> <p>(d) Proposed solution to the problem</p> <p>(e) Responsibility attribution</p> <p>(f) Human interest</p> <p>(g) Consequences and outcomes</p> <p>(h) Morality and motivation to take actions</p> <p> </p> <p>(2) Affective issue attributes (tone):</p> <p>(a) Negative</p> <p>(b) Neutral or mixed</p> <p>(c) Positive</p> <p>(d) N/A.</p> <p><strong>Scales:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability:</strong> Cohen‘s kappa = 0.76</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>McCombs, M. E., &amp; Shaw, D. L. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media. <em>Public Opinion Quarterly</em>, <em>36</em>(2), 176–187.</p> <p>McCombs, M. E., Llamas, J. P., Lopez-Escobar, E., &amp; Rey, F. (1997). Candidate Images in Spanish Elections: Second-Level Agenda-Setting Effects. <em>Journalism &amp; Mass Communication Quarterly</em>, <em>74</em>(4), 703–717.</p> <p>Zhang, T., Khalitova, L., Myslik, B., Mohr, T. L., Kim, J. Y., &amp; Kiousis, S. (2018). Comparing Chinese state-sponsored media’s agenda-building influence on Taiwan and Singapore media during the 2014 Hong Kong Protest. <em>Chinese Journal of Communication</em>, <em>11</em>(1), 66–87.</p> 2021-04-18T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2703 Public diplomacy message strategy (Public Diplomacy) (see also public diplomacy approach) 2021-04-18T17:05:22+02:00 Sarah Marschlich s.marschlich@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>The variable “public diplomacy message strategy” (or “public diplomacy approach”) refers to public diplomacy efforts in a given country in order to investigate how and with which goal public diplomacy is strategically communicated in the given context. The variable reflects the communication style of a specific actor (a politician, government, or country).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation: </strong></p> <p>Analyses of public diplomacy message strategies or approaches mostly build on the taxonomy of public diplomacy (Cull, 2008) or the proposed categories of public diplomacy by Fitzpatrick (2010).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection: </strong></p> <p>Public diplomacy message strategies can, in addition to content analysis, be analyzed by conducting interviews or surveys with public diplomacy actors, which allow validating the results from content analyses.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Example study: </strong></p> <p>Dodd &amp; Collins (2017)</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Dodd &amp; Collins (2017)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors</strong>: Dodd &amp; Collins</p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest</strong>: Comparison between public diplomacy approaches between Central Eastern European (not explicated) and Western countries (Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States)</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: Twitter content posted by 41 embassy accounts (not explicated)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis</strong>: March 2015</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Public diplomacy practices: Communication strategy</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Tweet</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>Building on Cull’s (2008) taxonomy of public diplomacy:</p> <p>(1) Listening (attempts to collect and collate information about foreign publics and their opinions)</p> <p>(2) Advocacy (activities that promote the country’s policies or general interests among foreign publics)</p> <p>(3) Cultural (efforts to promote cultural resources and achievements of a country)</p> <p>(4) International (activities that involve sending national actors abroad or receiving international actors to strategically manage the international environment)</p> <p>(5) News (use of radio, television and digital media to inform and involve foreign audiences)</p> <p>(6) Other</p> <p><strong>Scales:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability:</strong> Krippendorf’s alpha = .50</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Cull, N. J. (2008). Public Diplomacy: Taxonomies and Histories. <em>The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616</em>(1), 31–54.</p> <p>Dodd, M. D., &amp; Collins, S. J. (2017). Public relations message strategies and public diplomacy 2.0: An empirical analysis using Central-Eastern European and Western Embassy Twitter accounts. <em>Public Relations Review</em>, <em>43</em>(2), 417–425.</p> <p>Fitzpatrick, K. (2010). <em>The future of U.S. public diplomacy: An uncertain fate. </em>Martinus Nijhoff/Brill.</p> 2021-04-18T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4c Publishers/sources (Disinformation) 2020-08-13T11:51:50+02:00 Anna Staender a.staender@ikmz.uzh.ch Edda Humprecht edda.humprecht@ntnu.no <p>Recent research has mainly used two approaches to identify publishers or sources of disinformation: First, alternative media are identified as potential publishers of disinformation. Second, potential publishers of disinformation are identified via fact-checking websites. Samples created using those approaches can partly overlap. However, the two approaches differ in terms of validity and comprehensiveness of the identified population. Sampling of alternative media outlets is theory-driven and allows for cross-national comparison. However, researchers face the challenge to identify misinforming content published by alternative media outlets. In contrast, fact-checked content facilitates the identification of a given disinformation population; however, fact-checker often have a publication bias focusing on a small range of (elite) actors or sources (e.g. individual blogs, hyper partisan news outlets, or politicians). In both approaches it is important to describe, compare and, if possible, assign the outlets to already existing categories in order to enable a temporal and spatial comparison.</p> <p><strong><em>Approaches to identify sources/publishers:</em></strong></p> <p>Besides the operationalization of specific variables analyzed in the field of disinformation, the sampling procedure presents a crucial element to operationalize disinformation itself. Following the approach of detecting disinformation through its potential sources or publishers (Li, 2020), research analyzes alternative media (Bachl, 2018; Boberg, Quandt, Schatto-Eckrodt, &amp; Frischlich, 2020; Heft et al., 2020) or identifies a various range of actors or domains via fact-checking sites (Allcott &amp; Gentzkow, 2017; Grinberg et al., (2019); Guess, Nyhan &amp; Reifler, 2018). Those two approaches are explained in the following.</p> <p><u>Alternative media as sources/publishers</u></p> <p>The following procedure summarizes the approaches used in current research for the identification of relevant alternative media outlets (following Bachl, 2018; Boberg et al., 2020; Heft et al., 2020).</p> <ol> <li>Snowball sampling to define the universe of alternative media outlets may consists of the following steps: <ol> <li>Sample of outlets identified in previous research</li> <li>Consultation of search engines and news articles</li> </ol> </li> </ol> <ul> <li>Departing from a potential prototype, websites provide information about digital metrics (Alexa.com or Similarweb.com). For example, Similarweb.com shows three relevant lists per outlet: “Top Referring Sites” (which websites are sending traffic to this site), “Also visited websites” (overlap with users of other websites), and “Competitors &amp; Similar Sites” (similarity defined by the company)</li> </ul> <ol start="2"> <li>Definition of alternative media outlets <ol> <li>Journalistic outlets (for example, excluding blogs and forums) with current, non-fictional and regular content</li> <li>Self-description of the outlets in a so-called “about us” section or in a mission statement, which underlines the relational perspective of being an alternative to the mainstream media. This description may for example include keywords such as <em>alternative</em>, <em>independent</em>, <em>unbiased</em>, <em>critical</em> or is in line with statements like “presenting the real/true views/facts” or “covering what the mainstream media hides/leaves out”.</li> </ol> </li> </ol> <ul> <li>Use of predefined dimensions and categories of alternative media (Frischlich, Klapproth, &amp; Brinkschulte, 2020; Holt, Ustad Figenschou, &amp; Frischlich, 2019)</li> </ul> <p><u>Sources/publishers via fact-checking sites</u></p> <p>Following previous research in the U.S., Guess et al. (2018) identified “Fake news domains” (focusing on pro-Trump and pro-Clinton content) which published two or more articles that were coded as “fake news” by fact-checkers (derived from Allcott &amp; Gentzkow, 2017). Grinberg et al. (2019) identified three classes of “fake news sources” differentiated by severity and frequency of false content (see Table 1). These three sources are part of a total of six website labels. The researchers additionally coded the sites into reasonable journalism, low quality journalism, satire and sites that were not applicable. The coders reached a percentual agreement of 60% for the labeling of the six categories, and 80% for the distinction of fake and non-fake categories.</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Three classes of “fake news sources” by Grinberg et al. (2019)</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table style="height: 914px;"> <tbody> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 42px; width: 60.734375px;"> <p><strong>Label</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 42px; width: 323.25px;"> <p><strong>Specification</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 42px; width: 276.96875px;"> <p><strong>Identification</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 42px; width: 147.0625px;"> <p><strong>Definition</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 114px;"> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 114px; width: 60.734375px;"> <p>Black domains</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 114px; width: 323.25px;"> <p>Based on previous studies: These domains published at least two articles which were declared as “fake news” by fact-checking sites.</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 114px; width: 276.96875px;"> <p>Based on preexisting lists constructed by fact-checkers, journalists and academics (Allcott &amp; Gentzkow, 2017; Guess et al., 2018)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 114px; width: 147.0625px;"> <p>Almost exclusively fabricated stories</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 238px;"> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 238px; width: 60.734375px;"> <p>Red domains</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 238px; width: 323.25px;"> <p>Major or frequent falsehoods that are in line with the site's political agenda.</p> <p>Prejudiced: Site presents falsehoods that focus upon one group with regards to race / religion / ethnicity / sexual orientation.</p> <p>Major or frequent falsehoods with little regard for the truth, but not necessarily to advance a certain political agenda.</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 238px; width: 276.96875px;"> <p>By the fact-checker snopes.com as sources of questionable claims; then manually differentiated between red and orange domains</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 238px; width: 147.0625px;"> <p>Falsehoods that clearly reflected a flawed editorial process</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 520px;"> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 520px; width: 60.734375px;"> <p>Orange domains</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 520px; width: 323.25px;"> <p>Moderate or occasional falsehoods to advance political agenda.</p> <p>Sensationalism: exaggerations to the extent that the article becomes misleading and inaccurate.</p> <p>Occasionally prejudiced articles: Site at times presents individual articles that contain falsehoods regarding race / religion / ethnicity / sexual orientation</p> <p>Openly states that the site may not be inaccurate, fake news, or cannot be trusted to provide factual news.</p> <p>Moderate or frequent falsehoods with little regard for the truth, but not necessarily to advance a certain political agenda.</p> <p>Conspiratorial: explanations of events that involves unwarranted suspicion of government cover ups or supernatural agents.</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 520px; width: 276.96875px;"> <p>By the fact-checker snopes.com as sources of questionable claims; then manually differentiated between red and orange domains</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="height: 520px; width: 147.0625px;"> <p>Negligent and deceptive information but are less systemically flawed</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p>Supplementary materials: <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2019/01/23/363.6425.374.DC1/aau2706_Grinberg_SM.pdf">https://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2019/01/23/363.6425.374.DC1/aau2706_Grinberg_SM.pdf</a> (S5 and S6)</p> <p>Coding scheme and source labels: <a href="https://zenodo.org/record/2651401#.XxGtJJgzaUl">https://zenodo.org/record/2651401#.XxGtJJgzaUl</a> (LazerLab-twitter-fake-news-replication-2c941b8\domains\domain_coding\data)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Allcott, H., &amp; Gentzkow, M. (2017). Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. <em>Journal of Economic Perspectives</em>, <em>31</em>(2), 211–236.</p> <p>Bachl, M. (2018). (Alternative) media sources in AfD-centered Facebook discussions. <em>Studies in Communication | Media</em>, <em>7</em>(2), 256–270.</p> <p>Bakir, V., &amp; McStay, A. (2018). Fake news and the economy of emotions. <em>Digital Journalism</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 154–175.</p> <p>Boberg, S., Quandt, T., Schatto-Eckrodt, T., &amp; Frischlich, L. (2020, April 6). <em>Pandemic populism: Facebook pages of alternative news media and the corona crisis -- A computational content analysis</em>. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.02566v3</p> <p>Farkas, J., Schou, J., &amp; Neumayer, C. (2018). Cloaked Facebook pages: Exploring fake Islamist propaganda in social media. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(5), 1850–1867.</p> <p>Frischlich, L., Klapproth, J., &amp; Brinkschulte, F. (2020). Between mainstream and alternative – Co-orientation in right-wing populist alternative news media. In C. Grimme, M. Preuss, F. W. Takes, &amp; A. Waldherr (Eds.), <em>Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Disinformation in open online media </em>(Vol. 12021, pp. 150–167). Cham: Springer International Publishing.</p> <p>Grinberg, N., Joseph, K., Friedland, L., Swire-Thompson, B., &amp; Lazer, D. (2019). Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. <em>Science (New York, N.Y.)</em>, <em>363</em>(6425), 374–378.</p> <p>Guess, A., Nagler, J., &amp; Tucker, J. (2019). Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. <em>Science Advances</em>, <em>5</em>(1). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4586</p> <p>Guess, A., Nyhan, B., &amp; Reifler, J. (2018). Selective exposure to misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 US presidential campaign. <em>European Research Council</em>, <em>9</em>(3), 1–14.</p> <p>Heft, A., Mayerhöffer, E., Reinhardt, S., &amp; Knüpfer, C. (2020). Beyond Breitbart: Comparing right?wing digital news infrastructures in six Western democracies. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>12</em>(1), 20–45.</p> <p>Holt, K., Ustad Figenschou, T., &amp; Frischlich, L. (2019). Key dimensions of alternative news media. <em>Digital Journalism</em>, <em>7</em>(7), 860–869.</p> <p>Nelson, J. L., &amp; Taneja, H. (2018). The small, disloyal fake news audience: The role of audience availability in fake news consumption. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(10), 3720–3737.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4d Topics (Disinformation) 2020-08-13T12:01:38+02:00 Anna Staender a.staender@ikmz.uzh.ch Edda Humprecht edda.humprecht@ntnu.no <p>The topic variable is used in research on disinformation to analyze thematic differences in the content of false news, rumors, conspiracies, etc. Those topics are frequently based on national news agendas, i.e. producers of disinformation address current national or world events (e.g. elections, immigration, etc.) (Humprecht, 2019).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Topics are a central yet under-researched aspect of research on online disinformation (Freelon &amp; Wells, 2020). The research interest is to find out which topics are taken up and spread by disinformation producers. The focus of this research is both on specific key topics for which sub-themes are identified (e.g. elections, climate change, Covid-19) and, more generally, on the question of which misleading content is disseminated (mostly on social media). Methodologically, the identification of topics is often a first step followed by further analysis of the content (Ferrara, 2017). Thus, the analysis of topics is linked to the detection of disinformation, which represents a methodological challenge. Topics can be identified inductively or deductively. Inductive analyses often use a data corpus, for example social media data, and try to identify topics using techniques such as topic modeling (e.g. Boberg et al., 2020). Deductive analyses frequently use topic lists to classify contents. Topics lists are initially created based on the literature on the respective topic or with the help of databases, e.g. by fact-checkers.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Studies on topics of disinformation use both manual and automated content analysis or combinations of both to investigate the occurrence of different topics in texts (Boberg et al., 2020; Bradshaw, Howard, Kollanyi, &amp; Neudert, 2020). Inductive and deductive approaches have been combined with qualitative text analyses to identify topic categories which are subsequently coded (Humprecht, 2019; Marchal, Kollanyi, Neudert, &amp; Howard, 2019).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Ferrara (2017); Humprecht (2019), Marchal et al. (2019)</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Summary of selected studies</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Ferrara (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Content type:</em> Tweets</p> <p><em>Sampling period:</em> April 27, 2017 to May 7, 201</p> <p><em>Sample size:</em> 16.65 million tweets</p> <p><em>Sampling: </em>List of 23 key words and top 20 hashtags</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Keywords:</em> France2017, Marine2017, AuNomDuPeuple, FrenchElection, FrenchElections, Macron, LePen, MarineLePen, FrenchPresidentialElection, JeChoisisMarine, JeVoteMarine, JeVoteMacron JeVote, Presidentielle2017, ElectionFracaise, JamaisMacron, Macron2017, EnMarche, MacronPresident</p> <p><em>Hashtags: </em></p> <p>#Macron, #Presidentielle2017, #fn, #JeVote, #LePen, #France, #2017LeDebat, #MacronLeaks, #Marine2017, #debat2017, #2017LeDébat, #MacronGate, #MarineLePen, #Whirlpool, #EnMarche, #JeVoteMacron, #MacronPresident, #JamaisMacron, #FrenchElection</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Humprecht (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Content type:</em> fact checks</p> <p><em>Outlet/ country:</em> 2 fact checkers per country (AT, DE, UK, US)</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>June 1, 2016 to September 30, 2017</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>N=651</p> <p><em>Unit of analysis:</em> story/ fact-check</p> <p><em>No. of topics coded:</em> main topic per fact-check</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> fact checks and fact-checker</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>conspiracy theory, education, election campaign, environment, government/public administration (at the time when the story was published), health, immigration/integration, justice/crime, labor/employment, macroeconomics/economic regulation, media/journalism, science/ technology, war/terror, others</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Krippendorff’s alpha = 0.71</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Marchal et al. (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Content type:</em> tweets related to the European elections 2019</p> <p><em>Sampling:</em> hashtags in English, Catalan, French, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish, Swedish</p> <p><em>Sampling criteria:</em> (1) contained at least one of the relevant hashtags; (2) contained the hashtag in the URL shared, or the title of its webpage; (3) were a retweet of a message that contained a relevant hashtag or mention in the original message; (4) were a quoted tweet referring to a tweet with a relevant hashtag or mention</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>5 April and 20 April, 2019</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>584,062 tweets from 187,743 unique users</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Religion Islam (Muslim, Islam, Hijab, Halal, Muslima, Minaret)</p> <p>Religion Christianity (Christianity, Church, Priest)</p> <p>Immigration (Asylum Seeker, Refugee, Migrants, Child Migrant, Dual Citizenship, Social Integration)</p> <p>Terrorism (ISIS, Djihad, Terrorism, Terrorist Attack)</p> <p>Political Figures/Parties (Vladimir Putin, Enrico Mezzetti, Emmanuel Macron, ANPI, Arnold van Doorn, Islamic Party for Unity, Nordic Resistance Movement)</p> <p>Celebrities (Lara Trump, Alba Parietti)</p> <p>Crime (Vandalism, Rape, Sexual Assault, Fraud, Murder, Honour Killing)</p> <p>Notre-Dame Fire (Notre-Dame Fire, Reconstruction)</p> <p>Political Ideology (Anti-Fascism, Fascism, Nationalism)</p> <p>Social Issues (Abortion, Bullying, Birth Rate)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Boberg, S., Quandt, T., Schatto-Eckrodt, T., &amp; Frischlich, L. (2020). Pandemic Populism: Facebook Pages of Alternative News Media and the Corona Crisis -- A Computational Content Analysis, <em>2019</em>. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.02566</p> <p>Bradshaw, S., Howard, P. N., Kollanyi, B., &amp; Neudert, L. M. (2020). Sourcing and Automation of Political News and Information over Social Media in the United States, 2016-2018. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>37</em>(2), 173–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1663322</p> <p>Ferrara, E. (2017). Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 French presidential election. <em>First Monday</em>, <em>22</em>(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/FM.V22I8.8005</p> <p>Freelon, D., &amp; Wells, C. (2020). Disinformation as Political Communication. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>37</em>(2), 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1723755</p> <p>Humprecht, E. (2019). Where ‘fake news’ flourishes: a comparison across four Western democracies. <em>Information Communication and Society</em>, <em>22</em>(13), 1973–1988. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1474241</p> <p>Marchal, N., Kollanyi, B., Neudert, L., &amp; Howard, P. N. (2019). <em>Junk News During the EU Parliamentary Elections?: Lessons from a Seven-Language Study of Twitter and Facebook</em>. Oxford, UK. Retrieved from https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/93/2019/05/EU-Data-Memo.pdf</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4e Types (Disinformation) 2020-08-13T12:15:15+02:00 Anna Staender a.staender@ikmz.uzh.ch Edda Humprecht edda.humprecht@ntnu.no <p>Disinformation can appear in various forms. Firstly, different formats can be manipulated, such as texts, images, and videos. Secondly, the amount and degree of falseness can vary, from completely fabricated content to decontextualized information to satire that intentionally misleads recipients. Therefore, the forms and format of disinformation might vary and differ not only between the supposedly clear categories of “true” and “false”.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Studies on types of disinformation are conducted in various fields, e.g. political communication, journalism studies, and media effects studies. Among other things, the studies identify the most common types of mis- or disinformation during certain events (Brennen, Simon, Howard, &amp; Nielsen, 2020), analyze and categorize the behavior of different types of Twitter accounts (Linvill &amp; Warren, 2020), and investigate the existence of serveral types of “junk news” in different national media landscapes (Bradshaw, Howard, Kollanyi, &amp; Neudert, 2020; Neudert, Howard, &amp; Kollanyi, 2019).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Only relatively few studies use combinations of methods. Some studies identify different types of disinformation via qualitative and quantitative content analyses (Bradshaw et al., 2020; Brennen et al., 2020; Linvill &amp; Warren, 2020; Neudert et al., 2019). Others use surveys to analyze respondents’ concerns as well as exposure towards different types of mis- and disinformation (Fletcher, 2018).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Brennen et al. (2020); Bradshaw et al. (2020); Linvill and Warren (2020)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on example studies:</strong></p> <p>Types of disinformation are defined by the presentation and contextualization of content and sometimes additionally by details (e.g. professionalism) about the communicator. Studies either deductively identify different types of disinformation (Brennen et al., 2020) by applying the theoretical framework by Wardle (2019), or additionally inductively identify and build different categories based on content analyses (Bradshaw et al., 2020; Linvill &amp; Warren, 2020).</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Types of mis-/disinformation by Brennen et al. (2020)</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Category</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Specification</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Satire or parody</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>False connection</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Headlines, visuals or captions don’t support the content</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Misleading content</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Misleading use of information to frame an issue or individual, when facts/information are misrepresented or skewed</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>False context</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Genuine content is shared with false contextual information, e.g. real images which have been taken out of context</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Imposter content</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Genuine sources, e.g. news outlets or government agencies, are impersonated</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Fabricated content</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Content is made up and 100% false; designed to deceive and do harm</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Manipulated content</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Genuine information or imagery is manipulated to deceive, e.g. deepfakes or other kinds of manipulation of audio and/or visuals</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><em>Note</em>. The categories are adapted from the theoretical framework by Wardle (2019). The coding instruction was: “To the best of your ability, what type of misinformation is it? (Select one that fits best.)” (Brennen et al., 2020, p. 12). The coders reached an intercoder reliability of a Cohen’s kappa of 0.82.</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 2. Criteria for the “junk news” label by Bradshaw et al. (2020)</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Criteria</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Reference</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Specification</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Professionalism</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>refers to the information about authors and the organization</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“Sources do not employ the standards and best practices of professional journalism, including information about real authors, editors, and owners” (pp. 174-175). “Distinct from other forms of user-generated content and citizen journalism, junk news domains satisfy the professionalism criterion because they purposefully refrain from providing clear information about real authors, editors, publishers, and owners, and they do not publish corrections of debunked information” (p. 176).</p> <p><u>Procedure</u>:</p> <p>- Systematically checked the about pages of domains: Contact information, information about ownership and editors, and other information relating to professional standards</p> <p>- Reviewed whether the sources appeared in third-party fact-checking reports</p> <p>- Checked whether sources published corrections of fact-checked reporting.</p> <p><u>Examples</u>: zerohedge.com, conservative- fighters.org, deepstatenation.news</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Counterfeit</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>refers to the layout and design of the domain itself</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“(…) [S]ources mimic established news reporting by using certain fonts, having branding, and employing content strategies. (…) Junk news is stylistically disguised as professional news by the inclusion of references to news agencies and credible sources as well as headlines written in a news tone with date, time, and location stamps. In the most extreme cases, outlets will copy logos and counterfeit entire domains” (p. 176).</p> <p><u>Procedure</u>:</p> <p>- Systematically reviewed organizational information about the owner and headquarters by checking sources like Wikipedia, the WHOIS database, and third-party fact-checkers (like Politico or MediaBiasFactCheck)</p> <p>- Consulted country-specific expert knowledge of the media landscape in the US to identify counterfeiting websites.</p> <p><u>Examples</u>: politicoinfo.com, NBC.com.co</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Style</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>refers to the content of the domain as a whole</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“ (…) [S]tyle is concerned with the literary devices and language used throughout news reporting. (…) Designed to systematically manipulate users for political purposes, junk news sources deploy propaganda techniques to persuade users at an emotional, rather than cognitive, level and employ techniques that include using emotionally driven language with emotive expressions and symbolism, ad hominem attacks, misleading headlines, exaggeration, excessive capitalization, unsafe generalizations, logical fallacies, moving images and lots of pictures or mobilizing memes, and innuendo (Bernays, 1928; Jowette &amp; O’Donnell, 2012; Taylor, 2003). (…) Stylistically, problematic sources will employ propaganda and clickbait techniques to varying degrees. As a result, determining style can be highly complex and context dependent” (p. 177).</p> <p><u>Procedure</u>:</p> <p>- Examined at least five stories on the front page of each news source in depth during the US presidential campaign in 2016 and the SOTU address in 2018</p> <p>- Checked the headlines of the stories and the content of the articles for literary and visual propaganda devices</p> <p>- Considered as stylistically problematic if three of the five stories systematically exhibited elements of propaganda</p> <p><u>Examples</u>: 100percentfedup.com, barenakedislam.com, theconservativetribune.com, dangerandplay.com</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Credibility</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>refers to the content of the domain as a whole</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“(…) [S]ources rely on false information or conspiracy theories and do not post corrections” (p. 175). “[They] typically report on unsubstantiated claims and rely on conspiratorial and dubious sources. (…) Junk news sources that satisfy the credibility criterion frequently fail to vet their sources, do not consult multiple sources, and do not fact-check” (p. 178).</p> <p><u>Procedure</u>:</p> <p>- Examined at least five front page stories and reviewed the sources that were cited</p> <p>- Reviewed pages to see if they included known conspiracy theories on issues such as climate change, vaccination, and “Pizzagate”</p> <p>- Checked third-party fact-checkers for evidence of debunked stories and conspiracy theories</p> <p><u>Examples</u>: infowars.com, endingthefed.com, thegatewaypundit.com, newspunch.com</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Bias</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>refers to the content of the domain as a whole</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“(…) [H]yper-partisan media websites and blogs (…) are highly biased, ideologically skewed, and publish opinion pieces as news. Basing their stories on the same events, these sources manage to convey strikingly different impressions of what actually transpired. It is such systematic differences in the mapping from facts to news reports that we call bias. (…) Bias exists on both sides of the political spectrum. Like determining style, determining bias can be highly complex and context dependent” (pp. 177-178).</p> <p><u>Procedure</u>:</p> <p>- Checked third-party sources that systematically evaluate media bias</p> <p>- If the domain was not evaluated by a third party, the authors examined the ideological leaning of the sources used to support stories appearing on the domain</p> <p>- Evaluation of the labeling of politicians (are there differences between the left and the right?)</p> <p>- Identified bias created through the omission of unfavorable facts, or through writing that is falsely presented as being objective</p> <p><u>Examples on the right</u>: breitbart.com, dailycaller.com, infowars.com, truthfeed.com</p> <p><u>Examples on the left</u>: occupydemocrats.com, addictinginfo.com, bipartisanreport.com</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><em>Note. </em>The coders reached an intercoder reliability of a Krippendorff’s kappa of 0.89. The label of “junk news” is defined by fulfilling at least three of the five criteria. It refers to sources that deliberately publish misleading, deceptive, or incorrect information packaged as real news.</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 3. Identified types of IRA-associated Twitter accounts by Linvill and Warren (2020)</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Category</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Specification</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Right troll</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“Twitter-handles broadcast nativist and right-leaning populist messages. These handles’ themes were distinct from mainstream Republicanism. (…) They rarely broadcast traditionally important Republican themes, such as taxes, abortion, and regulation, but often sent divisive messages about mainstream and moderate Republicans. (…) The overwhelming majority of handles, however, had limited identifying information, with profile pictures typically of attractive, young women” (p. 5).</p> <p>Hashtags frequently used by these accounts: #MAGA (i.e., “Make America Great Again,”), #tcot (i.e. “Top Conservative on Twitter), #AmericaFirst, and #IslamKills</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Left troll</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“These handles sent socially liberal messages, with an overwhelming focus on cultural identity. (…) They discussed gender and sexual identity (e.g., #LGBTQ) and religious identity (e.g., #MuslimBan), but primarily focused on racial identity. Just as the Right Troll handles attacked mainstream Republican politicians, Left Troll handles attacked mainstream Democratic politicians, particularly Hillary Clinton. (…) It is worth noting that this account type also included a substantial portion of messages which had no clear political motivation” (p. 6).</p> <p>Hashtags frequently used by these accounts: #BlackLivesMatter, #PoliceBrutality, and #BlackSkinIsNotACrime</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Newsfeed</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“These handles overwhelmingly presented themselves as U.S. local news aggregators and had descriptive names (…). These accounts linked to legitimate regional news sources and tweeted about issues of local interest (…). A small number of these handles, (…) tweeted about global issues, often with a pro-Russia perspective” (p. 6).</p> <p>Hashtags frequently used by these accounts: #news, #sports, and #local</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Hashtag gamer</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“These handles are dedicated almost entirely to playing hashtag games, a popular word game played on Twitter. Users add a hashtag to a tweet (e.g., #ThingsILearnedFromCartoons) and then answer the implied question. These handles also posted tweets that seemed organizational regarding these games (…). Like some tweets from Left Trolls, it is possible such tweets were employed as a form of camouflage, as a means of accruing followers, or both. Other tweets, however, often using the same hashtag as mundane tweets, were socially divisive (…)” (p. 7).</p> <p>Hashtags frequently used by these accounts: #ToDoListBeforeChristmas, #ThingsYouCantIgnore, #MustBeBanned, and #2016In4Words</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><em>Fearmonger</em></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>“These accounts spread disinformation regarding fabricated crisis events, both in the U.S. and abroad. Such events included non-existent outbreaks of Ebola in Atlanta and Salmonella in New York, an explosion at the Columbian Chemicals plan in Louisiana, a phosphorus leak in Idaho, as well as nuclear plant accidents and war crimes perpetrated in Ukraine. (…) These accounts typically tweeted a great deal of innocent, often frivolous content (i.e. song lyrics or lines of poetry) which were potentially automated. With this content these accounts often added popular hashtags such as #love (…) and #rap (…). These accounts changed behavior sporadically to tweet disinformation, and that output was produced using a different Twitter client than the one used to produce the frivolous content. (…) The Fearmonger category was the only category where we observed some inconsistency in account activity. A small number of handles tweeted briefly in a manner consistent with the Right Troll category but switched to tweeting as a Fearmonger or vice-versa” (p. 7).</p> <p>Hashtags frequently used by these accounts: #Fukushima2015 and #ColumbianChemicals</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><em>Note. </em>The categories were identified qualitatively analyzing the content produced and were then refined and explored more detailed via a quantitative analysis. The coders reached a Krippendorff’s alpha intercoder-reliability of 0.92.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Bradshaw, S., Howard, P. N., Kollanyi, B., &amp; Neudert, L.?M. (2020). Sourcing and automation of political news and information over social media in the United States, 2016-2018. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>37</em>(2), 173–193.</p> <p>Brennen, J. S., Simon, F. M., Howard, P. N. [P. N.], &amp; Nielsen, R. K. (2020). <em>Types, sources, and claims of covid-19 misinformation</em>. Reuters Institute. Retrieved from http://www.primaonline.it/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-19_reuters.pdf</p> <p>Fletcher, R. (2018). <em>Misinformation and disinformation unpacked</em>. Reuters Institute. Retrieved from http://www.digitalnewsreport.org/survey/2018/misinformation-and-disinformation-unpacked/</p> <p>Linvill, D. L., &amp; Warren, P. L. (2020). Troll factories: Manufacturing specialized disinformation on Twitter. <em>Political Communication</em>, 1–21.</p> <p>Neudert, L.?M., Howard, P., &amp; Kollanyi, B. (2019). Sourcing and automation of political news and information during three European elections. <em>Social Media + Society</em>, <em>5</em>(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119863147</p> <p>Wardle, C. (2019). <em>First Draft's essential guide to understanding information disorder</em>. UK: First Draft News. Retrieved from https://firstdraftnews.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Information_Disorder_Digital_AW.pdf?x76701</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/1h Public engagement of scientists (Science Communication) 2020-10-15T19:21:14+02:00 Nina Wicke n.wicke@tu-braunschweig.de <p><strong>Public engagement of scientists</strong> is defined as “all kinds of publicly accessible communication carried out by people <em>presenting themselves as scientists</em>. This includes scholarly communication directed at peers as well as science communication directed at lay publics” (Jünger &amp; Fähnrich, 2019, p. 7).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>The variable “<u>public engagement of scientists</u>” can be differentiated according to the following three main dimensions (Jünger &amp; Fähnrich, 2019):</p> <ol> <li><em>Directions of engagement:</em> Describes the extent to which communication scientists on Twitter connect with people from different sectors of society (e.g. science, politics, media, economy). This allows conclusions to the potential influence of scientists reaching specific audiences beyond the scientific community (Jünger &amp; Fähnrich, 2019).</li> <li><em>Topics of engagement:</em> Previous research reveals that social scientists not only act as experts in their research field, but often present themselves as public intellectuals by also referring to political and social issues (Albæk, Christiansen, &amp; Togeby, 2003; Fähnrich &amp; Lüthje, 2017). For this reason, communication scientists are expected to communicate not only on scientific but also on political or economic issues.</li> <li><em>Modes of engagement:</em> In addition to disseminating information, social networking sites also allow for more interactive ways of maintaining relationships. Thus, following Ellison and Boyd (2013), it can be assumed that communication on social networking sites can be both content-centered and user-centered. This dimension can be linked to the speech act theory (Klemm, 2000; Searle, 1990), according to which every use of language has a performative function.</li> </ol> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>In some cases, a mixed method approach, employing two data collection methods, is applied: a content analysis is complemented by a survey to gain information about the science communicators such as demographic information (Hara, Abbazio, &amp; Perkins, 2019). Furthermore, their social networks are investigated by means of network analysis (Walter, Lörcher, &amp; Brüggemann, 2019).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Hara et al. (2019); Jahng &amp; Lee (2018); Kouper (2010); Mahrt &amp; Puschmann (2014); Walter et al. (2019)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Jünger &amp; Fähnrich, 2019</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors:</strong> Jakob Jünger &amp; Birte Fähnrich, 2019</p> <p><strong>Research questions: </strong>How can the public engagement of scientists in the context of online communication be conceptualized? Which types of engagement occur in the Twitter activity of communication scholars?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis:</strong> Tweets and followers belonging to the Twitter profiles of communication scientists who are following the International Communication Association (ICA) on Twitter (only German- and English-speaking users)</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis:</strong> Data collection in September 2017</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Subject area of the content of the tweets</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Tweet</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>- Science-related topics (research, teaching)</p> <p>- Non-scientific topics (politics, economy, media, sports, environment, society, leisure time, and others)</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Gwet’s AC1: 0,71 – 1,00; Holsti: 0,82 – 1,00</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> </div> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Language patterns of communication scientists (Speech acts)</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Tweet</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>- Actor-centered patterns (discussing, activating, socializing),</p> <p>- Content-centered patterns (reporting, commenting),</p> <p>- Other language patterns</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Gwet’s AC1: 0,54 – 0,95; Holsti: 0,75 – 1,00</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> </div> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> References of the communication scientists on Twitter</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Tweet</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>- Self-reference,</p> <p>- Reference to specific actor,</p> <p>- Reference to other unspecific actor,</p> <p>- No reference to actors</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Gwet’s AC1: 0,83 – 0,87; Holsti: 0,88 – 0,93</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> </div> </div> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Type of actor (followers of the investigated scientists)</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Self description in profile</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong> Person, Organization</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Gwet’s AC1: 0,89; Holsti: 0,91; Kappa: 0,84; Krippendorffs’ Alpha: 0,84</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> </div> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Social sphere of action of the followers</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Self description in profile</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>- Science (communication science, other sciences, science in general)</p> <p>- Politics (party, state/administration, activists &amp; lobbyists)</p> <p>- Media (media &amp; journalism, news &amp; comments)</p> <p>- Economy (communication industry, other economic sectors)</p> <p>- Arts &amp; Entertainment</p> <p>- Health</p> <p>- Other (Other areas of activity, personal interests)</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Gwet’s AC1: 0,81 – 0,87; Holsti: 0,82 – 0,88; Kappa: 0,83 – 0,85; Krippendorffs’ Alpha: 0,83 – 0,85</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> in the appendix (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Walter, Lörcher &amp; Brüggemann, 2019</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors:</strong> Stefanie Walter, Ines Lörcher &amp; Michael Brüggemann</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>How do scientists interact with politicians and civil society on Twitter?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis:</strong> Climate-related English-language Tweets posted by scientists from the United States (to classify the Twitter users, an automated content analysis, a dictionary approach, was applied; Krippendorffs’ Alpha: 0,74)</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis:</strong> Data collection took place from October 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018</p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Mode and content of communication</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Tweet</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>Negative emotion, Certainty</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program for computerized text analysis</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>–</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> in the appendix (R-Script)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Hara et al., 2019</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors:</strong> Noriko Hara, Jessica Abbazio &amp; Kathryn Perkins</p> <p><strong>Research questions: </strong>What kind of demographic characteristics do the scientists participating in “Science” subreddit AMAs have? [survey] What was the experience like to host an AMA in the “Science” subreddit? [survey] What type of discussions did “Science” subreddit AMA participants engage in? Do questions receive answers? What are posters’ intentions? What kind of content features appear? Who is posting comments? What kind of responses do posts receive?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis:</strong> Six Ask Me Anything (AMA) sessions on Reddit’s “Science” subreddit (r/science)</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis:</strong> –</p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Poster’s intentions (PI); Answer status (AS); Comment status (CS); Poster’s identity (PID); Content features (CF)</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Post</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong></p> <p>- PI: Seeking information, Seeking discussion, Non-questions/comments, Further discussion/interaction among users, Answering a question</p> <p>- AS: Answered, Not answered</p> <p>- CS: Commented on, Not commented on</p> <p>- PID: Host, Participant – flair, Participant – no flair</p> <p>- CF: Providing factual information, Providing opinions, Providing resources, Providing personal experience, Providing guidance on forum governance, Making an inquiry – initial question, Making an inquiry – embedded question, Requesting resources, Off-topic comment</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Intercoder reliability ranged between 0.66 and 1.0 calculated by Cohen’s Kappa</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> in the appendix (in English)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Albæk, E., Christiansen, P. M., &amp; Togeby, L. (2003). Experts in the mass media: Researchers as sources in Danish daily newspapers, 1961–2001. <em>Journalism &amp; Mass Communication Quarterly</em>, <em>80</em>(4), 937–948.</p> <p>Ellison, N. B., &amp; Boyd, D. M. (2013). Sociality through social network sites. In W. H. Dutton, N. B. Ellison, &amp; D. M. Boyd (Eds.), <em>The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies </em>(pp. 151–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press.</p> <p>Fähnrich, B., &amp; Lüthje, C. (2017). Roles of Social Scientists in Crisis Media Reporting: The Case of the German Populist Radical Right Movement PEGIDA. <em>Science Communication</em>, <em>39</em>(4), 415–442.</p> <p>Hara, N., Abbazio, J., &amp; Perkins, K. (2019). An emerging form of public engagement with science: Ask Me Anything (AMA) sessions on Reddit r/science. <em>PloS One</em>, <em>14</em>(5), e0216789.</p> <p>Jahng, M. R., &amp; Lee, N. (2018). When scientists tweet for social changes: Dialogic communication and collective mobilization strategies by flint water study scientists on Twitter. <em>Science Communication, 40</em>(1), 89–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017751948</p> <p>Jünger, J., &amp; Fähnrich, B. (2019). Does really no one care?: Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>7</em>(2), 146144481986341.</p> <p>Klemm, M. (2000). <em>Zuschauerkommunikation: Formen und Funktionen der alltäglichen kommunikativen Fernsehaneignung [Audience Communication: Forms and Functions of Everyday Communicative Appropriation of Television]</em>. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.</p> <p>Kouper, I. (2010). Science blogs and public engagement with science: Practices, challenges, and opportunities. <em>Journal of Science Communication</em>, <em>09</em>(01).</p> <p>Mahrt, M., &amp; Puschmann, C. (2014). Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. <em>Journal of Science Communication</em>, <em>13</em>(03).</p> <p>Searle, J. R. (1990). <em>Sprechakte: Ein sprachphilosophischer Essay [Speech Acts: An Essay on the Philosophy of Language]</em>. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.</p> <p>Walter, S., Lörcher, I., &amp; Brüggemann, M. (2019). Scientific networks on Twitter: Analyzing scientists’ interactions in the climate change debate. <em>Public Understanding of Science</em>, <em>28</em>(6), 696–712.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/1f Characteristics of university websites (Science Communication) 2020-10-15T19:19:59+02:00 Nina Wicke n.wicke@tu-braunschweig.de <p>A topic-independent systematic approach according to Deuze (2003) enables to describe websites of universities based on three main characteristics:<strong> Hypertextuality, multimediality and interactivity </strong>(Metag &amp; Schäfer, 2017)<strong>. </strong>Other important dimensions to characterize a website are <u>multilingualism</u> (e. g. Chapleo et al., 2011) as well as the <u>content</u> of those websites (e. g. Bozyigit &amp; Akkan, 2014), but also their <u>dialogical</u> dimension (e. g. McAllister-Spooner &amp; Kent, 2009) and the prevalence of <u>ethnic and gender diversity</u> (Bal &amp; Sharik, 2019).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>According to Deuze (2003), whose systematic approach was applied in the content analysis of Metag and Schäfer (2017), three basic characteristics of online communication can be distinguished:</p> <ol> <li><em>Hypertextuality </em>can be understood as the linking of individual pages on the internet, whereby a differentiation is made between internal (links lead to one's own website) and external hypertextuality (links lead to other websites).</li> <li><em>Multimediality </em>means offering information in various formats (e.g. text, or audio and video formats).</li> <li>The term <em>interactivity </em>encompasses different ways for users to disseminate or access information (Kopper, Kolthoff, &amp; Czepek, 2000), but also different options for producers and users to interact with each other (e.g. giving feedback).</li> </ol> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>In some studies, such as those by Chapleo et al. (2011) or Metag and Schäfer (2017), cluster analyses were carried out following the content analyses. The study by Bal and Sharik (2019) also incorporated enrollment data from the universities in order to compare it with the results of the content analysis and to examine whether the website portrays the actual diversity of students at the university. In other cases, combinations of quantitative and qualitative techniques were applied (Lederbogen &amp; Trebbe, 2003) or a critical discourse analysis (Zhang &amp; O’Halloran, 2013) was conducted.</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Bal &amp; Sharik (2019); Bozyigit &amp; Akkan (2014); Chapleo et al. (2011); Else &amp; Crookes (2015); Gordon &amp; Berhow (2009); Lederbogen &amp; Trebbe (2003); McAllister-Spooner &amp; Kent (2009); Metag &amp; Schäfer (2017); Shadinger (2013); Zhang &amp; O'Halloran (2013)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Metag &amp; Schäfer 2017</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Julia Metag, Mike S. Schäfer</p> <p><strong>Research questions: </strong>What is the content of the online communication of German, Austrian and Swiss universities? Is it possible to distinguish different types of universities in terms of their communication methods?<strong> </strong>Which structural features are constituting the identified types?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Websites, Facebook and Twitter accounts of all universities which are entitled to award doctorates in Germany (<em>N = </em>146), Austria (<em>N </em>= 33) and German-speaking Switzerland (<em>N </em>= 11)</p> <p><strong>Unit of analysis I:</strong> Website, Facebook and Twitter presence as a whole</p> <p><strong>Unit of analysis II:</strong> The three largest posts on the website, the first five Facebook posts and the first five tweets of the research week</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis:</strong> 19.-25.05.2014 (Switzerland) &amp; 02.-08.06.2014 (Germany and Austria)</p> <p><strong>Information about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Formal categories: Structure of the website</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Website</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>- Language: German, English, other</p> <p>- Ressort structure: Information about studying; information about the university</p> <p>- Clearly visible navigation point for public/press/media</p> <p>- Number of employees in the press office</p> <p>- <strong>Multimediality</strong>: Number of <em>pictures</em> in general &amp; referring to science; number of <em>video files;</em> number of <em>graphics</em> in general &amp; referring to science; number of <em>audio files</em></p> <p>- <strong>Hypertextuality and Interactivity: </strong>Integration of the Twitter feed or Twitter icon on the home page; integration of the Facebook icon on the home page; integration of other social media icons on the homepage; embedded app for campus life on the homepage</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement: </strong>Nominal, except for <em>number of employees</em> and <em>Multimediality</em> (metric)</p> <p><strong>Reliability:</strong> intercoder reliability according to Holsti: 0,90 (in total; no variable below 0,71)</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> in the appendix (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Content variables for articles on the website</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Articel on website</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>- Type of article: Presentation of scientific results, scientific interview with a scientist, scientific news article, event information with scientific relevance, article/interview without scientific reference, event information without scientific reference</p> <p>- Author</p> <p>- <strong>Multimediality: </strong>number of pictures; number of graphics; number of audio files; number of video files</p> <p>- Topic of the article</p> <p>- Addressee of the article</p> <p>- Number of speakers in the article</p> <p>- Different speakers in the article</p> <p>- Address (direct/indirect/unclear &amp; form of address)</p> <p>- Language (scientific/formal/everyday language)</p> <p>- <strong>Hypertextuality and Interactivity: </strong>Possibility to link on LinkedIn/blogs; links to other websites/further information; possibility to rate/like/share the article; possibility to give feedback/to comment; number of comments; reactions of university towards e.g. comments; number of comments from university; response time to comments from other users</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Nominal, except for <em>Multimediality</em>, <em>number of speakers in the article</em>, <em>number of comments (from university), response time </em>(metric)</p> <p><strong>Reliability:</strong> intercoder reliability according to Holsti: 0,90 (in total; no variable below 0,71)</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> in the appendix (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Bal, T. L., &amp; Sharik, T. L. (2019). Web content analysis of university forestry and related natural resources landing webpages in the United States in relation to student and faculty diversity. <em>Journal of Forestry</em>, <em>117</em>(4), 379–397.</p> <p>Bozyigit, S., &amp; Akkan, E. (2014). Linking universities to the target market via web sites: A content analysis of Turkish private universities’ web sites. <em>Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences</em>, <em>148</em>, 486–493.</p> <p>Chapleo, C., Carrillo Durán, M. V., Castillo Díaz, A. (2011). Do UK universities communicate their brands effectively through their websites? <em>Journal of Marketing for Higher Education </em>21(1), 25-46.</p> <p>Deuze, M. (2003). The Web and its journalisms: Considering the consequences of different types of newsmedia online. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>5</em>(2), 203–230.</p> <p>Kopper, G. G., Kolthoff, A., &amp; Czepek, A. (2000). Research review: Online Journalism - a report on current and continuing research and major questions in the international discussion. <em>Journalism Studies</em>, <em>1</em>(3), 499–512.</p> <p>Lederbogen, U., &amp; Trebbe, J. (2003). Promoting science on the web. <em>Science Communication</em>, <em>24</em>(3), 333–352.</p> <p>McAllister-Spooner, S. M., &amp; Kent, M. L. (2009). Dialogic public relations and resource dependency: New Jersey community colleges as models for web site effectiveness. <em>Atlantic Journal of Communication</em>, <em>17</em>(4), 220–239.</p> <p>Metag, J., &amp; Schäfer, M. S. (2017). Hochschulen zwischen Social Media-Spezialisten und Online-Verweigerern.: Eine Analyse der Online-Kommunikation promotionsberechtigter Hochschulen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz [Universities between social media specialists and holdouts. An analysis of universities’ online communication in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland]. <em>Studies in Communication | Media</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 160–195.</p> <p>Zhang, Y., &amp; O'Halloran, K. L. (2013). ‘Toward a global knowledge enterprise’: University websites as portals to the ongoing marketization of higher education. <em>Critical Discourse Studies</em>, <em>10</em>(4), 468–485.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/1g Dialogical strategies of science communicators (Science Communication) 2020-10-15T19:20:42+02:00 Nina Wicke n.wicke@tu-braunschweig.de <p>According to Taylor et al. (2001), dialogue can be defined "as a tool for effective and mutually rewarding interpersonal communication" (p. 267) and refers to “any negotiated exchange of ideas and opinions” (Kent &amp; Taylor, 1998, p. 325), whereby all parties in a relationship strive to engage in an honest, open and ethically communicative give and take (Bortree &amp; Seltzer, 2009). From a public relations perspective, dialogue is a necessary tool to build an effective relationship with the public (Kent &amp; Taylor, 1998). <strong>Dialogical strategies</strong> therefore serve to build and maintain dynamic and lasting relationships with publics (Kent &amp; Taylor, 1998).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Many studies investigating the dialogical strategies of organizations on the Internet refer in terms of their theoretical foundation to the preliminary work of Kent and Taylor (1998) and Taylor et al. (2001) (e. g. Bortree &amp; Seltzer, 2009; Yang &amp; Taylor, 2010). Kent and Taylor (1998) developed five dimensions, so-called “<u>principles of dialogue</u>” (Taylor et al., 2001, p. 269), which can be utilized by organizations in their strategically designed websites in order to engage in dialogical relationships Among these principles are:</p> <ol> <li><em>Ease of interface:</em> This point refers to the usability of a site which is a prerequisite for online dialogue. If visitors do not have an easy time navigating a site and finding information, they will not have a positive experience at the website and may not use it again.</li> <li><em>Usefulness of information</em>: This principle is relevant because it clarifies the reason for visiting a website. Visitors turn to a site when it provides them with information that is useful, trustworthy, and of lasting value.</li> <li><em>Conservation of visitors</em>: The goal of websites should be to keep visitors on their own site and not to encourage them to visit other sites, e. g. through advertisements.</li> <li><em>Generation of return visits</em>: A relationship can only be established by users who are encouraged to return and visit the website on a regular basis.</li> <li><em>Dialogic loop</em>: Websites have to offer two-way communication (interactivity) in order to be fully dialogic.</li> </ol> <p> </p> <p>Other studies adapted the theoretical framework and modified it for application to different research objects such as social media platforms (Bortree &amp; Seltzer, 2009; Yang &amp; Taylor, 2010). For instance, the study by Bortree &amp; Seltzer (2009) extended it by adding organization engagement as a new strategy, since organizations can also encourage dialogue via posts on their own sites (e. g. walls and discussion boards). Besides the dialogic strategies, their outcomes are often identified and coded as well.</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Bortree &amp; Seltzer (2009); Cho et al. (2014); Reber &amp; Kim (2006); Taylor et al. (2001); Waters et al. (2009); Waters &amp; Jamal (2011); Yang &amp; Taylor (2010)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Bortree &amp; Seltzer, 2009</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors:</strong> Denise Sevick Bortree &amp; Trent Seltzer, 2009</p> <p><strong>Research objective: </strong>“This study sought to determine to what degree advocacy organizations are utilizing dialogic strategies on their social networking profiles as well as the degree to which these strategies are related to actual dialogic outcomes” (p. 317).</p> <p><strong>Objective of analysis:</strong> 50 Facebook profiles of environmental advocacy groups</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"><strong>Timeframe of analysis:</strong> –</div> <p><strong>Information about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Dialogic strategies</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Facebook page</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong></p> <p>- Links to organization homepage</p> <p>- Number of advertisements on a site</p> <p>- Use of applications</p> <p>- Ease of donations</p> <p>- Join now option</p> <p>- Offers of regular information through email</p> <p>- Profile sharing</p> <p>- Content sharing</p> <p>- Organization comments in dialogic spaces (i. e. wall and discussion boards)</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Nominal (Present/absent)</p> <p><strong>Reliability:</strong> Intercoder reliability according to Scott’s Pi: .61 to .87</p> <p><strong>Codebook: </strong>–</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Outcomes of dialogic communication</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Facebook page</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <p>- User posts (number of user posts on wall and discussion board)</p> <p>- Network activity (number of user posts in one week)</p> <p>- User responses to others (number of user posts in response to inquiries by the organization or others)</p> <p>- Organization response to users (number of organization posts in response to user inquiries)</p> <p>- Network extensiveness (total number of friends or fans)</p> <p>- Network growth (one week increase in number of friends or fans)</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Metric</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Intercoder reliability according to Holsti: 90 % - 100 %</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> –</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information onYang &amp; Taylor, 2010</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors:</strong> Aimei Yang &amp; Maureen Taylor, 2010</p> <p><strong>Research questions: </strong>How do Chinese ENGOs’ websites incorporate features that facilitate interaction? How do Chinese ENGOs’ websites provide information to key stakeholders (members, volunteers, general public, and the media)? How do Chinese ENGOs’ websites incorporate relationship-building features?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>68 Chinese ENGO’s websites</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis:</strong> –</p> <p><strong>Information about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Website features</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong></p> <p>- Ease of interaction (site map, major link to rest of site, search engine box)</p> <p>- Usefulness of information to members/volunteers (details of how to become affiliated, how to contribute money, links (email, telephone) to organization leaders, chat room/BBS/Blog, links to affiliate websites)</p> <p>- Usefulness of information to general public (tips of how to practice environmentally friendly activities in everyday life, tips of how to lead a healthy life, games and other entertainment function)</p> <p>- Usefulness of information to the media (press release room/search engine, FAQ section aimed at media, news published or aired about the organization, editorial stories written by organization staff, organization-in-action photos/stories, downloadable graphics/video/other material, organization fact sheets, organization logos for use in publication, clearly stated position on policy issues, organization perspective on current issues/trends, annual reports/financial)</p> <p>- Relationship-building (opportunity for user-response, opportunity to vote on issues, survey to voice opinion on issues, offers regular information through email, positing calendar of events)</p> <p>- Mission statement (statement of mission/organization value/goals from amoral authority perspective, statement of mission/organization value/goals from a grassroots perspective)</p> <p><strong>Scale of measurement:</strong> Nominal (1 = absence; 2 = linked through at least three levels of hyperlinks from the front page; 3 = linked through at least two levels of hyperlinks from the front page; 4 = placed on the front page)</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Intercoder reliability according to Scott’s Pi: .77 to 1.00</p> <p>(<em>M</em> = .84)</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> –</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Bortree, D. S., &amp; Seltzer, T. (2009). Dialogic strategies and outcomes: An analysis of environmental advocacy groups’ Facebook profiles. <em>Public Relations Review</em>, <em>35</em>(3), 317–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.05.002</p> <p>Cho, M., Schweickart, T., &amp; Haase, A. (2014). Public engagement with nonprofit organizations on Facebook. Public Relations Review, 40(3), 565–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.01.008</p> <p>Kent, M. L., Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. <em>Public Relations Review</em>, 24(3), 321-334.</p> <p>Reber, B. H., &amp; Kim, J. K. (2006). How activist groups use websites in media relations: Evaluating online press rooms. <em>Journal of Public Relations Research</em>, <em>18</em>(4), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1804_2</p> <p>Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., &amp; White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. <em>Public Relations Review</em>, <em>27</em>(3), 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00086-8</p> <p>Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., &amp; Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. <em>Public Relations Review</em>, <em>35</em>(2), 102–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.006</p> <p>Waters, R. D., &amp; Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit organizations’ Twitter updates. <em>Public Relations Review</em>, <em>37</em>(3), 321–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.03.002</p> <p>Yang, A., &amp; Taylor, M. (2010). Relationship-building by Chinese ENGOs’ websites: Education, not activation. <em>Public Relations Review</em>, <em>36</em>(4), 342–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.07.001</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/5d Arguments (User Comments/Interactions) 2020-07-23T14:44:44+02:00 Teresa K. Naab naab@uni-mannheim.de Constanze Küchler constanze.kuechler@phil.uni-augsburg.de <p>The occurrence of <strong>‘arguments’</strong> indicates the quality of statements made in online discussions. User comments below news content on websites or in social media can be examined whether they give reasons for or against positions or assertions. The occurrence of arguments in user comments or entire online discussions can be investigated in various ways depending on the exact research focus. Thus, the occurrence of arguments, their number, quality, or content (what reasons are raised?) can be examined. To determine the occurrence and number of arguments, arguments must first be identified. To ascertain the quality of arguments an evaluation standard is necessary (what constitutes high- or low-quality arguments?).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>As a complement to various further criteria (e.g. coherence, clarity), the occurrence of arguments in user comments indicates the comments’ contribution to the deliberative quality of online discussions. Normative approaches to discourse ethics (e.g. Habermas, 1992; Steenberger et al., 2003) assume that contributions to a discussion that provide arguments for a position are more valuable to the success of a discussion than contributions that do not provide arguments.</p> <p>In addition, studies with various other theoretical backgrounds analyze arguments in user comments. For instance, the occurrence of arguments in user comments is interpreted as an indicator for factuality. Factuality, in turn, is regarded as a discussion factor comparable to news factors in journalism research (Ziegele, Breiner &amp; Quiring, 2014).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Medium</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Unit of analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Studies</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Online; online discussions below news posts</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Occurence of arguments</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Individual user comment</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Naab &amp; Küchler (work in progress)</p> <p>Ziegele &amp; Quiring (2015)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Vorhandensein von Argument(en) in einem Nutzerkommentar</p> <p><strong>Operationalization/coding instructions: </strong>Argumente sind Aussagen, die dazu dienen sollen, Behauptungen zu begründen oder zu widerlegen. Es wird kodiert, ob ein Nutzerkommentar Argumente verwendet, um eine oder mehrere geäußerte(n) Meinung(en) zu begründen.</p> <p>Von Interesse ist hier, ob die Autor*innen von Nutzerkommentaren ihre eigenen Aussagen mit Argumenten unterstützen oder ob diese unbegründet bleiben. Die Leser*innen müssen sich bei zusammenhängenden Aussagen im Kommentar fragen, ob die Frage nach dem „Warum“ beantwortet wird. Anders gesagt: Gut erkennbar ist ein Argument, wenn man es problemlos mit einem Kausalsatz (weil...) an eine Behauptung anfügen kann oder wenn man eine begründende „Wenn-Dann-Beziehung“ zwischen den Sätzen herstellen kann. Eine Aneinanderreihung von Aussagen zählt nicht als Argumentation.</p> <p>Es geht hier nicht um die Qualität der Argumente. Es wird nur kodiert, ob Begründungen für Aussagen/Behauptungen/Positionen angeführt werden.</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>einzelner Nutzerkommentar</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>0/ keine Argumente, 1/ mind. ein Argument, 99/ nicht eindeutig zuzuordnen</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Naab, T.K. &amp; Küchler, C. (work in progress). Unveröffentlichtes Codebuch aus dem DFG-Projekt „Gegenseitige Sanktionierung unter NutzerInnen von Kommentarbereichen auf Nachrichtenwebseiten und auf Facebook“. Augsburg.</p> <p>Habermas, J. (1992). <em>Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates</em>. Suhrkamp.</p> <p>Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., &amp; Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. <em>Comparative European Politics</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 21–48. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002</p> <p>Ziegele, M., Breiner, T., &amp; Quiring, O. (2014). What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news items. <em>Journal of Communication</em>, <em>64</em>(6), 1111–1138. doi:10.1111/jcom.12123</p> <p>Ziegele, M. &amp; Quiring, O. (2015). Codebuch: Der Diskussionswert von Online-Nachrichten. Unveröffentlichtes Codebuch aus dem DFG-Projekt „Vom Nachrichtenwert zum Diskussionswert“. Mainz.</p> </div> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/5e Clarity (User Comments/Interactions) 2020-07-23T14:53:49+02:00 Teresa K. Naab naab@uni-mannheim.de Constanze Küchler constanze.kuechler@phil.uni-augsburg.de <p>The <strong>‘clarity’</strong> of user comments is an indicator for the quality of statements made in online discussions. User comments below news content on websites or in social media can be examined to determine whether they are clearly written, that is comprehensible to the reader in terms of form, style, and content. Clarity of user comments is essential for the contribution of a comment to a discussion and the exchange between commenters.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>As a complement to various further criteria (e.g. coherence, occurrence of arguments), the variable ‘clarity’ of a user comment indicates the comment’s contribution to the deliberative quality of online discussions. Normative approaches to discourse ethics (e.g. Habermas, 1992) assume that contributions to discussions should be phrased understandably to be more valuable for the success of a discussion.</p> <p><em><strong> </strong><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b r l"> <p><strong>Medium</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b r l"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b r l"> <p><strong>Unit of analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b r l"> <p><strong>Studies</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b r l"> <p>Online; online discussions below news posts</p> </td> <td class="t b r l"> <p>Clarity</p> </td> <td class="t b r l"> <p>Individual user comment</p> </td> <td class="t b r l"> <p>Naab &amp; Küchler (work in progress)</p> <p>Ziegele &amp; Quiring (2015)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Verständlichkeit eines Nutzerkommentars</p> <p><strong>Operationalization/coding instructions: </strong>Es wird kodiert, wie leicht sich Leser*innen der Sinn eines Nutzerkommentars erschließt, wie gut er nachvollziehbar ist. Hierbei zählt der Gesamteindruck. Indikatoren für eine hohe Verständlichkeit sind:</p> <ul> <li>Ein verständlicher Sprachstil <ul> <li>überwiegend Standardsprache</li> <li>ohne akademische Begriffe bzw. Fremdwörter</li> <li>Vermeidung von Reimen oder literarischen Schreibformen</li> <li>Vermeidung von übertriebenem Cyberslang oder Umgangssprache</li> <li>Keine Verwendung von Fremdsprachen</li> </ul> </li> <li>Eine klare, wenig verschachtelte Satzstruktur</li> <li>Keine auffälligen Rechtschreib- und Grammatikfehler</li> <li>Eine eindeutige rhetorische Gestaltung durch den Verzicht auf Ironie, Metaphern und abstrakte Bilder</li> <li>Eine hohe Prägnanz der Aussagen im Sinne der Verbindung von „Bedeutungsreichtum mit einem hohen Maß an Klarheit, Angemessenheit, Anschaulichkeit und Einfachheit“</li> <li>Verzicht auf das Voraussetzen von speziellem Hintergrundwissen, das beim Durchschnittsleser nicht vorausgesetzt werden kann.</li> </ul> <p>Der Kodierer kann sich die Frage stellen: Wie leicht erschließt sich mir der Sinn des Kommentars, wie nachvollziehbar ist er? „Baseline“ ist der Code „0“.<strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>einzelner Nutzerkommentar</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>0/ normal verständlich, 1/ schwer verständlich, 2/ überhaupt nicht verständlich, 99/ nicht eindeutig zuzuordnen<strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Intercoder reliability: </strong>The variable showed good performance in tests for intercoder agreement (percentage agreement = 86%; Krippendorf’s alpha = .72) in the study by Ziegele, Breiner, &amp; Quiring (2014).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Habermas, J. (1992). <em>Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates</em>. Suhrkamp.</p> <p>Naab, T.K. &amp; Küchler, C. (work in progress). Unveröffentlichtes Codebuch aus dem DFG-Projekt „Gegenseitige Sanktionierung unter NutzerInnen von Kommentarbereichen auf Nachrichtenwebseiten und auf Facebook“. Augsburg.</p> <p>Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., &amp; Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring political deliberation: A discourse quality index. <em>Comparative European Politics</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 21–48. doi:10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002</p> <p>Ziegele, M., Breiner, T., &amp; Quiring, O. (2014). What creates interactivity in online news discussions? An exploratory analysis of discussion factors in user comments on news items. <em>Journal of Communication</em>, <em>64</em>(6), 1111–1138. doi:10.1111/jcom.12123</p> <p>Ziegele, M. &amp; Quiring, O. (2015). Codebuch: Der Diskussionswert von Online-Nachrichten. Unveröffentlichtes Codebuch aus dem DFG-Projekt „Vom Nachrichtenwert zum Diskussionswert“. Mainz.</p> </div> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/5f Number of reply comments (User Comments/Interactions) 2020-07-23T14:59:26+02:00 Teresa K. Naab naab@uni-mannheim.de Constanze Küchler constanze.kuechler@phil.uni-augsburg.de <p>The variable <strong>‘number of reply comments’</strong> is an indicator of interactivity in online discussions. The number of reply comments is a simple measure of how much response a user comment has received. It is applicable if platforms that host comment sections offer the technical possibility to users to respond directly to existing user comments. The reply comments (also called ‘sub-level comments’ or ‘child comments’) then usually appear indented below the existing user comment they refer to (also called ‘top-level comment’ or ‘parent comment’).</p> <p>The measure does not provide information about the quality of the interaction between the commenters. It neither covers interactivity that occurs “outside” of comment threads below top-level comments, i.e. commenters responding in new top-level comments instead of sub-level comments.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Normative approaches to discourse ethics (e.g. Habermas, 1992) evaluate interactivity as a prerequisite for high-quality discourses.</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Medium</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Unit of analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Studies</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Online; online discussions below news posts</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Number of reply comments (sub-level comments) to a top-level comment</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Individual user comments</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Naab &amp; Küchler (work in progress)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Anzahl der Antwortkommentare auf einen Nutzerkommentar</p> <p><strong>Operationalization/coding instructions: </strong><em>Manuell:</em> Zählen Sie die Kind-Kommentare (Antwortkommentare, Second-Level-Kommentare), die zu einem Eltern-Kommentar (Top-Level-Kommentar) verfasst wurden und tragen die Anzahl ein.</p> <p><em>Automatisiert:</em> Sofern ein Datensatz alle Nutzerkommentare eines Kommentarthreads, Informationen über das Eltern- bzw. Kind-Level jedes Kommentars sowie eine Zuordnung aller Kind-Kommentare zu einem Eltern-Kommentar enthält, ist es möglich, die Anzahl der Kind-Kommentare für jeden Eltern-Kommentar per Auswertungssoftware zu aggregieren.</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Kommentarthread (Eltern-Kommentar + alle zugehörigen Kind-Kommentare/Antwortkommentare)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Naab, T.K. &amp; Küchler, C. (work in progress). Unveröffentlichtes Codebuch aus dem DFG-Projekt „Gegenseitige Sanktionierung unter NutzerInnen von Kommentarbereichen auf Nachrichtenwebseiten und auf Facebook“. Augsburg.</p> <p>Habermas, J. (1992). <em>Faktizität und Geltung: Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaates</em>. Suhrkamp.</p> </div> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/5c Incivility (Hate Speech/Incivility) 2020-07-23T14:39:20+02:00 Katharina Esau katharina.esau@hhu.de <p>The variable <strong>incivility</strong> is an indicator used to describe violations of communication norms. These norms can be social norms established within a society, a culture or parts of a society (e.g. a social class, milieu or group) or democratic norms established within a democratic society. In this sense <strong>incivility</strong> is associated with behaviors that threaten a collective face or a democratic society, deny people their personal freedoms, and stereotype individuals or social groups. Furthermore, some scholars include <strong>impoliteness</strong> into the concept of <strong>incivility </strong>and argue that the two concepts have no clear boundaries (e.g. Seely, 2017). They therefore describe incivility as aggressive, offensive or derogatory communication expressed directly or indirectly to other individuals or parties. In many studies a message is classified as uncivil if the message contains at least one instance of <strong>incivility</strong> (e.g. one violent threat). The direction of an uncivil statement is coded as ‘interpersonal’/‘personal’ or ‘other-oriented’/‘impersonal’ or sometimes also as ‘neutral’, meaning it is not directed at any group or individual.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>One unifying element to communication that is labelled as <strong>incivility</strong> is that it has to be a violation of an existing norm. Which norms are seen as violated depends on the theoretical tradition. <strong>Incivility</strong> research is related to theories on social norms of communication and conversation: conversational-maxims (Grice, 1975), face-saving concepts (Brown &amp; Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1989) or conversational-contract theories (Fraser, 1990). Further, <strong>incivility</strong> research has ties to theories that view public communication as part of democratic opinion formation and decision-making processes, e.g. theories on <strong>deliberative democracy</strong> and <strong>deliberation</strong> (Dryzek, 2000; Gutmann &amp; Thompson, 1996; Habermas, 1994).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p><strong>Incivility</strong> is examined through content analysis and sometimes combined with comparative designs (e.g., Rowe, 2015) or experimental designs (Muddiman, 2017; Oz, Zheng, &amp; Chen, 2017). In addition, content analyses can be accompanied by interviews or surveys, for example to validate the results of the content analysis (Erjavec &amp; Kovačič, 2012).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Previous studies have been interested in the extent, levels and direction of <strong>incivility</strong> in online communication (e.g. in one specific online discussion, in discussions on a specific topic, in discussions on a specific platform or on different platforms comparatively).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Previous studies have investigated <strong>incivility</strong> in user comments on political newsgroups, news websites, social media platforms (e.g. Twitter, Facebook), political blogs, science blogs or online consultation platforms.</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis: </strong>Many studies investigate <strong>incivility</strong> in user comments focusing on periods between 2 months and 1 year. It is common to use constructed weeks.</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Most manual content analyses measure <strong>incivility</strong> on the level of a message, for example on the level of user comments. On a higher level of analysis, the level of <strong>incivility</strong> for a whole discussion thread or online platform can be measured or estimated. On a lower level of analysis <strong>incivility</strong> can be measured on the level of utterances, sentences or words which are the preferred levels of analysis in automated content analyses.</p> <p>Table 1. Previous manual content analysis studies and measures of incivility</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Example study</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Construct</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Dimensions/Variables</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Explanation/<br />example</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="4"> <p>Papacharissi (2004)</p> </td> <td class="t" rowspan="4"> <p><strong>incivility</strong> (<em>separate</em> from <strong>impoliteness</strong>)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>threat to democracy</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. propose to overthrow a democratic government by force</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>I<sub>r</sub> </em>= .89</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>stereotype</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. association of a person with</p> <p>a group by using labels, whether those are mild – “liberal”, or</p> <p>more offensive – “faggot”)?</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>I<sub>r</sub> </em>= .91</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>threat to other individuals’ rights</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. personal freedom, freedom to speak</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>I<sub>r</sub> </em>= .86</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" colspan="2"> <p><strong>incivility</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>I<sub>r</sub> </em>= .89</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="6"> <p>Coe, Kenski, and Rains (2014)</p> </td> <td class="t" rowspan="6"> <p><strong>incivility </strong>(<strong>impoliteness </strong>is <em>included</em>)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>name-calling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>mean-spirited or disparaging</p> <p>words directed at a person or</p> <p>group of people</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .67</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>aspersion</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>mean-spirited or disparaging</p> <p>words directed at an idea,</p> <p>plan, policy, or behavior</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .61</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>reference to lying</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>stating or implying that an</p> <p>idea, plan, or policy was disingenuous</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .73</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>vulgarity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>using profanity or language that would not be considered proper (e.g., “pissed”, “screw”) in professional discourse</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .91</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>pejorative for speech</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>disparaging remark about the way in which a person communicates</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .74</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" colspan="2"> <p><strong>incivility / impoliteness</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .73</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="4"> <p>Rowe (2015)</p> </td> <td class="t" rowspan="4"> <p><strong>incivility</strong> (<em>separate</em> from <strong>impoliteness</strong>)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>threat to democracy</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>proposes to overthrow the government (e.g. proposes a revolution) or advocates an armed struggle in opposition to the government (e.g. threatens the use of violence against the government)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .66</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>threat to individual rights</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>advocates restricting the rights or freedoms of certain members of society or certain individuals</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .86</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>stereotype</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>asserts a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .80</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" colspan="2"> <p><strong>incivility</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .77</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" rowspan="9"> <p>Seely (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b" rowspan="9"> <p><strong>incivility</strong><br />(<strong>impoliteness </strong>is <em>included</em>)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>insulting language</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>name calling and other derogatory remarks often seen in pejorative speech and aspersions</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .84</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>vulgarity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “lazy f**kers”, “a**holes”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = 1</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>stereotyping of political party/ideology</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “typical lying lefties”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .88</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>stereotyping using “isms”/discriminatory language</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “if we don’t get rid of idiotic Muslim theologies, we will have growing problems”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = 1</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>other stereotyping language</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “GENERALS LIKE TO HAVE A MALE SOLDIER ON THEIR LAP AT ALL TIMES.”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .78</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>sarcasm</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “betrayed again by the Repub leadership . . . what a shock”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .79</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>accusations of lying</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “typical lying lefties”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .80</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>shouting</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>excessive capitalization</p> <p>and/or exclamation points</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .83</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" colspan="2"> <p><strong>incivility / impoliteness</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .81</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><em>Note</em>: Previous studies used different inter-coder reliability statistics; I<sub>r</sub> = reliability index by Perreault and Leigh (1989); <em>K</em>-α = Krippendorff’s-α; κ = Cohen’s Kappa</p> <p> </p> <p>Codebook used in the study Rowe (2015) is available under: <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Brown, P., &amp; Levinson, S. C. (1987). <em>Politeness: Some universals in language usage</em>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p> <p>Coe, K., Kenski, K., &amp; Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments. <em>Journal of Communication</em>, <em>64</em>(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104</p> <p>Dryzek, J. S. (2000). <em>Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations</em>. <em>Oxford political theory</em>. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.</p> <p>Erjavec, K., &amp; Kovačič, M. P. (2012). “You Don't Understand, This is a New War! ” Analysis of Hate Speech in News Web Sites' Comments. <em>Mass Communication and Society</em>, <em>15</em>(6), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.619679</p> <p>Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. <em>Journal of Pragmatics</em>, <em>14</em>(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-n</p> <p>Goffman, E. (1989). <em>Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior</em>. New York: Pantheon Books.</p> <p>Grice, P. H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), <em>Syntax and Semantics: Speech acts </em>(pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.</p> <p>Gutmann, A., &amp; Thompson, D. F. (1996). <em>Democracy and disagreement</em>. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.</p> <p>Habermas, J. (1994). Three Normative Models of Democracy. <em>Constellations</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 1–10.</p> <p>Muddiman, A. (2017). : Personal and public levels of political incivility. <em>International Journal of Communication</em>, <em>11</em>, 3182–3202.</p> <p>Oz, M., Zheng, P., &amp; Chen, G. M. (2017). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(9), 3400–3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516</p> <p>Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444</p> <p>Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. <em>Information, Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>18</em>(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365</p> <p>Seely, N. (2017). Virtual Vitriol: A Comparative Analysis of Incivility Within Political News Discussion Forums. <em>Electronic News</em>, <em>12</em>(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243117739060</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/5b Impoliteness (Hate Speech/Incivility) 2020-07-23T14:05:16+02:00 Katharina Esau katharina.esau@hhu.de <p>The variable <strong>impoliteness</strong> is an indicator used to describe violations of communication norms. These norms can be social norms established within a society, a culture or parts of a society (e.g. a social class, milieu or group). In this sense <strong>impoliteness</strong> is associated with, among other things, aggressive, offensive or derogatory communication expressed directly or indirectly to other individuals or parties. More specifically name calling, vulgar expressions or aspersions are classified as examples of impolite statements (e.g. Papacharissi, 2004; Seely, 2017). While some scholars distinguish between <strong>impoliteness</strong> and <strong>incivility </strong>and argue that <strong>impoliteness</strong> is more spontaneous, unintentional and more frequently regretted than <strong>incivility</strong> (e.g. Papacharissi, 2004; Rowe, 2015), other scholars include <strong>impoliteness</strong> into the concept of <strong>incivility </strong>and argue that the two concepts have no clear boundaries (Coe, Kenski, &amp; Rains, 2014; e.g. Seely, 2017). In many studies a message is classified as impolite if the message contains at least one instance of <strong>impoliteness</strong> (e.g. a swear word). The direction of an impolite statement is coded as ‘interpersonal’/‘personal’ or ‘other-oriented’/‘impersonal’ or sometimes also as ‘neutral’, meaning it is not directed at any group or individual.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p><strong>Impoliteness</strong> is a broader concept of violations of norms in communication that, in digital communication research, is often referred to in studies on <strong>incivility</strong>. Politeness can be related to theories on social norms of communication and conversation, for example conversational-maxims (Grice, 1975), face-saving concepts (Brown &amp; Levinson, 1987; Goffman, 1989) or conversational-contract theories (Fraser, 1990).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p><strong>Impoliteness</strong> is examined through content analysis and is sometimes combined with comparative designs (e.g., Rowe, 2015) or experimental designs (Muddiman, 2017; Oz, Zheng, &amp; Chen, 2017). In addition, content analyses can be accompanied by interviews or surveys, for example to validate the results of the content analysis (Erjavec &amp; Kovačič, 2012).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Previous studies have been interested in the extent, levels and direction of <strong>impoliteness</strong> in online communication (e.g. in one specific online discussion, in discussions on a specific topic, in discussions on a specific platform or on different platforms comparatively).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Previous studies have investigated <strong>impoliteness</strong> in user comments on political newsgroups, news websites, social media platforms (e.g. Twitter, Facebook), political blogs, science blogs or online consultation platforms.</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis: </strong>Content analysis studies investigate <strong>impoliteness</strong> in user comments focusing on periods between 2 months and 1 year (Coe et al., 2014; Rowe, 2015; Seely, 2017). It is common to use constructed weeks.</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Most manual content analysis studies measure <strong>impoliteness</strong> on the level of a message, for example on the level of user comments. On a higher level of analysis, the level of <strong>impoliteness</strong> for a whole discussion thread or online platform could be measured or estimated. On a lower level of analysis <strong>impoliteness</strong> can be measured on the level of utterances, sentences or words which are the preferred levels of analysis in automated content analyses.</p> <p>Table 1. Previous manual content analysis studies and measures of impoliteness</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Example study</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Construct</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Dimensions/Variables</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Explanation/<br />example</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="10"> <p>Papacharissi (2004)</p> </td> <td class="t" rowspan="10"> <p><strong>impoliteness</strong> <br />(<em>separate</em> from <strong>incivility</strong>)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>name-calling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “weirdo”, “traitor”, “crackpot”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>I<sub>r</sub> </em>= .91</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>aspersion</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “reckless”, “irrational”, “un-American”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>I<sub>r</sub> </em>= .91</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>synonyms for liar</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “hoax”, “farce”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>N/A</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>hyperboles</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “outrageous”, “heinous”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>N/A</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>non-cooperation</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>N/A</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>pejorative speak</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>N/A</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>vulgarity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. ”shit”, “damn”, “hell”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>I<sub>r</sub> </em>= .89</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>sarcasm</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>N/A</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>all-capital letters</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>used online to reflect shouting</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>N/A</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" colspan="2"> <p><strong>impoliteness</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>I<sub>r</sub> </em>= .90</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="6"> <p>Coe et al. (2014)</p> </td> <td class="t" rowspan="6"> <p><strong>impoliteness</strong> <br />(<em>included </em>in <strong>incivility</strong>)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>name-calling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>mean-spirited or disparaging</p> <p>words directed at a person or</p> <p>group of people</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .67</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>aspersion</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>mean-spirited or disparaging</p> <p>words directed at an idea,</p> <p>plan, policy, or behavior</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .61</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>reference to lying</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>stating or implying that an</p> <p>idea, plan, or policy was disingenuous</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .73</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>vulgarity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>using profanity or language that would not be considered proper (e.g., “pissed”, “screw”) in professional discourse</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .91</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>pejorative for speech</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>disparaging remark about the way in which a person communicates</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .74</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" colspan="2"> <p><strong>impoliteness/incivility</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .73</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="10"> <p>Rowe (2015)</p> </td> <td class="t" rowspan="10"> <p><strong>impoliteness</strong> <br />(<em>separate</em> from <strong>incivility</strong>)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>name-calling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g., “gun-nut”, “idiot”, “fool”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .82</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>aspersion</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>comments containing an attack on the reputation or</p> <p>integrity of someone or something</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .72</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>lying</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>comments implying disingenuousness</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>N/A</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>vulgarity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g., “crap”, “shit”, any swear-words/cursing, sexual innuendo</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = 1</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>pejorative</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>comments containing language which disparage the manner in which someone communicates (e.g., blather, crying, moaning)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = 1</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>hyperbole</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>a massive overstatement (e.g.,</p> <p>makes pulling teeth with pliers look easy)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .75</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>non-cooperation</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>a situation in a discussion in terms of a stalemate</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .66</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>sarcasm</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .71</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>other impoliteness</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>any other type of impoliteness</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .72</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" colspan="2"> <p><strong>impoliteness</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .78</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" rowspan="9"> <p>Seely (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b" rowspan="9"> <p><strong>impoliteness</strong> <br />(<em>included </em>in <strong>incivility</strong>)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>insulting language</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>name calling and other derogatory remarks often seen in pejorative speech and aspersions</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .84</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>vulgarity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “lazy f**kers”, “a**holes”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = 1</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>stereotyping of political party/ideology</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “typical lying lefties”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .88</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>stereotyping using “isms”/discriminatory language</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “if we don’t get rid of idiotic Muslim theologies, we will have growing problems”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = 1</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>other stereotyping language</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “GENERALS LIKE TO HAVE A MALE SOLDIER ON THEIR LAP AT ALL TIMES.”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .78</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>sarcasm</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “betrayed again by the Repub leadership . . . what a shock”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .79</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>accusations of lying</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “typical lying lefties”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .80</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>shouting</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>excessive capitalization</p> <p>and/or exclamation points</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .83</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" colspan="2"> <p><strong>impoliteness/incivility</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>K</em>-α = .81</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><em>Note</em>: Previous studies used different inter-coder reliability statistics: I<sub>r</sub> = reliability index by Perreault and Leigh (1989); <em>K</em>-α = Krippendorff’s-α; κ = Cohen’s Kappa</p> <p> </p> <p>Codebook used in the study Rowe (2015) is available under: <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365">https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Brown, P., &amp; Levinson, S. C. (1987). <em>Politeness: Some universals in language usage</em>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p> <p>Coe, K., Kenski, K., &amp; Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and Uncivil? Patterns and Determinants of Incivility in Newspaper Website Comments. <em>Journal of Communication</em>, <em>64</em>(4), 658–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104</p> <p>Erjavec, K., &amp; Kovačič, M. P. (2012). “You Don't Understand, This is a New War! ” Analysis of Hate Speech in News Web Sites' Comments. <em>Mass Communication and Society</em>, <em>15</em>(6), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.619679</p> <p>Fraser, B. (1990). Perspectives on politeness. <em>Journal of Pragmatics</em>, <em>14</em>(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(90)90081-n</p> <p>Goffman, E. (1989). <em>Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior</em>. New York: Pantheon Books.</p> <p>Grice, P. H. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole (Ed.), <em>Syntax and Semantics: Speech acts </em>(pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.</p> <p>Muddiman, A. (2017). : Personal and public levels of political incivility. <em>International Journal of Communication</em>, <em>11</em>, 3182–3202.</p> <p>Oz, M., Zheng, P., &amp; Chen, G. M. (2017). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(9), 3400–3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516</p> <p>Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: Civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 259–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444</p> <p>Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. <em>Information, Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>18</em>(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365</p> <p>Seely, N. (2017). Virtual Vitriol: A Comparative Analysis of Incivility Within Political News Discussion Forums. <em>Electronic News</em>, <em>12</em>(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/1931243117739060</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/5a Hate speech (Hate Speech/Incivility) 2020-07-23T14:04:24+02:00 Katharina Esau katharina.esau@hhu.de <p>The variable <strong>hate speech</strong> is an indicator used to describe communication that expresses and/or promotes hatred towards others (Erjavec &amp; Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Ziegele, Koehler, &amp; Weber, 2018). A second element is that <strong>hate speech</strong> is directed against others on the basis of their ethnic or national origin, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or political conviction (Erjavec &amp; Kovačič, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012; Waseem &amp; Hovy, 2016) and typically uses terms to denigrate, degrade and threaten others (Döring &amp; Mohseni, 2020; Gagliardone, Gal, Alves, &amp; Martínez, 2015). <strong>Hate speech</strong> and <strong>incivility</strong> are often used synonymously as hateful speech is considered part of <strong>incivility</strong> (Ziegele et al., 2018).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p><strong>Hate speech</strong> (see also <strong>incivility</strong>) has become an issue of growing concern both in public and academic discourses on user-generated online communication.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p><strong>Hate speech</strong> is examined through content analysis and can be combined with comparative or experimental designs (Muddiman, 2017; Oz, Zheng, &amp; Chen, 2017; Rowe, 2015). In addition, content analyses can be accompanied by interviews or surveys, for example to validate the results of the content analysis (Erjavec &amp; Kova<span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">č</span>i<span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">č</span>, 2012).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Previous studies have been interested in the extent of <strong>hate speech</strong> in online communication (e.g. in one specific online discussion, in discussions on a specific topic or discussions on a specific platform or different platforms in comparatively) (Döring &amp; Mohseni, 2020; Poole, Giraud, &amp; Quincey, 2020; Waseem &amp; Hovy, 2016).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Previous studies have investigated <strong>hate speech</strong> in user comments for example on news websites, social media platforms (e.g. Twitter) and social live streaming services (e.g. YouTube, YouNow).</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Most manual content analysis studies measure <strong>hate speech</strong> on the level of a message, for example on the level of user comments. On a higher level of analysis, the level of <strong>hate speech</strong> for a whole discussion thread or online platform could be measured or estimated. On a lower level of analysis <strong>hate speech</strong> can be measured on the level of utterances, sentences or words which are the preferred levels of analysis in automated content analyses.</p> <p>Table 1. Previous manual and automated content analysis studies and measures of hate speech</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Example study </strong><strong><em>(type of content analysis)</em></strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Construct</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Dimensions/variables</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Explanation/<br />example</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="10"> <p>Waseem &amp; Hovy (2016) <br /><em>(automated content analysis)</em></p> </td> <td class="t" rowspan="10"> <p><strong>hate speech</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>sexist or racial slur</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>attack of a minority</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t0"> <p>silencing of a minority</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>criticizing of a minority without argument or straw man argument</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>promotion of hate</p> <p>speech or violent crime</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>misrepresentation of truth or seeking to distort views on a minority</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>problematic hash tags. e.g.</p> <p>“#BanIslam”, “#whoriental”, “#whitegenocide”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>negative stereotypes of a minority</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>-</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>defending xenophobia or sexism</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>-</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>user name that is offensive, as per the previous criteria</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><em>-</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>hate speech</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>-</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p class="p1">κ = .84</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="2"> <p>Döring &amp; Mohseni (2020) <br /><em>(manual content analysis)</em></p> </td> <td class="t" rowspan="2"> <p><strong>hate speech</strong></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>explicitly or aggressively</p> <p>sexual hate</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e. g. “are you single, and can I lick you?”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .74; <br />PA = .99</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>racist or sexist hate</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>e.g. “this is why ignorant whores like you belong in the fucking kitchen”, “oh my god that accent sounds like</p> <p>crappy American”</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>κ = .66;</p> <p>PA = .99</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>hate speech</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>κ = .70</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><em>Note</em>: Previous studies used different inter-coder reliability statistics; κ = Cohen’s Kappa; PA = percentage agreement.</p> <p> </p> <p>More coded variables with definitions used in the study Döring &amp; Mohseni (2020) are available under: <a href="https://osf.io/da8tw/">https://osf.io/da8tw/</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Döring, N., &amp; Mohseni, M. R. (2020). Gendered hate speech in YouTube and YouNow comments: Results of two content analyses. <em>SCM Studies in Communication and Media</em>, <em>9</em>(1), 62–88. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2020-1-62</p> <p>Erjavec, K., &amp; Kovačič, M. P. (2012). “You Don't Understand, This is a New War! ” Analysis of Hate Speech in News Web Sites' Comments. <em>Mass Communication and Society</em>, <em>15</em>(6), 899–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2011.619679</p> <p>Gagliardone, I., Gal, D., Alves, T., &amp; Martínez, G. (2015). <em>Countering online hate speech</em>. <em>UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom</em>. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002332/233231e.pdf</p> <p>Muddiman, A. (2017). : Personal and public levels of political incivility. <em>International Journal of Communication</em>, <em>11</em>, 3182–3202.</p> <p>Oz, M., Zheng, P., &amp; Chen, G. M. (2017). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(9), 3400–3419. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817749516</p> <p>Poole, E., Giraud, E. H., &amp; Quincey, E. de (2020). Tactical interventions in online hate speech: The case of #stopIslam. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, 146144482090331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444820903319</p> <p>Rosenfeld, M. (2012). Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence. In M. Herz &amp; P. Molnar (Eds.), <em>The Content and Context of Hate Speech </em>(pp. 242–289). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139042871.018</p> <p>Rowe, I. (2015). Civility 2.0: A comparative analysis of incivility in online political discussion. <em>Information, Communication &amp; Society</em>, <em>18</em>(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2014.940365</p> <p>Waseem, Z., &amp; Hovy, D. (2016). Hateful Symbols or Hateful People? Predictive Features for Hate Speech Detection on Twitter. In J. Andreas, E. Choi, &amp; A. Lazaridou (Chairs), <em>Proceedings of the NAACL Student Research Workshop</em>.</p> <p>Ziegele, M., Koehler, C., &amp; Weber, M. (2018). Socially Destructive? Effects of Negative and Hateful User Comments on Readers’ Donation Behavior toward Refugees and Homeless Persons. <em>Journal of Broadcasting &amp; Electronic Media</em>, <em>62</em>(4), 636–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2018.1532430</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3711 Online Incel Speech (Hate Speech/Incivility) 2022-06-18T15:41:51+02:00 M. Rohangis Mohseni rohangis.mohseni@tu-ilmenau.de Jessica Grau Chopite jessica-alejandra.grau-chopite@tu-ilmenau.de <p>Involuntarily celibate men (Incels) form online communities in which they “often bemoan their lack of a loving relationship with a woman while simultaneously dehumanizing women and calling for misogynistic violence” (Glace et al., 2021, p. 288). Several studies investigate this dehumanization and misogyny including (gendered) hate speech in online comments from Incels (e.g., Glace et al., 2021). However, not all online comments from Incels contain misogyny or gendered hate speech. To get a better understanding of the phenomenon of Incels, it would be better to not only focus on these problematic comments. Thus, we propose a new construct called “Online Incel speech”, which is defined as the sum of all online comments from Incels that are related to Inceldom, that is, being or becoming an Incel.</p> <p>In an approach to provide an extensive system of categorization, Grau Chopite (2022) synthesized codebooks from several studies on Incels (see example studies table note) and put it to an empirical test. She found that most Incel comments found online can be categorized into three subdimensions. The first two subdimensions cover framing by Incels, namely how Incels frame the subjective causes of becoming an Incel and how they frame the subjective emotional consequences of being an Incel. Both subdimensions can also be interpreted as part of a subjective theory (sensu Groeben et al., 1988) of Inceldom. In contrast to this, the third subdimension does not consist of framing, but of observable verbal behaviors, which are often linked to gendered hate speech.</p> <p>When trying to categorize online comments from Incels, former studies often applied the construct “Hybrid Masculinities” (e.g., Glace et al, 2021). This construct from Bridge and Pascoe (2014) suggests that “some men develop masculinities which appear to subvert, but actually reaffirm, White hegemonic masculinities” (Glace et al., 2021, p. 289). Glace et al. (2021) structure the construct into three subdimensions, namely (1) discursive distancing (claiming distance from hegemonic masculine roles without actually relinquishing masculine power), (2) strategic borrowing (appropriating the cultures of nondominant groups of men), and (3) fortifying boundaries (continually using hegemonic standards to constrain masculinity and demeaning men who fail to meet them). However, the construct only covers a part of Inceldom, which Glace et al. (2021) indirectly acknowledge by adding two inductive categories, that is, hostile sexism (shaming and degrading women) and suicidality (reporting suicidal thoughts, feelings, and intentions).</p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>The construct “Online Incel speech” was coined by Grau Chopite (2022), and there are currently no other studies making use of it. However, there are studies (e.g., Vu &amp; Lynn, 2020; also see the entry “Frames (Automated Content Analysis”) based on the framing theory by Entman (1991) where the subdimension “subjective causes” would correspond to Entman’s “causal interpretation frame”, while the “subjective emotional consequences” would correspond to Entman’s “problem definition frame”. The “subjective causes” also correspond to the “discursive distancing” and the “emotional consequences” to “suicidality” in the construct of Hybrid Masculinities.</p> <p>The third subdimension “verbal behavior” corresponds to gendered online hate speech (e.g., Döring &amp; Mohseni, 2019), but also to “hostile sexism” and “fortifying boundaries” in the construct of Hybrid Masculinities. </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods:</em></strong></p> <p>The study by Grau Chopite (2022) employs a quantitative manual content analysis using a deductive approach. Studies based on the construct of Hybrid Masculinities also employ manual online content analyses or manual thematic analyses, but those are often qualitative in nature (e.g., Glace et al., 2021).</p> <p>Framing is also often assessed with manual content analyses (e.g., Nitsch &amp; Lichtenstein, 2019), but newer studies try to assess it computationally (e.g., Vu &amp; Lynn, 2020). Hate speech is often assessed with manual content analyses (e.g., Döring &amp; Mohseni, 2019) and surveys (e.g., Oksanen et al., 2014), but some newer studies try to assess it computationally (e.g., Al-Hassan &amp; Al-Dossari, 2019).</p> <p>As Online Incel Speech is related to framing and gendered hate speech, it seems plausible that manual content analyses of Online Incel Speech could be combined with computational analyses, too, to enable the investigation of large samples. However, computational analyses of subtle forms of verbal behavior can be challenging because the number of wrong categorizations increases (e.g., for sexism detection see Samory et al., 2021; for hate speech detection see Ruiter et al., 2022).</p> <p><strong><em>Example studies:</em></strong></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table style="height: 2670px;"> <tbody> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 117px;"> <p><strong>Example study</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 102px;"> <p><strong>Construct</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 114px;"> <p><strong>Dimensions</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 169px;"> <p><strong>Explanation</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 102px;"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 612px;" colspan="5"> <p><strong>Online Incel speech</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 114px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 1308px; width: 117px;" rowspan="14"> <p>Grau Chopite (2022)</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 432px; width: 102px;" rowspan="4"> <p>Subjective Causes of Inceldom</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 114px;"> <p>Race/Ethnicity</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 169px;"> <p>having certain racial features and/or belonging to a certain ethnic</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .55;<br />AC1 = .80</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Mental Health</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>suffering from any mental health issue</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .58;<br />AC1 = .90</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 162px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 162px; width: 114px;"> <p>Employment</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 162px; width: 169px;"> <p>difficulties with getting and/or maintaining employment; experiencing dissatisfaction in the workplace</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 162px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .85;<br />AC1 = .98</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 90px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 114px;"> <p>Family</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 169px;"> <p>having family issues (e.g., an abusive family member)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .66;<br />AC1 = .98</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 330px; width: 102px;" rowspan="5"> <p>Subjective Emotional Consequences of Inceldom</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Hopelessness</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>expressing hopelessness</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .37;<br />AC1 = .89</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Sadness</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>expressing sadness</p> </td> <td style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .26;<br />AC1 = .91</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Suicidality</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>expressing suicidality</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .24;<br />AC1 = .95</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Anger</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>expressing anger</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .44;<br />AC1 = .87</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Hatred</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>expressing hatred</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .40;<br />AC1 = .83</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 90px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 546px; width: 102px;" rowspan="5"> <p>Verbal Behavior of Incels</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 114px;"> <p>Using Gendered Hate Speech Against Women</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 169px;"> <p>hostile sexism against women and misogynistic speech</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .80;<br />AC1 = .87</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 138px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 138px; width: 114px;"> <p>Adopting Social Justice Language</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 138px; width: 169px;"> <p>claiming unfairness/ injustice of being discriminated by society or groups (e.g., other men, other races)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 138px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .48;<br />AC1 = .82</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 90px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 114px;"> <p>Claiming Lack of Masculine Traits</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 169px;"> <p>lacking masculine traits (e.g., muscles, a big penis)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .62;<br />AC1 = .86</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 138px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 138px; width: 114px;"> <p>Shaming Other Men</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 138px; width: 169px;"> <p>shaming of other men directly by calling them terms related to being “effeminate” or “unmanly”</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 138px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .71;<br />AC1 = .91</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 90px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 114px;"> <p>Claiming Lack of Female Interest</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 169px;"> <p>being unable to attract women or being rejected by women</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 102px;"> <p>κ = .61;<br />AC1 = .87</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 80px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 80px; width: 612px;" colspan="5"><br /> <p><strong>Hybrid Masculinities</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 152px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 1198px; width: 117px;" rowspan="13"> <p>Glace et al. (2021)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 256px; width: 102px;" rowspan="2"> <p>Discursive Distancing</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 152px; width: 114px;"> <p>Lack of Female Interest</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 152px; width: 169px;"> <p>claiming a lack of ability to attract female romantic companionship and sexual interest</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 152px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 104px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 104px; width: 114px;"> <p>Lack of Masculine Traits</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 104px; width: 169px;"> <p>claiming a lack of traditionally attractive masculine physical traits</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 104px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 90px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 204px; width: 102px;" rowspan="2"> <p>Strategic Borrowing</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 114px;"> <p>Race and Racism</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 169px;"> <p>appropriating the culture of racial and ethnic minority men</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 114px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 114px;"> <p>Social Justice Language</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 169px;"> <p>using the language of the marginalized to diminish one’s own position of power</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 156px; width: 102px;" rowspan="2"> <p>Fortifying Boundaries</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Soyboys</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>deriding non-Incel men as weak and desperate</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 90px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 114px;"> <p>Cucks</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 169px;"> <p>deriding non-Incel men as being cheated or exploited by women</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 402px; width: 102px;" rowspan="5"> <p>Hostile Sexism</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Women are Ugly</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>deriding women for being unattractive</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Slut-Shaming</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>deriding women for having sex</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 114px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 114px;"> <p>False Rape Claims</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 169px;"> <p>claiming that women make false rape claims (e.g., when approached by an Incel)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 90px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 114px;"> <p>Women’s Only Value is Sex</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 169px;"> <p>claiming that women’s only value is their sexuality</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 66px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 114px;"> <p>Women are Subhuman</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 169px;"> <p>dehumanizing women</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 66px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 90px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 180px; width: 102px;" rowspan="2"> <p>Suicidality</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 114px;"> <p>Due to Incel Experience</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 169px;"> <p>attributing suicidal thoughts, feelings, and intentions to Incel status</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 90px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 114px;"> <p>The “Clown World”</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 169px;"> <p>claiming that the world is meaningless and nonsensical</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 90px; width: 102px;"> <p>n/a</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p>Note: The codebook from Grau Chopite (2022) is based on the codebook and findings of Glace et al. (2021) and other studies (Baele et al., 2019; Bou-Franch &amp; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, 2021; Bridges &amp; Pascoe, 2014; Cottee, 2020; Döring &amp; Mohseni, 2019; D’Souza et al., 2018; Marwick &amp; Caplan, 2018; Mattheis &amp; Waltman, 2021; Maxwell et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2015; Rouda &amp; Siegel, 2020; Scaptura &amp; Boyle, 2019; Williams &amp; Arntfield, 2020; Williams et al., 2021). Gwet’s AC1 was calculated in addition to Cohen’s Kappa because some categories were rarely coded, which biases Cohen’s Kappa. The codebook is available at <a href="http://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.5626">http://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.5626</a></p> <p><strong style="font-size: 0.875rem; font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">References</strong></p> <p>Al-Hassan, A., &amp; Al-Dossari, Hmood (2019). Detection of hate speech in social networks: A survey on multilingual corpus. In D. Nagamalai &amp; D. C. Wyld (Eds.), <em>Computer Science &amp; Information Technology. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Science and Information Technology</em> (pp. 83–100). AIRCC Publishing. doi:10.5121/csit.2019.90208</p> <p>Baele, S. J., Brace, L., &amp; Coan, T. G. (2019). From “Incel” to “Saint”: Analyzing the violent worldview behind the 2018 Toronto attack. <em>Terrorism and Political Violence</em>, 1–25. doi:10.1080/09546553.2019.1638256</p> <p>Bou-Franch, P., &amp; Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2021). Gender ideology and social identity processes in online language aggression against women. In R. M. DeKeyser (Ed.), <em>Benjamins Current Topics: Vol. 116. Aptitude-Treatment Interaction in Second Language Learning </em>(Vol. 86, pp. 59–81). John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/bct.86.03bou</p> <p>Bridges, T., &amp; Pascoe, C. J. (2014). Hybrid masculinities: New directions in the sociology of men and masculinities. <em>Sociology Compass</em>, <em>8</em>(3), 246–258. doi:10.1111/soc4.12134</p> <p>Cottee, S. (2021). Incel (e)motives: Resentment, shame and revenge. <em>Studies in Conflict &amp; Terrorism</em>, <em>44</em>(2), 93–114. doi:10.1080/1057610X.2020.1822589</p> <p>Döring, N., &amp; Mohseni, M. R. (2018). Male dominance and sexism on YouTube: Results of three content analyses. <em>Feminist Media Studies</em>, <em>19</em>(4), 512–524. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1467945</p> <p>D'Souza, T., Griffin, L., Shackelton, N., &amp; Walt, D. (2018). Harming women with words: The failure of Australian law to prohibit gendered hate speech. <em>University of New South Wales Law Journal</em>, <em>41</em>(3), 939–976.</p> <p>Entman, R. M. 1991. Framing U.S. coverage of international news: contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. <em>Journal of Communication</em>,<em> 41</em>(4), 6-7.</p> <p>Glace, A. M., Dover, T. L., &amp; Zatkin, J. G. (2021). Taking the black pill: An empirical analysis of the “Incel”. <em>Psychology of Men &amp; Masculinities, 22</em>(2), 288–297. doi:10.1037/men0000328</p> <p>Grau Chopite, J. (2022). Framing of Inceldom on incels.is: A content analysis [Master’s thesis, TU Ilmenau]. Psycharchives. doi:10.23668/psycharchives.5626</p> <p>Groeben, N., Wahl, D., Schlee, J., &amp; Scheele, B. (Eds.). (1988). <em>Das Forschungsprogramm Subjektive Theorien: eine Einführung in die Psychologie des reflexiven Subjekts</em>. Francke. Retrieved from <a href="https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-27658">https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-27658</a></p> <p>Marwick, A. E., &amp; Caplan, R. (2018). Drinking male tears: language, the manosphere, and networked harassment. <em>Feminist Media Studies</em>, <em>18</em>(4), 543–559. doi:10.1080/14680777.2018.1450568</p> <p>Mattheis, A. A., &amp; Waltman, M. S. (2021). Gendered hate online. In K. Ross &amp; I. Bachmann (Eds.), <em>The Wiley Blackwell-ICA international encyclopedias of communication. The international encyclopedia of gender, media, and communication </em>(pp. 1–5). John Wiley &amp; Sons Inc. doi:10.1002/9781119429128.iegmc019</p> <p>Maxwell, D., Robinson, S. R., Williams, J. R., &amp; Keaton, C. (2020). “A short story of a lonely guy”: A qualitative thematic analysis of involuntary celibacy using Reddit. <em>Sexuality &amp; Culture</em>, <em>24</em>(6), 1852–1874. doi:10.1007/s12119-020-09724-6</p> <p>Nitsch, C. &amp; Lichtenstein, D. (2019). Satirizing international crises. The depiction of the Ukraine, Greek debt and migration crises in political satire. <em>Studies in Communication Science</em> <em>(SComS), 19</em>(1), 85-103. doi:10.24434/j.scoms.2019.01.007</p> <p>Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., Näsi, M., &amp; Räsänen, P. (2014). Exposure to online hate among young social media users. In N. Warehime (Ed.), <em>Soul of Society: A focus on the lives of children &amp; youth </em>(p. 253-273). doi:10.1108/S1537-466120140000018021</p> <p>Rogers, D. L., Cervantes, E., &amp; Espinosa, J. C. (2015). Development and validation of the belief in female sexual deceptiveness scale. <em>Journal of Interpersonal Violence</em>, <em>30</em>(5), 744–761. doi:10.1177/0886260514536282</p> <p>Rouda, B., &amp; Siegel, A. (2020). I’d kill for a girl like that”: The black pill and the Incel uprising. <em>International Multidisciplinary Program in the Humanities, Tel Aviv University</em>. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.academia.edu/43663741/_Id_kill_for_a_girl_like_that_The_Black_Pill_and_the_Incel_Uprising">https://www.academia.edu/43663741/_Id_kill_for_a_girl_like_that_The_Black_Pill_and_the_Incel_Uprising</a></p> <p>Ruiter, D., Reiners, L., Geet D’Sa, A., Kleinbauer, Th., Fohr, D., Illina, I., Klakow. D., Schemer, Ch., &amp; Monnier, A. (2022). Placing m-phasis on the plurality of hate. A feature-based corpus of hate online. Preprint. Retrieved from <a href="https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.13400">https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.13400</a></p> <p>Samory, M., Sen, I., Kohne, J., Flöck, F., &amp; Wagner, C. (2021). “Call me sexist, but...”: Revisiting sexism detection using psychological scales and adversarial samples. <em>Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 15</em>(1), 573-584. Retrieved from <a href="https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/18085">https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/ICWSM/article/view/18085</a></p> <p>Scaptura, M. N., &amp; Boyle, K. M. (2019). Masculinity threat, “Incel” traits, and violent fantasies among heterosexual men in the United States. <em>Feminist Criminology</em>, <em>15</em>(3), 278–298. doi:10.1177/1557085119896415</p> <p>Vu, H. T., &amp; Lynn, N. (2020). When the news takes sides: Automated framing analysis of news coverage of the Rohingya crisis by the elite press from three countries. <em>Journalism Studies</em>. Online first publication. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2020.1745665</p> <p>Williams, D. J., &amp; Arntfield, M. (2020). Extreme sex-negativity: An examination of helplessness, hopelessness, and misattribution of blame among “Incel” multiple homicide offenders. <em>Journal of Positive Sexuality</em>, <em>6</em>(1), 33–42. doi:10.51681/1.613</p> <p>Williams, D. J., Arntfield, M., Schaal, K., &amp; Vincent, J. (2021). Wanting sex and willing to kill: Examining demographic and cognitive characteristics of violent "involuntary celibates". <em>Behavioral Sciences &amp; the Law</em>, <em>39</em>(4), 386–401. doi:10.1002/bsl.2512</p> 2022-06-18T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2629 Theoretical typology of deceptive content (Conspiracy Theories) 2021-03-03T13:54:18+01:00 Jing Zeng j.zeng@uu.nl <p>The conceptual fuzziness of terms like <em>misinformation, disinformation, rumour, gossip, conspiracy theories </em>has been discussed by various scholars (e.g. DiFonzo &amp; Bordia, 2007; Rojecki &amp; Meraz, 2016). In both academic research and media reports, it is common to see these terms being used interchangeably. To develop better understanding of how and why different forms of misinformation operate, it is important to clarify the conceptual boundaries between these terms in a meaningful way.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong><em>Field of Application/Theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In their social psychology research, DiFonzo and Bordia (2007) propose an effective way to differentiate rumour from other terms, which emphasises the <em>content</em>, <em>function</em>, and c<em>ontext </em>of each concept. This three-dimensional framework can be applied to systematically differentiate concepts related to misinformation.&nbsp;</p> <p>In the field of media and communication studies, as research on digital misinformation continues to grow, it is crucial for researchers to understand the contexts of each concept and choose the appropriate term in accordance with their research agenda. It is worth noting that there are also overlapping dimensions between these concepts. For instance, rumour can contain misinformation, and conspiracy theories can be used for propaganda.</p> <p><strong><em>Example study:</em></strong></p> <p>Zeng (2018)</p> <p><strong>Information on Zeng, 2018</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Jing Zeng&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Interest of the study: </strong>In her study on online rumours during times of crises, Zeng (2018) applies DiFonzo and Bordia’s (2007) framework to differentiate seven seemingly similar concepts: misinformation, disinformation, rumour, gossip, urban legend, propaganda, and conspiracy theories.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Table 1. <em>Summary of main features of seven concepts related to misinformation&nbsp;</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Content</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Context</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Function</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Misinformation</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Inaccurate information</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Any circumstances of information circulation.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does not have to have any specific function</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Gossip</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Talk about individuals or private behaviour</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Shared between individuals or in casual social events.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Maintaining network, interpersonal relations</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Urban legend</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Meaning-making, value-endorsing stories related to contemporary life</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Casual setting for storytelling.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Promote cultural and moral values</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Disinformation</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Deliberately deceptive information</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Disseminated by institutions.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Undermine public support</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Propaganda</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Messages instrumentally disseminated to promote a political cause</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Following a top-down pattern, disseminated by official sources.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Promote political and ideological values</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Rumour</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Unofficial information unverified by authorities</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Circulated in circumstances of ambiguity, danger or threat.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Make sense of an uncertain circumstance</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Conspiracy theory</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Proposed explanations of an event or a practice that refer to the machinations of influential people, institutions, or a secret society</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Emerged in responses to uncertainty and perceived threats posed by a coalition of elites/secret actors, and constructed as ‘alternative’ explanations challenging narratives provided by governments, mainstream media or scientific institutions.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Serves as a threat management response, and often also as an anti-establishment/anti-science, political and ideological stance</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Misinformation</strong> is the most generic one among these terms, in the sense that it does not emphasise the social and political dimension of information. The concept of misinformation is mostly discussed in tandem with information, particularly by Information Science scholars. As a form of information, the defining feature of misinformation is its inaccuracy. Such inaccuracy is not necessarily caused by false information, but can also be caused by irrelevant and incomplete information.</p> <p><strong>Gossip </strong>is also a form of unverified information; however, the <em>content </em>is more private, and is mostly circulated in an interpersonal context (DiFonzo &amp; Bordia, 2007; Rojecki &amp; Meraz, 2016). In terms of <em>function</em>, instead of sense making, gossip is propagated for social purposes. As summarised by Foster (2004), gossip functions to achieve the formation, adaptation, and maintenance of social networks. This is to say, individuals share gossip in the<em> context </em>of managing their relationship with members within their social group. For instance, early literature on gossip associated the practice of gossiping with female social networking. As Rysman (1977) pointed out, one key reason behind the patriarchal criticism on female gossiping is gossip’s ability ‘to develop social ties outside the institution of male dominance’ (p. 176). This personal and interpersonal focus on the concept of gossip is its most distinctive feature.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Disinformation</strong> and <strong>propaganda </strong>are two very closely related concepts, because they are both disseminated for political purposes (Lewandowsky, Stritzke, &amp; Freund, 2013). In terms of <em>content</em>, disinformation is deliberately deceptive information that is used to undermine public support of a regime, whereas propaganda is information used to mobilise public support for a political cause or a regime (Rojecki &amp; Meraz, 2016). The word disinformation originated from ‘dezinformacija’, a Russian term coined in the former Soviet Union (Karlova &amp; Fisher, 2013). Given the particular cultural and political context in the region at that time, this term was originally closely associated with intelligence operations and political tactics. However, the definition of disinformation has, over time, expanded to include the propagation of misinformation that is non-politically motivated.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Urban legends </strong>are contemporary tales that are shared to promote moral and cultural values (DiFonzo &amp; Bordia, 2007). Construed in this way, urban legends are similar to propaganda in the sense that they encode and transmit values, but they are used mythologically rather than strategically. Furthermore, where propaganda emphasises political and ideological values, urban legends focus on cultural and moral values. One key criterion for an urban legend is that it must be grounded in the day-to-day affairs of contemporary life, hence the ‘urban’ in urban legend (Bennett &amp; Smith, 2013). A classic example of an urban legend is the claim that a tooth left in a glass of Coca Cola can dissolve overnight. This story promotes health messages to avoid excessive consumption of soda drinks. Another case is the tale of a drugged traveller awakening in an ice-filled bathtub, only to discover one of his kidneys has been removed by organ thieves. This tale echoes a classic form of legend that teaches the moral lesson to avoid dangerous situations.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Rumour,</strong> in terms of <em>content,</em> is unofficial information – that is, information whose authenticity is not verified by an appeal to authority. By this definition, the defining characteristic of rumour content is not its falsity, but its ‘unofficial’ status and therefore its relationship to social institutions (Fine, 2007). Second, rumour arises in <em>contexts</em> that are ambiguous, threatening or potentially threatening (DiFonzo &amp; Bordia, 2007, p. 20). In such uncertain contexts, rumour <em>functions</em> to make sense of the unknown situation. This may explain why rumour goes hand in hand with crisis events, during which there is often a paucity of information and a state of anxiety among the populace.&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Conspiracy theories</strong>’ content is proposed explanations of an event or a practice that refer to the machinations of powerful people, institutions, or a secret society (e.g. Coady, 2003; Goertzel, 1994; Keeley, 1999). One distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is its reference to a coordinated group of deliberate actors. For instance, in anti-vaccination conspiracy theories, ‘big pharma’ companies are accused of conspiring with politicians; likewise, flat earthers implicate NASA in the plot to keep the truth about the “true nature” of the Earth from the public. Similar to rumour mongering, the context in which conspiracy theories emerge is often one of uncertainty and perceived risks, and conspiracy theorising represents a form of ‘alternative’ collective sensemaking to challenge established narratives provided by the mainstream media and institutions. Therefore, conspiracy theorising is not merely sensemaking, but also has anti-establishment and anti-science undercurrents. Therefore, in terms of function, conspiracy theories serve as (1) a threat management response to ‘secret coalitions’ that are perceived to pose direct threats to the collective well-being, health, and safety of the society (van Prooijen et al., 2018); and (2) a political and ideological stance (Hofstadter, 2012).&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Bennett, G., &amp; Smith, P. (2013).&nbsp;<em>Contemporary legend: A reader</em>. London: Routledge.</p> <p>Coady, D. (2003). Conspiracy theories and official stories. <em>International Journal of Applied Philosophy</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 197–209.</p> <p>DiFonzo, N., &amp; Bordia, P. (2007). Rumor, gossip and urban legends. <em>Diogenes, 54</em>(1), 19-35.&nbsp;</p> <p>Fine, G. A. (2007). Rumor, trust and civil society: Collective memory and cultures of judgment. <em>Diogenes, 54</em>(1), 5-18.&nbsp;</p> <p>Foster, E. K. (2004). Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. <em>Review of General Psychology, 8</em>(2), 78-99.&nbsp;</p> <p>Goertzel, T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. <em>Political Psychology</em>,<em> 15</em>, 731–742.</p> <p>Hofstadter, R. (2012). <em>The paranoid style in American politics.</em> New York: Vintage.</p> <p>Karlova, N. A., &amp; Fisher, K. E. (2013). A social diffusion model of misinformation and disinformation for understanding human information behaviour.<em> Information Research, 18</em>(1), paper 573.</p> <p>Keeley, B. L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. <em>The Journal of Philosophy</em>, <em>96</em>(3), 109–126.</p> <p>Lewandowsky, S., Stritzke, W. G. K., Freund, A. M, Oberauer, K., and Krueger, J. I. (2013). Misinformation, disinformation, and violent conflict: From Iraq and the ‘War on Terror’ to future threats to peace. <em>American Psychologist, 68</em>(7), 487-501.&nbsp;</p> <p>Losee, R. M. (1997). A discipline independent definition of information. <em>Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48</em>(3), 254-269&nbsp;</p> <p>Rojecki, A., &amp; Meraz, S. (2016). Rumors and factitious informational blends: The role of the web in speculative politics. <em>New Media &amp; Society, 18</em>(1), 25-43.&nbsp;</p> <p>Rysman, A. (1977). How the ‘gossip’ became a woman. <em>Journal of Communication, 27</em>(1), 176-180.&nbsp;</p> <p>van Prooijen, J. W., &amp; Van Vugt, M. (2018). Conspiracy theories: Evolved functions and psychological mechanisms. <em>Perspectives on psychological science, 13</em>(6), 770-788.</p> <p>Zeng, J. (2018). <em>Contesting rumours on social media during acute events: The 2014 Sydney siege and 2015 Tianjin blasts</em> (Doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology). Available at https://eprints.qut.edu.au/115786/.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3678 Alcohol Portrayals on Social Media (Social Media) 2022-05-27T08:51:31+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Roberto Walter roberto.walter@tu-ilmenau.de <p>The depiction of alcohol is the focus of a growing number of content analyses in the field of social media research. Typically, the occurrence and nature of alcohol representations are coded to measure the prevalence, normalization, or even glorification of alcohol and its consumption on different social media platforms (Moreno et al., 2016; Westgate &amp; Holliday, 2016) and smartphone apps (Ghassemlou et al., 2020). But social media platforms and smartphone apps also play a role in the prevention of alcohol abuse when they disseminate messages about alcohol risks and foster harm reduction, abstinence, and sobriety (Davey, 2021; Döring &amp; Holz, 2021; Tamersoy et al., 2015; Westgate &amp; Holliday, 2016).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p><em>Social Cognitive Theory</em> (SCT; Bandura 1986, 2009) as the dominant media effects theory in communication science, is applicable and widely applied to social media representations of alcohol: According to SCT, positive media portayals of alcohol and attractive role models consuming alcohol can influence the audience’s relation to alcohol. That’s why positive alcohol portayals in the media are considered a public health threat as they can foster increased and risky alcohol consumption among media users in general and young people in particular. The negative health impact predicted by SCT depends on different aspects of alcohol portrayals on social media that have been traditionally coded in manual content analyses (Beullens &amp; Schepers, 2013; Mayrhofer &amp; Naderer, 2019; Moreno et al., 2010) and most recently by studies relying on computational methods for content analysis (e.g. Ricard &amp; Hassanpour, 2021). Core aspects of alcohol representations on social media are: a) the type of communicator / creator of alcohol-related social media content, b) the overall valence of the alcohol portrayal, c) the people consuming alcohol, d) the alcohol consumption behaviors, e) the social contexts of alcohol consumption, f) the types and brands of consumed alcohol, g) the consequences of alcohol consumption, and h) alcohol-related consumer protection messages in alcohol marketing (Moreno et al., 2016; Westgate &amp; Holliday, 2016).</p> <p>For example, a normalizing portrayal shows alcohol consumption as a regular and normal behavior of diverse people in different contexts, while a glorifying portrayal shows alcohol consumption as a behavior that is strongly related to positive effects such as having fun, enjoying social community, feeling sexy, happy, and carefree (Griffiths &amp; Casswell, 2011). While criticism of glorifying alcohol portrayals in entertainment media (e.g., music videos; Cranwell et al., 2015), television (e.g., Barker et al., 2021), and advertising (e.g., Curtis et al., 2018; Stautz et al., 2016) has a long tradition, the concern about alcohol representations on social media is relatively new and entails the phenomenon of alcohol brands and social media influencers marketing alcohol (Critchlow &amp; Moodie, 2022; Turnwald et al., 2022) as well as ordinary social media users providing alcohol-related self-presentations (e.g., showing themselves partying and drinking; Boyle et al., 2016). Such alcohol-related self-presentations might elicit even stronger identification and imitation effects among social media audiences compared to regular advertising (Griffiths &amp; Casswell, 2011).</p> <p>Because of its psychological and health impact, alcohol-related social media content – and alcohol marketing in particular – is also an <em>issue of legal regulation</em>. The World Health Organization states that “Europe is the heaviest-drinking region in the world” and strongly advocates for bans or at least stricter regulations of alcohol marketing both offline and online (WHO, 2020, p. 1). At the same time, the WHO points to the problem of clearly differentiating between alcohol marketing and other types of alcohol representations on social media.</p> <p>Apart from normalizing and glorifying alcohol portayals, there are also anti-alcohol posts and comments on social media. They usually point to the health risks of alcohol consumption and the dangers of alcohol addiction and, hence, try to foster harm reduction, abstincence and sobriety. While such negative alcohol portayals populate different social media platforms, an in-depth investigation of the spread, scope and content of anti-alcohol messages on social media is largely missing (Davey, 2021; Döring &amp; Holz, 2021; Tamersoy et al., 2015).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Manual and computational content analyses of alcohol representations on social media platforms can be complemented by qualitative interview and quantitative survey data addressing alcohol-related beliefs and behaviors collected from social media users who a) create and publish alcohol-related social media content and/or b) are exposed to or actively search for and follow alcohol-related social media content (e.g., Ricard &amp; Hassanpour, 2021; Strowger &amp; Braitman, 2022). Furthermore, experimental studies are helpful to directly measure how different alcohol-related social media posts and comments are perceived and evaluated by recipients and if and how they can affect their alcohol-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Noel, 2021). Such social media experiments can build on respective mass media experiments (e.g., Mayrhofer &amp; Naderer, 2019). Insights from content analyses help to select or create appropriate stimuli for such experiments. Last but not least, to evaluate the effectiveness of alcohol marketing regulations, social media content analyses conducted within a longitudinal or trend study design (including measurements before and after new regulations came into effect) should be preferred over cross-sectional studies (e.g., Chapoton et al., 2020).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Example Studies for Manual Content Analyses:</strong></em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b" style="vertical-align: top;"> <p><strong>Coding Material</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>a) </em><em>Creators of alcohol-related social media content</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Extensive explorations on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Creators of alcohol-related social media content on Facebook, Instagram and TikTok</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Polytomous variable “Type of content creator” (1: alcohol industry; 2: media organization/media professional; 3: health organization/health professional; 4: social media influencer; 5: ordinary social media user; 6: other)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Döring &amp; Tröger (2018)</p> <p> </p> <p>Döring &amp; Holz (2021)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>b) </em><em>Valence of alcohol-related social media content</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N </em>= 3 015 Facebook comments</p> <p> </p> <p><em>N</em> = 100 TikTok videos</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Valence of alcohol-related social media content (posts or comments)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Binary variable “Valence of alcohol-related social media content” (1: positive/pro-alcohol sentiment; 2: negative/anti-alcohol sentiment)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa average of .72 for all alcohol-related variables in codebook*</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Döring &amp; Holz (2021)</p> <p> </p> <p>*Russell et al. (2021)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>c) </em><em>People consuming alcohol</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N </em>= 160 Facebook profiles (profile pictures, personal photos, and text)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Portrayal of people consuming alcohol on Facebook profiles</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Binary variable “Number of persons on picture” (1: alone; 2: with others)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa &gt; .90</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Beullens &amp; Schepers (2013)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>d) </em><em>Alcohol consumption behaviors</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N </em>= 160 Facebook profiles (profile pictures, personal photos, and text)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Type of depicted alcohol use/consumption</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Polytomous variable “Type of depicted alcohol use/consumption” (1: explicit use such as depiction of person drinking alcohol; 2: implicit use such as depiction of alcohol bottle on table; 3: alcohol logo only)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa = .89</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Beullens &amp; Schepers (2013)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N</em> = 100 TikTok videos</p> <p><em> </em></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Multiple alcoholic drinks consumed per person</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Binary variable “Multiple alcoholic drinks consumed per person” as opposed to having only one drink or no drink per person (1: present; 2: not present)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa average of .72 for all alcohol-related variables in codebook</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Russell et al. (2021)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N</em> = 100 TikTok videos</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Alcohol intoxication</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Binary variable “Alcohol intoxication” (1: present; 2: not present)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa average of .72 for all alcohol-related variables in codebook</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Russell et al. (2021)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N </em>= 4 800 alcohol-related Tweets</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Alcohol mentioned in combination with other substance use</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Binary variable “Alcohol mentioned in combination with tobacco, marijuana, or other drugs” (1: yes; 2: no)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa median of .73 for all pro-drinking variables in codebook</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cavazos-Rehg et al. (2015)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>e) </em><em>Social contexts of alcohol consumption</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N</em> = 192 Facebook and Instagram profiles (profile pictures, personal photos, and text)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Portrayal of social evaluative contexts of alcohol consumption on Facebook and Instagram profiles</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Polytomous variable “Social evaluative context” (1: negative context such as someone looking disapprovingly at a drunk person; 2: neutral context such as no explicit judgment or emotion is shown; 3: positive context such as people laughing and toasting with alcoholic drinks)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa ranging from .68 to .91 for all variables in codebook</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Hendriks et al. (2018), based on previous work by Beullens &amp; Schepers (2013)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N</em> = 51 episodes with a total of <em>N</em> = 1 895 scenes of the American adolescent drama series “<em>The OC”</em></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Portrayal of situational contexts of alcohol consumption in scenes of a TV series</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Polytomous variable “Setting of alcohol consumption” (1: at home; 2: at adult / youth party; 3: in a bar; 4: at work; 5: at other public place)</p> <p> </p> <p>Polytomous variable “Reason of alcohol consumption” (1: celebrating/partying; 2: habit; 3: stress relief; 4: social facilitation)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa for setting of alcohol consumption .90</p> <p> </p> <p>Cohen’s Kappa for reason of alcohol consumption .71</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Van den Bulck et al. (2008)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>f) </em><em>Types and brands of consumed alcohol</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N </em>= 17 800 posts of Instagram influencers and related comments</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Portrayal of different alcohol types and alcohol brands in Instagram posts</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Polytomous variable “Alcohol type” (1: wine; 2: beer; 3: cocktails; 4: spirits; 5: non-alcoholic drinks/0% alcohol)</p> <p> </p> <p>Binary variable “Alcohol brand visibility” (1: present if full brand name, recognizable logo, or brand name in header or tag are visible; 2: non-present)</p> <p> </p> <p>String variable “Alcohol brand name” (open text coding)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Krippendorff’s Alpha ranging from .69 to 1.00 for all variables in codebook</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Hendriks et al. (2019)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>g) </em><em>Consequences of alcohol consumption</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N</em> = 400 randomly selected public MySpace profiles</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Portayal of consequences of alcohol consumption on MySpace profiles</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Five individually coded binary variables for different consequences associated with alcohol use (1: present; 2: not present):</p> <p> </p> <p>a) “Positive emotional consequence highlighting positive mood, feeling or emotion associated with alcohol use”</p> <p> </p> <p>b) “Negative emotional consequence highlighting negative mood, feeling or emotion associated with alcohol use”</p> <p> </p> <p>c) “Positive social consequences highlighting perceived social gain associated with alcohol use”</p> <p> </p> <p>d) “Negative social consequences highlighting perceived poor social outcomes associated with alcohol use”</p> <p> </p> <p>e) “Negative physical consequences describing adverse physical consequences or outcomes associated with alcohol use”</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa ranging from 0.76 to 0.82 for alcohol references and alcohol use</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Moreno et al. (2010)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>h) <em>Alcohol-related consumer protection messages in alcohol marketing</em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><em>N = </em>554 Tweets collected from 13 Twitter accounts of alcohol companies in Ireland</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Alcohol-related consumer protection messages in alcohol marketing (covers both mandatory and voluntary messages depending on national legislation)</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Four individually coded binary variables for different alcohol-related consumer protection messages in alcohol marketing (1: present; 2: not present):</p> <p> </p> <p>a) “Warning about the risks/danger of alcohol consumption”</p> <p> </p> <p>b) “Warning about the risks/danger of alcohol consumption when pregnant”</p> <p> </p> <p>c) “Warning about the link between alcohol consumption and fatal cancers”</p> <p> </p> <p>d) “Link/reference to website with public health information about alcohol”</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not available</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Critchlow &amp; Moodie (2022)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p>The presented measures were developed for specific social media platforms, but are so generic that they can be used across different social media platforms and even across mass media channels such as TV, cinema, and advertisement. The presented measures cover different aspects of media portrayals of alcohol and can be used individually or in combination. Depending on the research aim, more detailed measures can be developed and added: for example, regarding the media portrayal of people consuming alcohol, additional measures can code people’s age, gender, ethnicity and further characteristics relevant to the respective research question. In the course of a growing body of content analyses addressing alcohol-related prevention messages on social media, respective measures can be added as well.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Bandura, A. (1986). <em>Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory</em>. Prentice-Hall.</p> <p>Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant &amp; M. B. Oliver (Eds.), <em>Communication series. Media effects: Advances in theory and research </em>(3rd ed., pp. 94–124). Routledge.</p> <p>Barker, A. B., Britton, J., Thomson, E., &amp; Murray, R. L. (2021). Tobacco and alcohol content in soap operas broadcast on UK television: A content analysis and population exposure. <em>Journal of Public Health (Oxford, England)</em>, <em>43</em>(3), 595–603. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa091">https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa091</a></p> <p>Boyle, S. C., LaBrie, J. W., Froidevaux, N. M., &amp; Witkovic, Y. D. (2016). Different digital paths to the keg? How exposure to peers' alcohol-related social media content influences drinking among male and female first-year college students. <em>Addictive Behaviors</em>, <em>57</em>, 21–29. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.01.011">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2016.01.011</a></p> <p>Beullens, K., &amp; Schepers, A. (2013). Display of alcohol use on Facebook: A content analysis. <em>Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking</em>, <em>16</em>(7), 497–503. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0044">https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.0044</a></p> <p>Cavazos-Rehg, P. A., Krauss, M. J., Sowles, S. J., &amp; Bierut, L. J. (2015). "Hey everyone, I'm drunk." An evaluation of drinking-related Twitter chatter. <em>Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs</em>, <em>76</em>(4), 635–643. <a href="https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.635">https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.635</a></p> <p>Chapoton, B., Werlen, A.‑L., &amp; Regnier Denois, V. (2020). Alcohol in TV series popular with teens: A content analysis of TV series in France 22 years after a restrictive law. <em>European Journal of Public Health</em>, <em>30</em>(2), 363–368. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz163">https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz163</a></p> <p>Cranwell, J., Murray, R., Lewis, S., Leonardi-Bee, J., Dockrell, M., &amp; Britton, J. (2015). Adolescents' exposure to tobacco and alcohol content in YouTube music videos. <em>Addiction (Abingdon, England)</em>, <em>110</em>(4), 703–711. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12835">https://doi.org/10.1111/add.12835</a></p> <p>Critchlow, N., &amp; Moodie, C. (2022). Consumer protection messages in alcohol marketing on Twitter in Ireland: A content analysis. <em>Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy</em>, 1–8. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2022.2028730">https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2022.2028730</a></p> <p>Curtis, B. L., Lookatch, S. J., Ramo, D. E., McKay, J. R., Feinn, R. S., &amp; Kranzler, H. R. (2018). Meta-analysis of the association of alcohol-related social media use with alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems in adolescents and young adults. <em>Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research</em>, <em>42</em>(6), 978–986. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13642">https://doi.org/10.1111/acer.13642</a></p> <p>Davey, C. (2021). Online sobriety communities for women's problematic alcohol use: A mini review of existing qualitative and quantitative research. <em>Frontiers in Global Women's Health</em>, <em>2</em>, 773921. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2021.773921">https://doi.org/10.3389/fgwh.2021.773921</a></p> <p>Döring, N., &amp; Tröger, C. (2018). <em>Zwischenbericht:</em> <em>Durchführung und Ergebnisse der summativen Evaluation des Facebook-Kanals „Alkohol? </em><em>Kenn dein Limit.“ [Intermediate report: Implementation and results of the summative evaluation of the Facebook channel "Alcohol? </em><em>Know your limit."].</em></p> <p>Döring, N., &amp; Holz, C. (2021). Alkohol in sozialen Medien: Wo ist der Platz für Prävention? [Alcohol in social media: Where is the space for prevention?]. <em>Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz</em>, <em>64</em>(6), 697–706. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-021-03335-8">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-021-03335-8</a></p> <p>Ghassemlou, S., Marini, C., Chemi, C., Ranjit, Y. S., &amp; Tofighi, B. (2020). Harmful smartphone applications promoting alcohol and illicit substance use: A review and content analysis in the United States. <em>Translational Behavioral Medicine</em>, <em>10</em>(5), 1233–1242. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibz135">https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibz135</a></p> <p>Griffiths, R., &amp; Casswell, S. (2010). Intoxigenic digital spaces? Youth, social networking sites and alcohol marketing. <em>Drug and Alcohol Review</em>, <em>29</em>(5), 525–530. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00178.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2010.00178.x</a></p> <p>Hendriks, H., van den Putte, B., Gebhardt, W. A., &amp; Moreno, M. A. (2018). Social drinking on social media: Content analysis of the social aspects of alcohol-related posts on Facebook and Instagram. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>20</em>(6), e226. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9355">https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9355</a></p> <p>Hendriks, H., Wilmsen, D., van Dalen, W., &amp; Gebhardt, W. A. (2019). Picture me drinking: Alcohol-related posts by Instagram influencers popular among adolescents and young adults. <em>Frontiers in Psychology</em>, <em>10</em>, 2991. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02991">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02991</a></p> <p>Mayrhofer, M., &amp; Naderer, B. (2019). Mass media as alcohol educator for everyone? Effects of portrayed alcohol consequences and the influence of viewers’ characteristics. <em>Media Psychology</em>, <em>22</em>(2), 217–243. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1378112">https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2017.1378112</a></p> <p>Moreno, M. A., Briner, L. R., Williams, A., Brockman, L., Walker, L., &amp; Christakis, D. A. (2010). A content analysis of displayed alcohol references on a social networking web site. <em>The Journal of Adolescent Health: Official Publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine</em>, <em>47</em>(2), 168–175. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.01.001">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.01.001</a></p> <p>Moreno, M. A., D’Angelo, J., &amp; Whitehill, J. (2016). Social media and alcohol: Summary of research, intervention ideas and future study directions. <em>Media and Communication</em>, <em>4</em>(3), 50–59. <a href="https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i3.529">https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v4i3.529</a></p> <p>Noel, J. K. (2021). Using social media comments to reduce alcohol purchase intentions: An online experiment. <em>Drug and Alcohol Review</em>, <em>40</em>(6), 1047–1055. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13262">https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13262</a></p> <p>Ricard, B. J., &amp; Hassanpour, S. (2021). Deep learning for identification of alcohol-related content on social media (Reddit and Twitter): Exploratory analysis of alcohol-related outcomes. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>23</em>(9), e27314. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/27314">https://doi.org/10.2196/27314</a></p> <p>Russell, A. M., Davis, R. E., Ortega, J. M., Colditz, J. B., Primack, B., &amp; Barry, A. E. (2021). #Alcohol: Portrayals of alcohol in top videos on TikTok. <em>Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs</em>, <em>82</em>(5), 615–622. <a href="https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2021.82.615">https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2021.82.615</a></p> <p>Stautz, K., Brown, K. G., King, S. E., Shemilt, I., &amp; Marteau, T. M. (2016). Immediate effects of alcohol marketing communications and media portrayals on consumption and cognition: A systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies. <em>BMC Public Health</em>, <em>16</em>, 465. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3116-8">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3116-8</a></p> <p>Strowger, M., &amp; Braitman, A. L. (2022). Using social network methodology to examine the effects of exposure to alcohol-related social media content on alcohol use: A critical review. <em>Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology. </em>Advance online publication. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000561">https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000561</a></p> <p>Tamersoy, A., Choudhury, M. de, &amp; Chau, D. H. (2015). Characterizing smoking and drinking abstinence from social media. <em>HT '15: The Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Hypertext and Social Media</em>, <em>2015</em>, 139–148. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1145/2700171.2791247">https://doi.org/10.1145/2700171.2791247</a></p> <p>Turnwald, B. P., Anderson, K. G., Markus, H. R., &amp; Crum, A. J. (2022). Nutritional analysis of foods and beverages posted in social media accounts of highly followed celebrities. <em>JAMA Network Open</em>, <em>5</em>(1), e2143087. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.43087">https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.43087</a></p> <p>Van den Bulck, H., Simons, N., &amp; van Gorp, B. (2008). Let's drink and be merry: The framing of alcohol in the prime-time American youth series The OC. <em>Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs</em>, <em>69</em>(6), 933–940. <a href="https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2008.69.933">https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2008.69.933</a></p> <p>Westgate, E. C., &amp; Holliday, J. (2016). Identity, influence, and intervention: The roles of social media in alcohol use. <em>Current Opinion in Psychology</em>, <em>9</em>, 27–32. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.014">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.10.014</a></p> <p>World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO). (2020). <em>Alcohol marketing in the WHO European Region: update report on the evidence and recommended policy actions</em>. <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/336178/WHO-EURO-2020-1266-41016-55678-eng.pdf?sequence=1&amp;isAllowed=y">https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/336178/WHO-EURO-2020-1266-41016-55678-eng.pdf?sequence=1&amp;isAllowed=y</a></p> 2022-05-27T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3707 Visual Gender Stereotypes (Advertisement, Social Media) 2022-06-15T18:47:15+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de <div class="page" title="Page 1"> <div class="layoutArea"> <div class="column"> <p>The depiction of gender is the focus of a growing number of content analyses in the fields of both mass media (e.g., Goffman, 1979; Grau &amp; Zotos, 2016; Mitchell &amp; McKinnon, 2019; Sink &amp; Mastro, 2017; Ward &amp; Grower, 2020) and social media (e.g., Baker &amp; Walsh, 2018; Döring, 2019; Döring &amp; Mohseni, 2019; Döring et al., 2016). Typically, the depiction of gender follows traditional gender roles and, hence, does not include at lot of individuality and diversity but sticks to established gender stereotypes (Collins, 2011). <em>Gender steoreotypes</em> are defined as beliefs about how men versus women are (<em>descriptive beliefs</em>) or should be (<em>prescriptive beliefs</em>). Relevant dimensions of gender stereotyping are occupations (e.g., the man as the hero, breadwinner, or executive; the woman as the mother, housewife, or subordinate), sexual and romantic behaviors (e.g., the man seeking sex; the woman seeking love), personality traits (e.g., the man being active, aggressive, rational, and instrumental; the woman being passive, affectionate, emotional, and social), or body types (e.g., the man being tall, muscular and older; the woman being petite, slim, and younger). Gender stereotypes in the media cover different dimensions of traditional masculinity and feminity and are represented textually and/or (audio-)visually. Typically, the occurrence and nature of gender stereotyping in different media is measured and changes over time are of particular interest (e.g., Bhatia &amp; Bhatia, 2020; Maker &amp; Childs, 2003).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>According to the <em>Social Cognitive Theory</em> (SCT; Bandura 1986, 2009), gender-stereotyped protagonists in the media can influence how media audiences perceive gender roles and to which degree they imitate them as role models. <em>Cultivation theory</em> (Gerbner &amp; Gross, 1976; Kim &amp; Lowry, 2005) predicts, that exposure to distorted media images of reality will shape the audiences’ worldviews. Repeated or constant exposure to gender stereotpyes in the media, according to cultivation theory, will influence the audiences’ perceptions of the roles of women and men in society. Against the background of human rights and gender equality, exaggerated gender stereotypes and the related subordination of women in the media are criticized (e.g. Döring et al., 2016; Goffman, 1979; Grau &amp; Zotos, 2016). Often times, gender-related media content analyses support feminist claims about gender-based inequalities (Collins, 2011; Rudy et al., 2010).</p> <p>When criticizing gender steoreotypes in the media, it is important to realize, though, that media do not one-directionally influence public perception and opinion (<em>mold theory</em>) but also bi-directionally reflect existing social gender relations and societal attitudes (<em>mirror theory</em>). Last but not least, based on an understanding of stereotypes as <em>cognitive shortcuts and simplifications</em> (Windels, 2016) it needs to be acknowledged that using stereotypes in media representations makes it easier to disseminate clear messages, inform or entertain the audience. Hence, the use of gender-related or other group-related stereotypes is not only an issue of societal relations and equality but also an issue of information processing and message creation.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Manual (e.g., Döring et al., 2016) and computational (e.g., Bhatia &amp; Bhatia, 2020) content analyses of gender representations in mass media and social media can be combined. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate both media creators’ and media audiences’ perceptions and evaluations of gender stereotypes in the media. Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different gender stereotypes in the media are perceived and evaluated by recipients and if and how they can affect their gender-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Bast et al., 2021).</p> <p> </p> </div> <p><em><strong>Example Studies for Manual Content Analyses:</strong></em></p> <p>Acknowledging the multidimensionality and complexity of gender stereotypes in the media, this DOCA entry focuses on the analysis of gender displays in the tradition of Erving Goffman (1979, 1988). Goffman’s approach originally addressed press adversitements and was qualitative in nature. It has been adopted for quantitative content analyses and extended regarding relevant dimensions with a focus on press advertisments (Kang, 1997), magazine titles (Mortensen et al., 2020) as well as social media images such as selfies on Instagram (Döring et al., 2016; Baker &amp; Walsh, 2018). Extending Goffman’s gender display framework to social media contexts and user-generated content does make sense from a theoretical point of view (Butkowski, 2020). Usually, dichotomous or polytomous variables are used to code stereotypical gender displays in the Goffman tradition, however, some content researchers also have developed and used rating scales for coding (Butkowski et al., 2020). So far, published codebooks with example pictures are scarce.</p> <p><strong>Table 1.</strong> Example studies for manual content analyses.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr align="center" valign="top"> <td class=" t b"><strong>Coding Material</strong></td> <td class=" t b"><strong>Measure</strong></td> <td class=" t b"><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong><strong> </strong></td> <td class=" t b"><strong>Reliability</strong></td> <td class=" t b"><strong>Source</strong></td> </tr> <tr> <td> <p><strong><em>a) </em></strong><strong><em>Six categories of gender display according to Goffman (1979, 1988)</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Relative size <br />(between 2 or more persons)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>One person (usually the man) is depicted as larger in height and greater in girth through positioning or perspective of the image compared to the other person(s) (usually the woman). Can only be coded with 2 or more persons in the picture. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N=500 selfies on Instagram</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Feminine touch</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>One person (usually the woman) is pictured using their fingers and hands to trace the outlines of an object or to cradle it or to caress its surface or to touch their own body (e.g., their hair). The so-called feminine touch is not goal-oriented or functional. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).<br />Example image for femine touch:</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb-1.png" alt="" width="288" height="388" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa = .79</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p>Döring et al. (2016)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 107.328px;"> <p>Function ranking <br />(between 2 or more persons)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>One person (usually the man) is pictured in the executive or dominant role, the other person in the subordinate or assisting role (usually the woman). Can only be coded with 2 or more persons in the picture<em>.</em> Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 107.328px;"> <p>Family<br />(nuclear family of four persons)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>The typical nuclear family is depicted with mother, father, daughter, and son. Typically, closer bonds between mother and daughter on the one side, and father and son on the other side are depicted. Can only be coded with a whole family in the picture. Multidimensional qualitative variable that has not been adopted for quantitative coding yet.</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p>N=500 selfies on Instagram</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 107.328px;"> <p>Ritualization of subordination</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>One person (usually the woman) is depicted in a posture of subordination that deviates from a stable, upright position and includes lying/sitting postures and imbalance.</p> <ul> <li>Posture of subordination includes lying or sitting versus standing: Polytomous coding (1: lying, 2: sitting, 3: standing)<br />Example image for lying posture:</li> </ul> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb-2.png" alt="" width="408" height="232" /></p> <ul> <li>Imbalance in body posture includes canting positions and knee bending. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no). <br />Example image for imbalance posture:</li> </ul> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb-3.png" alt="" width="294" height="394" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Lying, sitting, standing posture Cohen’s Kappa = 1.00</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>Imbalance posture: Cohen’s Kappa = .90</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p>Döring et al. (2016)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p>N=500 selfies on Instagram</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 107.328px;"> <p>Licensed withdrawal</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>One person (usually the woman) is depicted in a situation of licensed withdrawal meaning that she does not fully turn to the camera. This includes withdrawing gaze and loss of control.</p> <ul> <li>Withdrawing gaze means that one person (usually the woman) is depicted gazing away from the camera. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).<br />Example image withdrawing gaze:</li> </ul> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb-4.png" alt="" width="312" height="418" /></p> <ul> <li>Loss of control means that one person (usually the woman) is depicted expressing strong emotions implying that she is not fully focusing on the current scene . Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).<br />Example image loss of control:</li> </ul> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb-5.png" alt="" width="276" height="362" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Withdrawing gaze: Cohen’s Kappa = 1.00</p> <p> </p> <p>Loss of control: Cohen’s Kappa = 1.00</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p>Döring et al. (2016)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p><strong><em>b) </em></strong><strong><em>Two additional gender display categories according to Kang (1997)</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p>N=500 selfies on Instagram</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 107.328px;"> <p>Body Display</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>Body display of persons vary with the type of clothing.</p> <ul> <li>One person (usually the man) is depicted in full clothing. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</li> </ul> <ul> <li>One person (usually the woman) is depicted in sparse clothing or nudity. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).<br />Example image sparse closing</li> </ul> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb-6.png" alt="" width="278" height="498" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Full clothing Cohen’s Kappa = .73</p> <p> </p> <p>Sparse clothing: Cohen’s Kappa = .73</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p>Döring et al. (2016)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 107.328px;"> <p>Independence and self-assertiveness</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>One person (usually the man) is depicted in a position of independence and self-assertivenesss. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p><strong><em>c) </em></strong><strong><em>Three categories of social media related gender stereotypes (Döring et al., 2016)</em></strong></p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> <td> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p>N=500 selfies on Instagram</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 107.328px;"> <p>Kissing pout</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>One person (usually the woman) is depicted showing a kissing pout (“duck face”). Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> <p>Example image for kissing pout:</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb-7.png" alt="" width="460" height="344" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa = 1.00</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p>Döring et al. (2016)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p>N=500 selfies on Instagram</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 107.328px;"> <p>Muscle presentation</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>One person (usually the man) is depicted presenting their muscles (e.g., biceps, sixpack). Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> <p>Example image for muscle presentation:</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb-8.png" alt="" width="310" height="402" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa = 1.00</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p>Döring et al. (2016)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 109.789px;"> <p>N=500 selfies on Instagram</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 107.328px;"> <p>Faceless portrayal</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 258.43px;"> <p>One person (usually the woman) is depicted without the face in the picture. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> <p>Example image for faceless portayal:</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb-9.png" alt="" width="282" height="398" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 103.781px;"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa = 1.00</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 55.6719px;"> <p>Döring et al. (2016)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><em>Note.</em> In order to ensure anonymity, no original Instagram posts are displayed. All example pictures shown are re-enactments to visually illustrate the categories and all protagonists gave their informed consent for publication of the pictures. The pictures are also used in the original study Döring et al. (2016).</p> <p> </p> <p>The categories of gender display in the tradition of Erving Goffman (1979, 1988) can be complemented with further categories that go into more detail of physical appearance in terms of body type, attire or sexualization. Furthermore, additional dimensions of gender stereotyping such as occupations or activities can be added.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Baker, S. A., &amp; Walsh, M. J. (2018). ‘Good morning fitfam’: Top posts, hashtags and gender display on Instagram. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>20</em>(12), 4553–4570. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818777514">https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818777514</a></p> <p>Bandura, A. (1986). <em>Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory</em>. Prentice-Hall.</p> <p>Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant &amp; M. B. Oliver (Eds.), <em>Communication series. Media effects: Advances in theory and research </em>(3rd ed., pp. 94–124). Routledge.</p> <p>Bast, J., Oschatz, C., &amp; Renner, A.‑M. (2021). Successfully overcoming the “bouble bind”? A mixed-method analysis of the self-presentation of female right-wing populists on Instagram and the impact on voter attitudes. <em>Political Communication</em>, 1–25. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.2007190">https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2021.2007190</a></p> <p>Bhatia, N., &amp; Bhatia, S. (2021). Changes in gender stereotypes over time: A computational analysis. <em>Psychology of Women Quarterly</em>, <em>45</em>(1), 106–125. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320977178">https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320977178</a></p> <p>Butkowski, C. P. (2020). Beyond “commercial realism”: Extending Goffman’s gender display framework to networked media contexts. <em>Communication, Culture and Critique, 14</em>(1), 89-108.</p> <p>Butkowski, C. P., Dixon, T. L., Weeks, K. R., &amp; Smith, M.A. (2020). Quantifying the feminine self(ie): Gender display and social media feedback in young women’s Instagram selfies. <em>New Media &amp; Society, 22</em>(5), 817-837. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819871669">https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819871669</a></p> <p>Collins, R. L. (2011). Content analysis of gender roles in media: Where are we now and where should we go? <em>Sex Roles</em>, <em>64</em>(3-4), 290–298. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9929-5</a></p> <p>Döring, N. (2019). Videoproduktion auf YouTube: Die Bedeutung von Geschlechterbildern [Video production on YouTube: The relevance of gender images]. In J. Dorer, B. Geiger, B. Hipfl, &amp; V. Ratković (Eds.), <em>Handbuch Medien und Geschlecht: Perspektiven und Befunde der feministischen Kommunikations- und Medienforschung </em>(pp. 1–11). Springer Fachmedien. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20712-0_53-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20712-0_53-1</a></p> <p>Döring, N., &amp; Mohseni, M. R. (2019). Fail videos and related video comments on YouTube: A case of sexualization of women and gendered hate speech? <em>Communication Research Reports</em>, <em>36</em>(3), 254–264. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2019.1634533">https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2019.1634533</a></p> <p>Döring, N., Reif, A., &amp; Poeschl, S. (2016). How gender-stereotypical are selfies? A content analysis and comparison with magazine adverts. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>55</em>, 955–962. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.001">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.001</a></p> <p>Gerbner, G., &amp; Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. <em>The Journal of Communication</em>, <em>26</em>(2), 173–199. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x</a></p> <p>Goffman, E. (1979). <em>Gender advertisements</em>. Harper &amp; Row.</p> <p>Goffman, E. (1988). <em>Gender advertisements (revised edition)</em>. Harpercollins College Div.</p> <p>Grau, S. L., &amp; Zotos, Y. C. (2016). Gender stereotypes in advertising: A review of current research. <em>International Journal of Advertising</em>, <em>35</em>(5), 761–770. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1203556">https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1203556</a></p> <p>Kang, M.‑E. (1997). The portrayal of women’s images in magazine advertisements: Goffman’s gender analysis revisited. <em>Sex Roles</em>, <em>37</em>(11-12), 979–996. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02936350">https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02936350</a></p> <p>Kim, K., &amp; Lowry, D. T. (2005). Television commercials as a lagging social indicator: Gender role stereotypes in Korean television advertising. <em>Sex Roles</em>, <em>53</em>(11-12), 901–910. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-8307-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-8307-1</a></p> <p>Maker, J. K., &amp; Childs, N. M. (2003). A longitudinal content analysis of gender roles in children's television advertisements: A 27 year review. <em>Journal of Current Issues &amp; Research in Advertising</em>, <em>25</em>(1), 71–81. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2003.10505142">https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2003.10505142</a></p> <p>Mitchell, M., &amp; McKinnon, M. (2019). 'Human' or 'objective' faces of science? Gender stereotypes and the representation of scientists in the media. <em>Public Understanding of Science (Bristol, England)</em>, <em>28</em>(2), 177–190. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518801257">https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518801257</a></p> <p>Mortensen, T. M., Ejaz, K., &amp; Pardun, C. J. (2020). Quantifying gender stereotypes? Visually assessing stereotypes of women in People Magazine. <em>Journal of Magazine Media</em>, <em>21</em>(1), 30–50. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1353/jmm.2020.0002">https://doi.org/10.1353/jmm.2020.0002</a></p> <p>Rudy, R. M., Popova, L., &amp; Linz, D. G. (2010). The context of current content analysis of gender roles: An introduction to a special issue. <em>Sex Roles</em>, <em>62</em>(11-12), 705–720. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9807-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9807-1</a></p> <p>Sink, A., &amp; Mastro, D. (2017). Depictions of gender on primetime television: A quantitative content analysis. <em>Mass Communication and Society</em>, <em>20</em>(1), 3–22. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1212243">https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1212243</a></p> <p>Ward, L. M., &amp; Grower, P. (2020). Media and the development of gender role stereotypes. <em>Annual Review of Developmental Psychology</em>, <em>2</em>(1), 177–199. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-051120-010630">https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-051120-010630</a></p> <p>Windels, K. (2016). Stereotypical or just typical: How do US practitioners view the role and function of gender stereotypes in advertisements? <em>International Journal of Advertising</em>, <em>35</em>(5), 864–887. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1160855">https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1160855</a></p> </div> </div> 2022-06-15T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3838 Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography) 2022-10-02T13:00:18+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Dan J. Miller daniel.miller1@jcu.edu.au <p>Pornography is neither a <em>documentary media genre</em> that documents what <em>real sex</em> in everyday life looks like, nor is it a <em>pedagogical or moral media genre</em> aimed at showing what <em>ideal sex</em> (in terms of health or morality) should look like. Instead, pornography is a <em>fictional media genre</em> that depicts <em>sexual</em> <em>fantasies</em> and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, <em>pornography’s portrayals of sexuality</em> are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller &amp; McBain, 2022).</p> <p>It should be noted that the conceptual differentiation between <em>erotica</em> and pornography is complex and that “pornography” remains an ideologically charged, and often negatively connotated, concept. Hence, the research literature sometimes uses the broader and more neutral term “sexually explicit material” (SEM) in place of “pornographic material” (McKee et al., 2020). Furthermore, it must be emphasized that in the context of content analyses of SEM the focus is typically on <em>legal pornography</em>. Legal visual pornography is produced with adults who have given their informed consent for their image to be recorded, and then disseminated and marketed as SEM. Illegal pornography is usually beyond the scope of media content research, as the acquisition and use of illegal material would be unethical and illegal for researchers (e.g., the analysis of so-called “child pornography”, or what might be more accurately labeled “images of child sexual abuse”). Criminological and forensic research projects are exceptions to this rule.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>The theories applied in pornographic media content research primarily come from four academic disciplines: communication science, psychology, sex research, and gender studies. These different theories are fairly similar in their core assumption that pornography users’ sexual cognitions and behaviors are molded by the ways in which sexuality is portrayed in pornographic material. Some of the theories also explain the typical content of pornography and point to the fact that audiences might not only be influenced by pornography but can also shape porn production through their preferences. All theories demand content analyses of pornographic material to back up their predictions.</p> <p><em>General Media Effects Theories</em></p> <p>Cultivation Theory and Social Cognitive Theory are the most commonly used media effects theories, irrespective of specific media content. They are often applied to pornographic material.</p> <ul> <li><em>Cultivation Theory </em>(CT) was developed by communication researcher George Gerbner in the 1960s (Gerbner, 1998). CT claims that heavy media users’ perceptions of the prevalence of different societal phenomena (e.g., crimes) are shaped by the prevalence with which these phenomena occur in the media they consume (e.g., cop shows on TV). Applied to pornography, CT predicts that heavy users of pornography will severely overestimate the prevalence of sexual practices that are rare in reality, but widespread in pornography. Young people who lack real life sexual experience are regarded as particularly vulnerable for sexual cultivation effects in terms of biased perceptions of the popularity and normalcy of different performances of sexuality (e.g., name calling and slapping during sex).</li> <li>Another classic media effects theory that is widely adopted in pornography research is psychologist Albert Bandura’s <em>Social Learning Theory </em>(Bandura, 1971), later re-labeled as <em>Social Cognitive Theory</em> (SCT; Bandura, 2001). SCT claims that people imitate the behaviors of media role models. Applied to pornographic material, SCT predicts that media audiences will develop more favorable attitudes towards, and engage more frequently in, sexual behaviors portrayed positively in sexually explicit material. Such sexual imitation effects may influence not only attitudes toward, and engagement in, sex acts represented in pornography (e.g., anal sex), but also gender role behaviors (e.g., men acting dominantly, women acting submissively during sex), safer sex measures (e.g., lack of condom use), bodily appearance (e.g., breast augmentation), and consent communication (e.g., lack of explicitly asking for, or giving, consent to engage in different sex acts).</li> </ul> <p><em>Sexual Media Effects Theories</em></p> <p>While CT and SCT are broad media effects theories applicable to pornography as well as many other types of media content, Sexual Script Theory and the 3AM specifically address sexual media and their effects.</p> <ul> <li><em>Sexual Script Theory</em> (SST) was developed by sociologists John Gagnon and William Simon in the 1970s (Gagnon &amp; Simon, 1973; Simon &amp; Gagnon, 2003; Wiederman, 2015). SST argues that human sexuality is not merely a biological instinct, but a highly complex set of cognitions and behaviors shaped by symbolic, social and cultural factors: People develop ideas about how to have sex in terms of organized cognitive schemas or “scripts” that reflect intra-psychic desires (e.g., their sexual fantasies), social norms (e.g., peers’ and partners’ sexual expectations), and cultural influences (e.g., representations of sexuality in the media they consume). SST stresses that the intra-psychic, social, and cultural determinants of individuals’ sexual scripts mutually influence each other and can change over time (Simon &amp; Gagnon, 2003). However, in pornography research, usually only the third element of the theory (cultural influences through media representations of sexuality) is considered. Applied to pornography, SST predicts that sexual scripts presented in pornographic material (e.g., spontaneous anal sex with strangers without condoms or overt consent communication) can shape individuals’ sexual scripts.</li> <li>The <em>Acquisition, Activation, and Application Model of Media Sexual Socialization</em> (3AM) was developed more recently by communication researcher Paul Wright as a specification of SST regarding media influence (Wright, 2011). According to the 3AM, sexually explicit media content shapes cognitive schemas of sexuality in three ways: Pornography can foster the creation of new schemas (schema acquisition), it can prime extant schemas (schema activation), and it can facilitate the utilization of extant schemas to inform attitudes and behaviors (schema application). The 3AM differentiates between <em>specific </em>scripting effects of pornography (e.g., engaging in condom-free casual anal sex without sufficient consent communication after having observed this exact sexual script multiple times in pornography) versus <em>abstract</em> scripting effects (e.g., adopting a more permissive sexual worldview after having observed many people engaging in unrestricted sex in pornography).</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p>The aforementioned general and sexuality-specific media effects theories have been used predominantly to predict <em>negative (unwanted, harmful) effects</em> such as dangerously distorted views of sexuality and gender roles as well as engagement in risky or violent sexual behaviors, while potential positive effects have been mostly ignored. Only recently, has serious consideration been given to the <em>beneficial effects</em> of pornography use (e.g., sexual identity validation, sexual empowerment, improved couple communication, sexual skill acquisition, etc.) in the research literature (e.g., Döring, 2021; Döring &amp; Mohseni, 2018; Döring et al., 2021; Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Kohut et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2018; Tillmann &amp; Wells, 2022). Depending on specific negative and/or positive effect assumptions, different aspects of the representation of sexuality will be measured (e.g., expressions of aggression during sex or different types of sexual stimulation techniques).</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Gender Role, Feminist and Queer Theories</em></p> <p>Typically, analysis of the ways in which sexuality is represented in pornography involves considerations of gender relations, therefore <em>gender role theories</em> and <em>feminist theories of gender (in-)equality</em> are frequently drawn upon (e.g., Eagly, 1987). There are two main reasons for this additional theoretical focus on gender: 1) Most SEM depicts heterosexual encounters, hence the portrayal of sexuality in pornography implies a portrayal of sexual gender relations (Williams, 1989). 2) Gender relations in the media are often asymmetrical, depicting men and women in superior and subordinate positions, respectively. Such patriarchal gender relations are expected to be reflected, or even exaggerated, in pornographic material. Radical feminist approaches in particular characterize pornography as a portrayal of sexual degradation of women by men, that is so harmful to society that it should be prohibited (e.g., MacKinnon, 1991). Other feminist approaches are also critical of asymmetric gender relations in traditional mainstream pornography and call for more gender equality in SEM, such as in feminist pornography (Williams, 1989). Feminist criticism of gender roles and relations in pornography does not address the demographic variable of sex/gender alone, but also covers other diversity dimensions such as age, race/ethnicity, or disability. According to the <em>analytical framework of</em> <em>intersectionality</em>, the subordination and discrimination of women in society and media representations particularly affect those women who have multiple marginalized demographic characteristics (e.g., the representation of white women in pornography differs from that of black or Asian women; Fritz et al. 2021). <em>Queer theory</em> is also concerned with different racial/ethnic and sexual identities of women and their participation and representation in pornography (Ingraham 2013).</p> <p>Content analyses of pornography need to take into consideration that pornography is becoming increasingly diverse (Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). Hence, content analyses need to differentiate between various <em>pornographic sub-genres</em> such as commercial heterosexual mainstream pornography (traditionally targeting men) versus, for example, women-friendly and couple-oriented pornography, feminist pornography, queer pornography, fetish and kink pornography, or authentic amateur and DIY (do it yourself) pornography in the form of visual or text pornography (Döring, 2021; McKee et al., 2008). Gender role, feminist, and queer theories predict that gender relations in mainstream pornography are more asymmetrical, stereotypical and patriarchal than in women- and couple-friendly, feminist and queer pornography.</p> <p><em>Sexual Fantasy and Desire Theories</em></p> <p>The above-mentioned effect theories do not address and explain the main <em>intended effect</em> of pornography, namely immediate sexual arousal, pleasure and satisfaction. The theories focus on linking the fictional pornographic content directly with real life opinions and behaviors, but mostly ignore the links between fictional pornographic content and <em>sexual fantasies</em>. Research shows that many sexual fantasies of people of all genders are unrealistic, extreme, clichéd, violent and norm-violating and that norm-violation is often what makes them arousing (e.g., Bivona et al., 2012; Critelli &amp; Bivona, 2008; Joyal, 2015). The same might be true for pornographic content. Hence, measuring pornography, a fictional media genre, against standards of realism, health and morality might not always be in line with the main entertainment purpose of the genre. Erotizing the forbidden and dangerous (e.g, sex with family members, with mysterious strangers, with authority figures, with non-human creatures) is a common trope of sexual fantasies, hence meaningful variables to measure pornographic portrayals of sexuality could be derived from, and related to, <em>theories of sexual fantasy and desire </em>(e.g., Salmon et al., 2019; Stoller, 1985). Indulging in unrealistic and norm-violating fantasies and fictional media contents is part of media entertainment and may not necessarily lead to norm-violating behaviors. Competent media users should be able to differentiate between fiction and reality.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Mold Theories versus Mirror Theories</em></p> <p>When analyzing and criticizing sexuality portrayals in pornography, it is important to realize that media do not just uni-directionally influence public opinions and behaviors (<em>mold theory</em>). Rather, media also bi-directionally reflect existing sexual relations and fantasies (<em>mirror theory</em>). Recent sex surveys, for example, demonstrate that engagement in consensual BDSM (Bondage/Discipline, Dominance/Submission, Sadism/Masochism) practices and rough sex (e.g., name calling, spanking, hair pulling) is fairly widespread in the general population and enjoyed by all genders (e.g., Burch &amp; Salmon, 2019; Herbenick et al., 2021a, 2021b; Strizzi et al., 2022). Hence, it might not always be the adult industry that influences audiences’ sexualities, but also audiences’ sexual interests that influence porn production. Particularly in the digital pornography market, producers and vendors can easily analyze audience preferences through the analysis of search terms and download statistics and adopt their content accordingly. Furthermore, general beauty trends in society (e.g., regarding shaving of pubic and body hair, growing of beards, or multiple tattoos and other body art) might be mirrored in pornography (through its selection and presentation of performers) rather than of generated by it.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:</em></strong></p> <p>Acknowledging the multidimensionality and complexity of portrayals of sexuality in pornography, a recent research review identified eight main dimensions of analysis (Miller &amp; McBain, 2022) that are adopted and extended in this DOCA entry as: 1) violence, 2) degradation, 3) sex acts, 4) performer demographics (sex/gender, age, race/ethnicity), 5) performer bodily appearance, 6) safer sex practices, 7) relational context of sex, and 8) consent communication. Example studies and measures for all eight dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are presented in separate DOCA entries.</p> <p> </p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table style="height: 440px;"> <tbody> <tr style="height: 104px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 104px; width: 273.766px;"> <p><strong>Eight Dimension of <br />Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography</strong></p> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 104px; width: 458.07px;"> <p><strong>DOCA entr</strong><strong>y</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 273.766px;"> <p>1) Violence</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 458.07px;"> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5l">Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Violence</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 273.766px;"> <p>2) Degradation</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 458.07px;"> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5m">Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Degradation</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 273.766px;"> <p>3) Sex Acts</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 458.07px;"> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5n">Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Sex Acts</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 273.766px;"> <p>4) Performer Demographics</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 458.07px;"> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5o">Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Performer Demographics</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 273.766px;"> <p>5) Performer Bodily Appearance</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 458.07px;"> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5p">Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Performer Bodily Appearance</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 273.766px;"> <p>6) Safer Sex Practices</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 458.07px;"> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5q">Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Safer Sex Practices</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 273.766px;"> <p>7) Relational Context of Sex</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 458.07px;"> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5r">Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Relational Context of Sex</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 273.766px;"> <p>8) Consent Communication</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 42px; width: 458.07px;"> <p><a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5s">Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography: Consent Communication</a></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Bandura, A. (1971). <em>Social learning theory</em>. General Learning.</p> <p>Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. <em>Media Psychology</em>, <em>3</em>(3), 265–299. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03">https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03</a></p> <p>Bivona, J. M., Critelli, J. W., &amp; Clark, M. J. (2012). Women's rape fantasies: An empirical evaluation of the major explanations. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>41</em>(5), 1107–1119. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9934-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9934-6</a></p> <p>Burch, R. L., &amp; Salmon, C. (2019). The rough stuff: Understanding aggressive consensual sex. <em>Evolutionary Psychological Science</em>, <em>5</em>(4), 383–393. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00196-y">https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-019-00196-y</a></p> <p>Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., &amp; Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>22</em>(5), Article e16702. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/16702">https://doi.org/10.2196/16702</a></p> <p>Cowan, G., &amp; Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 11–21. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726</a></p> <p>Critelli, J. W., &amp; Bivona, J. M. (2008). Women's erotic rape fantasies: An evaluation of theory and research. <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>45</em>(1), 57–70. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701808191">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490701808191</a></p> <p>Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>25</em>(5), 1089–1101. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003</a></p> <p>Döring, N. (2021). Erotic Fan Fiction. In A. D. Lykins (Ed.), <em>Encyclopedia of sexuality and gender </em>(pp. 1–8). Springer. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_65-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59531-3_65-1</a></p> <p>Döring, N., Krämer, N., Mikhailova, V., Brand, M., Krüger, T. H. C., &amp; Vowe, G. (2021). Sexual interaction in digital contexts and its implications for sexual health: A conceptual analysis. <em>Frontiers in Psychology</em>, <em>12</em>, Article 769732. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769732">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.769732</a></p> <p>Döring, N., &amp; Mohseni, M. R. (2018). Are online sexual activities and sexting good for adults’ sexual well-being? Results from a national online survey. <em>International Journal of Sexual Health</em>, <em>30</em>(3), 250–263. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1491921">https://doi.org/10.1080/19317611.2018.1491921</a></p> <p>Eagly, A. H. (1987). <em>Sex differences </em>in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Erlbaum.</p> <p>Fritz, N., Malic, V. [Vinny], Paul, B., &amp; Zhou, Y. (2021). Worse than objects: The depiction of black women and men and their sexual relationship in pornography. <em>Gender Issues 38</em>, 100-120. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-020-09255-2">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-020-09255-2</a></p> <p>Gagnon, J. H., &amp; Simon, W. (1973). <em>Sexual conduct: The social sources of human sexuality</em> (2. ed.). AldineTransaction.</p> <p>Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. <em>Mass Communication and Society</em>, <em>1</em>(3-4), 175–194. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855">https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.1998.9677855</a></p> <p>Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., &amp; Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 117–129. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047</a></p> <p>Herbenick, D., Fu, T.‑C., Patterson, C., Rosenstock Gonzalez, Y. R., Luetke, M., Svetina Valdivia, D., Eastman-Mueller, H., Guerra-Reyes, L., &amp; Rosenberg, M. (2021a). Prevalence and characteristics of choking/strangulation during sex: Findings from a probability survey of undergraduate students. <em>Journal of American College Health</em>, 1–15. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1920599">https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2021.1920599</a></p> <p>Herbenick, D., Patterson, C., Beckmeyer, J., Gonzalez, Y. R. R., Luetke, M., Guerra-Reyes, L., Eastman-Mueller, H., Valdivia, D. S., &amp; Rosenberg, M. (2021b). Diverse sexual behaviors in undergraduate students: Findings from a campus probability survey. <em>The Journal of Sexual Medicine</em>, <em>18</em>(6), 1024–1041. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.006">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2021.03.006</a></p> <p>Ingraham, N. (2013). Queering pornography through qualitative method. <em>International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7</em>(2), 158-159. <a href="https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.2.218">https://doi.org/10.5172/mra.2013.7.2.218</a></p> <p>Joyal, C. C. (2015). Defining "normophilic" and "paraphilic" sexual fantasies in a population-based sample: On the importance of considering subgroups. <em>Sexual Medicine</em>, <em>3</em>(4), 321–330. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/sm2.96">https://doi.org/10.1002/sm2.96</a></p> <p>Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. <em>Nordic Journal of English Studies</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 49–80.</p> <p>Kohut, T., &amp; Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>22</em>(1), 40–50. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935</a></p> <p>Kohut, T., Fisher, W. A., &amp; Campbell, L. (2017). Perceived effects of pornography on the couple relationship: Initial findings of open-ended, participant-informed, "bottom-up" research. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>46</em>(2), 585–602. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0783-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0783-6</a></p> <p>MacKinnon, C. A. (1991). Pornography as defamation and discrimination. <em>Boston University Law Review, 71</em>, 793-818.</p> <p>McKee, A., Albury, K., &amp; Lumby, C. (2008). <em>The porn report</em>. Melbourne University Press.</p> <p>McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., &amp; Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(3), 1085–1091. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Hald, G. M., &amp; Kidd, G. (2018). Self-perceived effects of pornography consumption among heterosexual men. <em>Psychology of Men &amp; Masculinity</em>, <em>19</em>(3), 469–476. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000112">https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000112</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., &amp; McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 219–256. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., &amp; Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. <em>Psychology of Popular Media Culture</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 365–375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202">https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., &amp; McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 502–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676</a></p> <p>Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. <em>Porn Studies</em>, 1–14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366</a></p> <p>Salmon, C., Fisher, M. L., &amp; Burch, R. L. (2019). Evolutionary approaches: Integrating pornography preferences, short-term mating, and infidelity. <em>Personality and Individual Differences</em>, <em>148</em>, 45–49. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.030">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.030</a></p> <p>Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., &amp; Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>48</em>(3), 725–737. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0</a></p> <p>Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>51</em>(2), 1237–1255. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1</a></p> <p>Simon, W., &amp; Gagnon, J. H. (2003). Sexual scripts: Origins, influences and changes. <em>Qualitative Sociology</em>, <em>26</em>(4), 491–497. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000005053.99846.e5">https://doi.org/10.1023/B:QUAS.0000005053.99846.e5</a></p> <p>Stoller, R. J. (1985). <em>Observing the erotic imagination.</em> Yale University Press.</p> <p>Strizzi, J. M., Øverup, C. S., Ciprić, A., Hald, G. M., &amp; Træen, B. (2022). BDSM: Does it hurt or help sexual satisfaction, relationship satisfaction, and relationship closeness? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>59</em>(2), 248–257. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1950116">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1950116</a></p> <p>Tillman, M., &amp; Wells, B. E. (2022). An intersectional feminist analysis of women's experiences of authenticity in pornography. <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, 1–17. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.2024489">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.2024489</a></p> <p>West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 264–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540</p> <p>Wiederman, M. W. (2015). Sexual Script Theory: Past, present, and future. In J. DeLamater &amp; R. F. Plante (Eds.), <em>Handbook of the sociology of sexualities </em>(pp. 7–22). Springer. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17341-2_2">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17341-2_2</a></p> <p>Williams, L. (1989). <em>Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible</em>. University of California Press.</p> <p>Wright, P. J. (2011). Mass media effects on youth sexual behavior assessing the claim for causality. <em>Annals of the International Communication Association</em>, <em>35</em>(1), 343–385. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2011.11679121">https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2011.11679121</a></p> 2022-10-24T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3839 Violence (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography) 2022-10-02T13:16:24+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Dan J. Miller daniel.miller1@jcu.edu.au <p>Pornography is a <em>fictional media genre</em> that depicts <em>sexual</em> <em>fantasies</em> and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, <em>pornography’s portrayals of sexuality</em> are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). This DOCA entry focuses on the representation of <em>violence</em> as one of eight important dimensions of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In the field of pornographic media content research, different theories are used, mainly 1) general media effects theories, 2) sexual media effects theories, 3) gender role, feminist and queer theories, 4) sexual fantasy and desire theories, and different 5) mold theories versus mirror theories. The DOCA entry “<a href="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3838">Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>” introduces all these theories and explains their application to pornography. The respective theories are applicable to the analysis of the depiction of violence as one dimension of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:</em></strong></p> <p>Common research hypotheses state that pornography depicts sexuality as violent and shows violent acts such as verbal aggression, physical aggression or image-based abuse being predominately perpetrated by men targeting women. To test such hypotheses and code pornographic material accordingly, it is necessary to clarify the concept of “violence” and use valid and reliable measures for different types of violence. In addition, it is necessary to code the sex/gender of the person depicted as the source and/or the target of the respective violent act (e.g., in the context of verbal sexual aggression, the target of verbal aggression is coded as female or male and the source of verbal aggression is coded as female or male).</p> <p>It is important to note that in the context of pornographic content research, researchers conceptualize violence differently. Also, it should be noted, that there is some overlap between the variable violence and the variable degradation in the context of pornographic portrayals of sexuality. For example, the depiction of “name calling” in a pornographic scene can be understood as an indicator of “violence” (namely verbal aggression) or of “degradation”. Name calling is covered here as verbal aggression (following Fritz et al., 2020), hence, it is not covered again as degradation, even though some authors do so (such as Gorman et al., 2010; see DOCA entry “Degradation (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)”). In general, one can argue that all violent acts – apart from being potentially painful and harmful – have a component of degradation because they put the target of violence in a subordinate role. However, not all degrading acts are violent (e.g., degradation by systematic lack of sexual reciprocity does not entail overt aggression).</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="879"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Coding Material</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="5" width="879"> <p><strong><em>Violence: </em></strong>Usually, violence is defined as behavior directed toward the goal of harm or injury of another living being, who is motivated to avoid such treatment (McKee, 2015). However, in content analyses of pornography, violent behavior is often coded regardless of intention to harm or actual harm done. Instead, violence is coded with reference to the presence of prespecified behaviors (e.g., spanking, slapping, choking), even if these behaviors are presented as consensual and sexually arousing (Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). Technology-facilitated sexual violence (image-based sexual abuse) addresses the illegal recording and dissemination of intimate imagery without consent, such as revenge porn, upskirting or spy cams (Henry &amp; Powell, 2018). Mainstream pornography platforms partly disseminate illegal material and partly market some of their legal commercial pornography under these respective labels, hence pretending to provide non-consensual pornography (Vera-Gray et al., 2021). Apart from issues of performer health protection, violent acts are also regarded as relevant in terms of modelling behaviors for audiences.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>N=4,009 heterosexual scenes from 3,767 pornographic videos sampled from PornHub.com (574 scenes) and and Xvideos. com (3,435 scenes)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Verbal aggression</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“An action that clearly does or could reasonably be expected to cause psychological harm to oneself or another person through name calling or insulting”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage Agreement: 97.5% (PornHub) / 88.9% (Xvideos)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Fritz et al. (2020)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Physical aggression</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Any action that clearly did or could reasonably be expected to cause physical harm to oneself or another person, regardless of the perpetrator’s intent and the target’s response”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage Agreement: 98.8% (Pornhub) / 97.6% (Xvideos)</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Spanking (type of physical aggression)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Striking on the buttocks with an open hand”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage Agreement: 94.2% (Pornhub) / 96.9% (Xvideos)</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Slapping (type of physical aggression)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Striking oneself or another with an entirely unclosed hand, group of fingers, or palm”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage Agreement: 99.2% (Pornhub) / 98.1% (Xvideos)</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Gagging (type of physical aggression)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Any instance in which an object (including the genitals) is inserted into a person’s mouth, such that it appears to cut off their ability to breathe freely and/or causes them to experience a throat spasm”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage Agreement: 99.2% (Pornhub) / 96.7% (Xvideos)</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Pulling hair (type of physical aggression)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Any instance where the hair on a person’s head is grasped or pulled on, such that the person’s head is pulled (even slightly) in a particular direction”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage Agreement: 100.0% (Pornhub) / 98.9% (Xvideos)</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Choking (type of physical aggression)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“To cause another to stop breathing, if only for a moment, by grabbing the throat”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage Agreement: 98.3% (Pornhub) / 98.8% (Xvideos)</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Pushing (type of physical aggression)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>‘‘Use of one’s hands, arms, or other body parts to force another person’s body or part of their body to move in a particular manner or direction”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage Agreement: 95.0% (Pornhub) / 97.9% (Xvideos)</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N=131,738 titles of pornographic videos presented on the landing pages of the three leading mainstream pornography video platforms in the UK: PornHub.com, Xhamster.com, Xvideos.com</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Image-based sexual abuse</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Pornographic video title includes keywords indicating image-based sexual abuse such as “spy”, “hidden”, “upskirting”, “leak” or “revenge”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Vera-Gray et al. (2021)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><br />At the same time, porn platforms may disseminate material without the consent of the depicted persons in such violence-indicating categories, but also in regular sub-genre categories (such as "Threesome", "Handjob"), making it impossible for coders to reliably detect all image-based violence.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., &amp; Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>22</em>(5), Article e16702. https://doi.org/10.2196/16702</p> <p>Cowan, G., &amp; Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726</p> <p>Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>25</em>(5), 1089–1101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003</p> <p>Fritz, N., Malic, V. [Vinny], Paul, B., &amp; Zhou, Y. (2020). A descriptive analysis of the types, targets, and relative frequency of aggression in mainstream pornography. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(8), 3041–3053. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01773-0</p> <p>Gorman, S., Monk-Turner, E., &amp; Fish, J. N. (2010). Free adult internet web sites: How prevalent are degrading acts? <em>Gender Issues</em>, <em>27</em>(3-4), 131–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-010-9095-7</p> <p>Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., &amp; Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 117–129. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047</p> <p>Henry, N., &amp; Powell, A. (2018). Technology-facilitated sexual violence: A literature review of empirical research. <em>Trauma, Violence &amp; Abuse</em>, <em>19</em>(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016650189</p> <p>Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. <em>Nordic Journal of English Studies</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 49–80.</p> <p>Kohut, T., &amp; Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>22</em>(1), 40–50. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935</p> <p>McKee, A. (2015). Methodological issues in defining aggression for content analyses of sexually explicit material. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>44</em>(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0253-3</p> <p>McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., &amp; Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(3), 1085–1091. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., &amp; McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 219–256. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., &amp; Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. <em>Psychology of Popular Media Culture</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 365–375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202">https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., &amp; McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 502–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676</a></p> <p>Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. <em>Porn Studies</em>, 1–14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366</a></p> <p>Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., &amp; Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>48</em>(3), 725–737. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0</a></p> <p>Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>51</em>(2), 1237–1255. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1</a></p> <p>Vera-Gray, F., McGlynn, C., Kureshi, I., &amp; Butterby, K. (2021). Sexual violence as a sexual script in mainstream online pornography. <em>The British Journal of Criminology</em>, <em>61</em>(5), 1243–1260. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab035">https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azab035</a></p> <p>West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 264–267. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540</a></p> <p>Williams, L. (1989). <em>Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible</em>. University of California Press.</p> 2022-10-24T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3871 Degradation (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography) 2022-10-22T14:45:26+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Dan J. Miller daniel.miller1@jcu.edu.au <p>Pornography is a <em>fictional media genre</em> that depicts <em>sexual</em> <em>fantasies</em> and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, <em>pornography’s portrayals of sexuality</em> are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices or relational dynamics and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). This entry focuses on the representation of <em>degradation</em> as one of eight important dimensions of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In the field of pornographic media content research, different theories are used, mainly 1) general media effects theories, 2) sexual media effects theories, 3) gender role, feminist and queer theories, 4) sexual fantasy and desire theories, and different 5) mold theories versus mirror theories. The DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5k">Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>” introduces all these theories and explains their application to pornography. The respective theories are applicable to the analysis of the depiction of degradation as one dimension of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:</em></strong></p> <p>A common research hypothesis states that pornography often depicts sexuality which is degrading towards women (by men). (Conversely, an indicator <em>against</em> degradation is the depiction of sexual agency of women, i.e., representations of women actively initiating and guiding sexual encounters, and enjoying self-determined and reciprocal sex acts.) To test such hypotheses and code pornographic material accordingly, it is necessary to clarify the concept of “degradation” and use valid and reliable measures of different types of degradation. In addition, it is necessary to code the sex/gender of the person depicted as the source and/or the target of the respective degrading act.</p> <p>It is important to note that in the context of pornographic content research, researchers conceptualize degradation differently. Also, it should be noted, that there is some overlap between the variable degradation and the variable violence in the context of pornographic portrayals of sexuality. For example, the depiction of “name calling” in a pornographic scene can be understood as an indicator of “violence” (namely verbal aggression) or of “degradation”. Name calling is covered as verbal aggression (following Fritz et al., 2020; see DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5l">Violence (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>”), hence, it is not covered here again as degradation, even though some authors do so (such as Gorman et al., 2010). In general, one can argue that all violent acts – apart from being potentially painful and harmful – have a component of degradation because they put the target of violence in a subordinate role. However, not all degrading acts are violent (e.g., degradation by systematic lack of sexual reciprocity does not entail overt aggression).</p> <p> </p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="879"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Coding Material</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="5" width="879"> <p><strong><em>Degradation: </em></strong>Degradation in the context of pornography is defined as a depiction of sexuality that is not characterized by mutuality, respect and equal power but instead is characterized by non-reciprocity, inequality, dominance, objectification and dehumanization, usually with men in the superior role and women in the subordinate role (Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994). Several variables indicating degradation during sex have been developed and are measured together with the sex/gender of persons involved, such as unreciprocated sex (e.g., female performer gives oral sex but does not receive it; male performer orgasms but female performer does not), status inequality (e.g., male performer depicted as older, better educated, more affluent than female performer), expressions of dominance (e.g., male performer ties female performer up or orders her around), objectification (e.g., male performer ejaculates on female performer’s body or face; gaping of the vagina or anus; double penetration of vagina or anus of the female performer) and dehumanization (e.g., male performer urinates on female performer’s body). While consensus can be reached between some researchers and media users that respective sex acts appear degrading to them (Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994), others disagree and either do not find these acts inherently degrading or recognize that they may be part of sexual fantasies and role play of degradation (Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). Apart from issues of performer health protection, degrading acts are also regarded as relevant in terms of modelling behaviors for audiences.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>N=45 pornographic videos from 15 different adult websites (3 videos per website)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Display of body</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Being degraded: Actor displayed showing a higher level of nudity in comparison to co-actor(s). Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Percentage agreement 100% for all degradation variables in codebook</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Gorman et al. (2010)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Domination</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Degrading another: Actor displayed showing control and being in the dominating position, i.e. directing the co-actor(s) and the sexual acts. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Submission</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Being degraded: Actor displayed in the submissive role, i.e. following demands, allowing to be moved in any position. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Ejaculation onto the face</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Being degraded: Actor’s face or mouth displayed as being ejaculated on. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Exploitation</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Degrading another: Actor displayed as using another with less power (e.g., due to age, social status, social role) as sexual object. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Lack of reciprocity</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Degrading another: Actor displayed as disregarding mutuality and reciprocity during sexual acts and focusing only on their own satisfaction. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., &amp; Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>22</em>(5), Article e16702. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/16702">https://doi.org/10.2196/16702</a></p> <p>Cowan, G., &amp; Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 11–21. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726</a></p> <p>Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>25</em>(5), 1089–1101. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003</a></p> <p>Fritz, N., Malic, V. [Vinny], Paul, B., &amp; Zhou, Y. (2020). A descriptive analysis of the types, targets, and relative frequency of aggression in mainstream pornography. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(8), 3041–3053. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01773-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01773-0</a></p> <p>Gorman, S., Monk-Turner, E., &amp; Fish, J. N. (2010). Free adult internet web sites: How prevalent are degrading acts? <em>Gender Issues</em>, <em>27</em>(3-4), 131–145. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-010-9095-7">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-010-9095-7</a></p> <p>Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., &amp; Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 117–129. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047</a></p> <p>Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. <em>Nordic Journal of English Studies</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 49–80.</p> <p>Kohut, T., &amp; Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>22</em>(1), 40–50. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935</a></p> <p>McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., &amp; Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(3), 1085–1091. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., &amp; McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 219–256. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., &amp; Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. <em>Psychology of Popular Media Culture</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 365–375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202">https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., &amp; McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 502–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676</a></p> <p>Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. <em>Porn Studies</em>, 1–14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366</a></p> <p>Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., &amp; Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>48</em>(3), 725–737. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0</a></p> <p>Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>51</em>(2), 1237–1255. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1</a></p> <p>West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 264–267. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540</a></p> <p>Williams, L. (1989). <em>Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible</em>. University of California Press.</p> 2022-10-24T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3872 Sex Acts (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography) 2022-10-22T15:00:59+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Dan J. Miller daniel.miller1@jcu.edu.au <p>Pornography is a <em>fictional media genre</em> that depicts <em>sexual</em> <em>fantasies</em> and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, <em>pornography’s portrayals of sexuality</em> are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices or relational dynamics and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). This entry focuses on the representation of <em>sex acts</em> as one of eight important dimensions of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In the field of pornographic media content research, different theories are used, mainly 1) general media effects theories, 2) sexual media effects theories, 3) gender role, feminist and queer theories, 4) sexual fantasy and desire theories, and different 5) mold theories versus mirror theories. The DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5k">Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>” introduces all these theories and explains their application to pornography. The respective theories are applicable to the analysis of the depiction of sex acts as one dimension of portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:</em></strong></p> <p>Common research hypotheses state that pornography depicts sexuality as exaggerated regarding the variety of depicted sex acts, including commonly depicting statistically uncommon acts. More specifically, it is hypothesized, that the typical heterosexual porn script (which often includes oral, vaginal, and anal intercourse altogether in one scene) might normalize, or even prescribe, engagement in oral and anal intercourse in everyday heterosexual encounters. To test such hypotheses and code pornographic material accordingly, it is necessary to clarify the concept of “sex acts” and use valid and reliable measures for different types of sex acts. In addition, it is necessary to code the sex/gender of the person depicted as involved in the respective sex acts in different roles (e.g., giving or receiving oral sex).</p> <p>It is important to note that in the context of pornographic content research, researchers conceptualize sex acts differently. In particular, some researchers categorize some sex acts as violence or degradation, while other researchers cover them as more or less common sexual practices (e.g., “hair pulling” can be understood and coded as violence or as an element of consensual rough sex practices; “name calling” can be understood as verbal aggression or degradation or as an element of consensual dirty talk practices; see DOCA entries “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5l">Violence (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>” and “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5m">Degradation (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>”).</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table style="width: 864px;" width="879"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 167px;"> <p><strong>Coding Material</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 136px;"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 86px;"> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 864px;" colspan="5" width="879"> <p><strong><em>Sex Acts: </em></strong>Various types of sex acts can be differentiated such as oral sex, spanking or ejaculating on the body (Carrotte et al., 2020). Usually, in pornography research, sex acts related to rough sex and some types of BDSM are categorized as “Violence” (see DOCA entry “Violence (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)”) and sex acts related to paraphilias such as fetishes, kinks and some types of BDSM are categorized as “Degradation” (see DOCA entry “Degradation (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)”). Respective categorizations are based on some observers’ moral evaluations and disregard consent and the pleasure of participants (or that of other observers). Hence, depending on the researcher’s perspective, the full spectrum of consensual sexual activities can be subsumed under “sex acts” or only a sub-set of sexual activities that are regarded as normative and normophilic (Miller &amp; McBain, 2022; Zhou et al., 2019).</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" style="width: 167px;"> <p>N=3,053 pornographic videos randomly selected from Xvideos.com</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p><em>Kissing</em></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t" style="width: 136px;"> <p>Percentage agreement average across all variables in codebook: 98%</p> </td> <td class="t" style="width: 86px;"> <p>Zhou et al. (2019)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Light kissing</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Light kissing between actors on mouth. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Deep kissing</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Deep kissing between actors on mouth. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Kissing and sucking on body</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Light and/or deep kissing between actors on mouth and sucking on the other actor’s body. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p><em>Manual / digital sexual stimulation</em></p> </td> <td style="width: 329px;" width="336"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Manual stimulation of penis (type of manual/digital stimulation)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Manual stimulation of penis. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Manual stimulation of vulva and/or vagina (type of manual/digital stimulation)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Manual stimulation of vulva and/or vagina. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Manual stimulation of anus (type of manual/digital stimulation)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Manual stimulation of anus. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p><em>Oral Sex</em></p> </td> <td style="width: 329px;" width="336"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Fellatio (type of oral sex)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Oral-penile contact between actors. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Cunnilingus (type of oral sex)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Oral-vulva or oral-vaginal contact between actors. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Anilingus (type of oral sex)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Oral-anal contact (a.k.a. rimming) between actors. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p><em>Intercourse</em></p> </td> <td style="width: 329px;" width="336"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Vaginal intercourse (type of intercourse)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Penetration of one actor’s vagina by another actor’s penis. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td style="width: 136px;" width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 86px;" width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b" style="width: 167px;"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 146px;"> <p>- Anal intercourse (type of intercourse)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 329px;"> <p>Penetration of one actor’s anus by another actor’s penis. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="b" style="width: 136px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="b" style="width: 86px;"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>N=50 popular pornographic videos from PornHub.com</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>Orgasm</em></p> </td> <td class="t"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 167px;" width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Female orgasm</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Overt orgasm of female performer, as indicated by the presence of “squirting” or other verbal and nonverbal cues (e.g., facial contortions, moaning, verbal statements communicating orgasm). Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage agreement: 92%</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Séguin et al. (2018)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Male orgasm</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Overt orgasm of male performer, as indicated by the presence of ejaculate or other verbal and nonverbal cues (e.g., facial contortions, moaning, verbal statements communicating orgasm). Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage agreement: 100%</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><br />The selected sex act variables can be complemented with further variables that go into more detail. For example, for many sex act variables it makes sense to differentiate between the passive/receiving and active/giving role of the performers involved (e.g., receiving oral sex or giving oral sex). Furthermore, in addition to the act of vaginal or anal intercourse different intercourse positions (e.g., lying, sitting, standing positions; woman on top or bottom during intercourse) could be coded. For a discussion of measurement problems and best practice regarding coding female orgasms see Lebedíková (2022).</p> <p><br /><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., &amp; Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>22</em>(5), Article e16702. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/16702">https://doi.org/10.2196/16702</a></p> <p>Cowan, G., &amp; Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 11–21. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726</a></p> <p>Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>25</em>(5), 1089–1101. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003</a></p> <p>Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., &amp; Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 117–129. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047</a></p> <p>Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. <em>Nordic Journal of English Studies</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 49–80.Kohut, T., &amp; Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>22</em>(1), 40–50. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935</a></p> <p>Lebedíková, M. (2022). How much screaming is an orgasm: The problem with coding female climax. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>9</em>(2), 208–223. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2022.2034523">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2022.2034523</a></p> <p>McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., &amp; Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(3), 1085–1091. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., &amp; McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 219–256. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., &amp; Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. <em>Psychology of Popular Media Culture</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 365–375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202">https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., &amp; McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 502–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676</a></p> <p>Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. <em>Porn Studies</em>, 1–14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366</a></p> <p>Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., &amp; Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>48</em>(3), 725–737. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0</a></p> <p>Séguin, L. J., Rodrigue, C., &amp; Lavigne, J. (2018). Consuming ecstasy: Representations of male and female orgasm in mainstream pornography. <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>55</em>(3), 348-356. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1332152">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2017.1332152</a></p> <p>Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>51</em>(2), 1237–1255. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1</a></p> <p>West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 264–267. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540</a></p> <p>Williams, L. (1989). <em>Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible</em>. University of California Press.Zhou, Y., Paul, B., Malic, V. [Vincent], &amp; Yu, J. (2019). Sexual behavior patterns in online sexually explicit materials: A network analysis. <em>Quality &amp; Quantity</em>, <em>53</em>(4), 2253–2271. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00869-7">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00869-7</a></p> 2022-10-24T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3873 Performer Demographics (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography) 2022-10-22T15:10:51+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Dan J. Miller daniel.miller1@jcu.edu.au <p>Pornography is a <em>fictional media genre</em> that depicts <em>sexual</em> <em>fantasies</em> and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, <em>pornography’s portrayals of sexuality</em> are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices or relational dynamics and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). This entry focuses on the representation of <em>performer demographics</em> (such as sex/gender, age, and race/ethnicity) as one of eight important dimensions of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In the field of pornographic media content research, different theories are used, mainly 1) general media effects theories, 2) sexual media effects theories, 3) gender role, feminist and queer theories, 4) sexual fantasy and desire theories, and different 5) mold theories versus mirror theories. The DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5k">Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>” introduces all these theories and explains their application to pornography. The respective theories are applicable to the analysis of the depiction of performer demographics as one dimension of portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:</em></strong></p> <p>Common research hypotheses in relation to performer demographics state that pornography portrays sexuality in a <em>sexist</em> manner entailing violence towards and degradation of women, usually perpetrated by men. In addition, it is hypothesized that pornographic portrayals of sexuality are <em>asymmetric</em> in terms of showing men in superior and dominating, and women in subordinate and submissive, positions. This sex/gender asymmetry can be reflected in demographic variables such as social status (difference) or age (difference). Furthermore, mainstream pornography is critized for its <em>racist</em> portrayal of sexuality. This means that non-White performers are underrepresented and if they are represented are often depicted according to racial/ethnic stereotypes. To test such hypotheses and code pornographic material accordingly, it is necessary to clarify demographic concepts such as sex/gender, age, and race/ethnicity and use valid and reliable measures.</p> <p>It is important to note that in the context of pornographic content research, researchers conceptualize demographic characteristics differently and that two different approaches to coding are available: Direct coding based on the person’s appearance (e.g., apparent sex/gender, age or skin color) versus indirect coding based on meta-information about the material, such as the sub-genre category the material belongs to (e.g., pornography category “Asian” displaying Asian-looking performers or “Teen” displaying adult performers who look very young). If applying an intersectional theoretical framework (see DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5k">Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>”) the researcher would need to code each performer in terms of multiple demographic variables.</p> <p> </p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Coding Material</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 656.898px;" colspan="5"> <p><strong><em>Sex/gender: </em></strong>Most analyses of the way sexuality is portrayed in pornography hypothesize (or, at least, acknowledge the possibility) that men and women are depicted differently (e.g., that men are more likely to be depicted as the perpetrators of violent behaviors and that women are more likely to be depicted as recipients of violent behaviors). Accordingly, coding the sex/gender of performers is often essential to addressing research questions in this area. The term <em>gender</em> is often preferred when referring to people as groups, as gender reflects a social categorization, whereas <em>sex</em> reflects a biological categorization (American Psychological Association, 2020). While many content analyses of pornography address sex/gender differences they do not present any standardized measures for the demographic variable of sex/gender. The measure presented below is one of the rare exceptions, but it remains vague in its coding instructions and the meanings of the value “other”.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N=50 segments (length 20 min. each) from a random sample of 50 bestselling pornographic films (1 segment per film) depicting a total of 1,109 sexual behaviors</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Sex/gender (based on performer appearance)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Coder’s perception of character’s sex based on primary and secondary sex characteristics.” Polytomous coding (1: male; 2: female; 3: other).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa: 1.0</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Willis et al. (2020)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 656.898px;" colspan="5"> <p><strong><em>Age:</em></strong> Performer age may be a variable of interest in its own right (e.g., if investigating whether pornography has a bias toward depicting performers in their early 20s). Alternatively, performer age may be recorded to investigate differential depictions by age group (e.g., investigating whether younger female performers are more likely to be depicted as submissive than older female performers). It should be noted that a performer’s age may be different to their character’s age (as is often the case in the legal pornography category “Teen”, where young characters are played by adult performers; Willis et al, 2020). It should be noted that reliable coding of age (of the performer or of the performed character) is difficult as tools such as make-up, costume, lighting, filters can greatly bias impressions. This problem is reflected in the available measures that cannot ensure sufficient reliability.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N=50 best-selling pornographic videos and DVDs in Australia in 2003 with 838 sexual scenes</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Age of performer (based on performer appearance)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer age. Polytomous coding (1: 18-30 years; 2: 31-40 years; 3: 41-50 years; 4: 51+ years).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>McKee et al. (2008)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N=50 segments (length 20 min. each) from a random sample of 50 bestselling pornographic films (1 segment per film) depicting a total of 1,109 sexual behaviors</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Age of character (based on character appearance)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Coder’s perception of character’s age—not the actor’s—based on physical appearance.” Note: some characters were clearly intended to be under 18 years of age, but their actors were likely older. Polytomous coding (1: &lt;18; 2: 18-20; 3: 21-30; 4: 31-40; 5: 41-50; 6: &gt;50 years).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa: .47</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Willis et al. (2020)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 656.898px;" colspan="5"> <p><strong><em>Race/Ethnicity: </em></strong>Critical analyses of racism in pornography address the mere visibility of different races/ethnicities as well as racial/ethnic stereotypes, such as Black men being depicted as sexually aggressive and well-endowed or Asian women being depicted as petite, submissive and docile (Miller &amp; McBain, 2022).</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N=269 popular pornographic videos from different PornHub.com sub-genre categories</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Race/ethnicity (based on pornographic sub-genre category)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Videos selected/coded according to race/ethnicity-related sub-genre categories on PornHub. Polytomous coding (1: “Asian/Japanese” PornHub categeory; 2: “Interracial” PornHub category; 3: “Ebony” PornHub category; 4: “Latina” PornHub category).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not applicable</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Shor &amp; Seida (2019)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N=45 pornographic videos from 15 different adult websites (3 videos per website)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Race/ethnicity (based on performer appearance)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performers coded according to physical appearance. Binary coding (1: White; 2: non-White/other race).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Gorman et al. (2010)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N=50 segments (length 20 min. each) from a random sample of 50 bestselling pornographic films (1 segment per film) depicting a total of 1,109 sexual behaviors</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Race/ethnicity (based on performer appearance)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Coder’s perception of character’s race based on physical appearance.” Polytomous coding (1: White; 2: Black; 3: Asian; 4: Latina/o; 5: Native American; 6: other).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa: .94</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Willis et al. (2020)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><br /><strong>References</strong></p> <p>American Psychological Association. (2020). <em>P</em><em>ublication manual of the American Psychological Association</em> (7th ed.).</p> <p>Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., &amp; Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>22</em>(5), Article e16702. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/16702">https://doi.org/10.2196/16702</a></p> <p>Cowan, G., &amp; Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 11–21. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726</a></p> <p>Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>25</em>(5), 1089–1101. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003</a></p> <p>Gorman, S., Monk-Turner, E., &amp; Fish, J. N. (2010). Free adult internet web sites: How prevalent are degrading acts? <em>Gender Issues</em>, <em>27</em>(3-4), 131–145. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-010-9095-7">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-010-9095-7</a></p> <p>Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., &amp; Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 117–129. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047</a></p> <p>Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. <em>Nordic Journal of English Studies</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 49–80.</p> <p>Kohut, T., &amp; Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>22</em>(1), 40–50. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935</a></p> <p>McKee, A. (2015). Methodological issues in defining aggression for content analyses of sexually explicit material. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>44</em>(1), 81–87. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0253-3">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0253-3</a></p> <p>McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., &amp; Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(3), 1085–1091. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., &amp; McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 219–256. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., &amp; Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. <em>Psychology of Popular Media Culture</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 365–375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202">https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., &amp; McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 502–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676</a></p> <p>Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. <em>Porn Studies</em>, 1–14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366</a></p> <p>Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., &amp; Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>48</em>(3), 725–737. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0</a></p> <p>Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>51</em>(2), 1237–1255. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1</a></p> <p>Shor, E., &amp; Seida, K. (2019). "Harder and harder"? Is mainstream pornography becoming increasingly violent and do viewers prefer violent content? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>56</em>(1), 16–28. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1451476">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2018.1451476</a></p> <p>West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 264–267. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540</a></p> <p>Williams, L. (1989). <em>Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible</em>. University of California Press.Willis, M., Canan, S. N., Jozkowski, K. N., &amp; Bridges, A. J. (2020). Sexual consent communication in best-selling pornography films: A content analysis. Journal of Sex Research, 57(1), 52–63. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1655522">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1655522</a></p> 2022-10-24T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3874 Performer Bodily Appearance (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography) 2022-10-22T20:57:37+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Dan J. Miller daniel.miller1@jcu.edu.au <p>Pornography is a <em>fictional media genre</em> that depicts <em>sexual</em> <em>fantasies</em> and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, <em>pornography’s portrayals of sexuality</em> are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices or relational dynamics and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). This entry focuses on the representation of <em>performer bodily appearance</em> as one of eight important dimensions of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In the field of pornographic media content research, different theories are used, mainly 1) general media effects theories, 2) sexual media effects theories, 3) gender role, feminist and queer theories, 4) sexual fantasy and desire theories, and different 5) mold theories versus mirror theories. The DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5k">Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>” introduces all these theories and explains their application to pornography. The respective theories are applicable to the analysis of the depiction of performer bodily appearance as one dimension of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:</em></strong></p> <p>Common research hypotheses state that performers in pornography are mainly selected and presented to conform to gendered norms of sexual attractiveness but also potentially unhealthy beauty standards or current beauty trends. To test such hypotheses and code pornographic material accordingly, it is necessary to clarify the concept of “performer bodily appearance” and use valid and reliable measures for different aspects of appearance. In addition, it is necessary to code the sex/gender of the persons depicted.</p> <p>Two different approaches to coding are available: Direct coding based on the performer’s appearance (e.g., breast size) versus indirect coding based on meta-information about the material, such as the sub-genre pornography category the material belongs to (e.g., the “big tits”, “BBW” [big beautiful women], “tattoed women” categories on PornHub) or statistics provided as part of performer profiles published on online platforms (e.g., height, weight, bra or penis size).</p> <p> </p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="879"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Coding Material</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="5" width="879"> <p><strong><em>Performer Bodily Appearance: </em></strong>Among the many aspects of performer appearance, those conventionally related to sexual attractiveness are measured most often in the context of pornography research. Researchers may also measure variables related to general beauty trends in society (e.g., shaving of pubic and body hair) or assess aspects of performer appearance which could be consider to promote unhealthy/unrealistic beauty standards (e.g., performers being unhealthily underweight or extremely muscular). Apart from issues of performer health protection, unhealthy standards of beauty and sexual attractiveness are also regarded as relevant in terms of modelling behaviors for audiences.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>N=50 best-selling pornographic videos and DVDs in Australia in 2003 with 838 sexual scenes</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer body type</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer body type. Polytomous coding (1: unhealthy underweight; 2: slim / undertoned; 3: average (untoned); 4: average (toned); 5: bulked up / very muscular; 6: overweight).</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>McKee et al. (2008)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer breast size</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer breast size. Polytomous coding (1: smaller than average breasts; 2: average-sized breasts; 3: larger than average breasts).</p> </td> <td width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer breast surgery</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer breast surgery is obvious. Polytomous coding (1: yes; 2: no; 3: unsure).</p> </td> <td width="138"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer penis size</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer penis size. Polytomous coding (1: smaller than average penis; 2: average-sized penis; 3: larger than average penis).</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N &gt; 6,900 performer profiles from 10 gay male adult websites</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer penis size</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer penis size (as listed in performer profile). Polytomous coding (1: 5–6.5 inches; 2: 7–8 inches, 3: 8.5–10 inches, 4: 10.5–13 inches)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Not available</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Brennan (2018)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>N=50 MILF [“Mother I’d like to fuck” sub-genre category] and 50 “Teen” pornographic videos randomly selected from 10 different adult websites (10 videos per website)</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer pubic hair</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Performer pubic hair. Polytomous coding (1: none; 2. groomed; 3: natural).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Percentage agreement across all variables in codebook: 90.3%</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Vannier et al. (2014)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Brennan, J. (2018). Size matters: Penis size and sexual position in gay porn profiles. <em>Journal of Homosexuality</em>, <em>65</em>(7), 912-933. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1364568">https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1364568</a></p> <p>Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., &amp; Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>22</em>(5), Article e16702. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/16702">https://doi.org/10.2196/16702</a></p> <p>Cowan, G., &amp; Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726</p> <p>Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>25</em>(5), 1089–1101. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003</a></p> <p>Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., &amp; Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 117–129. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047</a></p> <p>Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. <em>Nordic Journal of English Studies</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 49–80.</p> <p>Kohut, T., &amp; Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>22</em>(1), 40–50. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935</a></p> <p>McKee, A., Albury, K., &amp; Lumby, C. (2008). <em>The porn report</em>. Melbourne University Press.</p> <p>McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., &amp; Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(3), 1085–1091. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., &amp; McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 219–256. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., &amp; Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. <em>Psychology of Popular Media Culture</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 365–375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202">https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., &amp; McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 502–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676</a></p> <p>Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. <em>Porn Studies</em>, 1–14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366</a></p> <p>Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., &amp; Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>48</em>(3), 725–737. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0</a></p> <p>Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>51</em>(2), 1237–1255. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1</a></p> <p>Vannier, S. A., Currie, A. B., &amp; O'Sullivan, L. F. (2014). Schoolgirls and soccer moms: A content analysis of free “teen” and “MILF” online pornography. <em> Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>51</em>(3), 253-264. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.829795">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.829795</a></p> <p>West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 264–267. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540</a></p> <p>Williams, L. (1989). <em>Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible</em>. University of California Press.</p> 2022-10-24T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3875 Safer Sex Practices (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography) 2022-10-22T21:05:02+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Dan J. Miller daniel.miller1@jcu.edu.au <p>Pornography is a <em>fictional media genre</em> that depicts <em>sexual</em> <em>fantasies</em> and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, <em>pornography’s portrayals of sexuality</em> are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices or relational dynamics and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). This entry focuses on the representation of <em>safer sex practices</em> as one of eight important dimensions of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In the field of pornographic media content research, different theories are used, mainly 1) general media effects theories, 2) sexual media effects theories, 3) gender role, feminist and queer theories, 4) sexual fantasy and desire theories, and different 5) mold theories versus mirror theories. The DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5k">Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>” introduces all these theories and explains their application to pornography. The respective theories are applicable to the analysis of the depiction of safer sex practices as one dimension of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:</em></strong></p> <p>A common research hypothesis states that pornography displays sexuality – and even high-risk sex acts, such as penetrative sex – predominately without condoms. To test such hypotheses and code pornographic material accordingly, it is necessary to clarify the concept of “safer sex” and use valid and reliable measures for different types of safer sex practices.</p> <p>It is important to note that safer sex practices could be assessed at the sexual encounter level (e.g., Is a condom used during the sexual encounter?) or at the level of specific sexual acts (e.g., Is a condom used during anal sex?). It is also possible that a scene depicts a condom being used, but only for the purpose of it being removed (e.g., to highlight the unrestricted nature of the sex being shown or as part of an impregnation roleplay). Given that such scenarios would depict condom use while simultaneously presenting sex with a condom as being less pleasurable, researchers may need to consider these contextual factors when developing their coding schemes. In gay male pornography “barebacking” (deliberately forgoing condom use during anal sex) is its own sub-genre (Tollini, 2019), thus there is a possibility for indirect coding based on meta-information about whether material sits within this sub-genre.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> </div> <table style="height: 918px;" width="879"> <tbody> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Coding Material</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 282px;"> <td style="height: 282px; width: 873px;" colspan="5"> <p><strong><em>Safer Sex Practices: </em></strong>Condom use during penetrative sex with a penis provides a high degree of protection against pregnancies and several types of STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections) including HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). While condom use is recommended for private sexual encounters (and demanded by some legislatures for porn performers), condoms can increase pain, risk of injury and risk of STI/HIV transmission among performers (particularly those engaging in receptive penetrative practices) because professional performances are typically much longer and more demanding than the average private sexual encounters. For this reason, some porn performers have challenged the idea that legal obligations for condom use on set effectively protect them (Shachner, 2015). Alternative protection measures are often preferred by professional performers (e.g., long acting contraception methods, regular STI/HIV testing, HIV-Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis). The availability of HIV-Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis has resulted in a trend toward condomless anal sex (“barebacking”) in gay male pornography (Tollini, 2019). Apart from issues of performer health protection, safer sex practices in pornography are also regarded as relevant in terms of modelling behaviors for audiences.</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 42px;"> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em>Condom use</em></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><em> </em></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 186px;"> <td class="t"> <p>N=50 scenes from 50 best-selling heterosexual adult films (1 scene per film) and N=50 scenes from 50 bestselling male homosexual films (1 scene per film)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 186px; width: 134px;"> <p>- Condom use during penile-oral contact (type of condom use)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 186px; width: 336px;"> <p>Penile-oral contact is shown and a condom is used at least some of the time during this act. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td class="t" style="height: 186px; width: 138px;"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa across all four variables: .78</p> </td> <td class="t" style="height: 186px; width: 87px;"> <p>Grudzen et al. (2009)</p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 138px;"> <td style="height: 138px; width: 170px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 138px; width: 134px;"> <p>- Condom use during penile-vaginal contact (type of condom use)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 138px; width: 336px;"> <p>Penile-vaginal contact is shown and a condom is used at least some of the time during this act. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td style="height: 138px; width: 138px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="height: 138px; width: 87px;"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 114px;"> <td style="height: 114px; width: 170px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 134px;"> <p>- Condom use during penile-anal contact (type of condom use)</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 336px;"> <p>Penile-anal contact is shown and a condom is used at least some of the time during this act. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td style="height: 114px; width: 138px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="height: 114px; width: 87px;"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 114px;"> <td class="b" style="height: 114px; width: 170px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 134px;"> <p>- Condom use during anal-to-oral penile insertion</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="height: 114px; width: 336px;"> <p>Anal-to-oral penile insertion (penile-oral insertion immediately following penile-anal insertion) is shown and a condom is used at least some of the time during this act. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td class="b" style="height: 114px; width: 138px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="b" style="height: 114px; width: 87px;"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> <p>Apart from condom use, further safer sex practices can be measured (e.g., visible use of lube to prevent pain or injuries during penetrative sex; observable communication between characters about sexual health status, STI testing, or use of contraception).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., &amp; Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>22</em>(5), Article e16702. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/16702">https://doi.org/10.2196/16702</a></p> <p>Cowan, G., &amp; Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 11–21. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726</a></p> <p>Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>25</em>(5), 1089–1101. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003</a></p> <p>Grudzen, C. R., Elliott, M. N., Kerndt, P. R., Schuster, M. A., Brook, R. H., &amp; Gelberg, L. (2009). Condom use and high-risk sexual acts in adult films: A comparison of heterosexual and homosexual films. <em>American Journal of Public Health</em>, <em>99</em>(S1), S152-156. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.127035">https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.127035</a></p> <p>Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., &amp; Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 117–129. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047</a></p> <p>Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. <em>Nordic Journal of English Studies</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 49–80.</p> <p>Kohut, T., &amp; Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>22</em>(1), 40–50. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935</a></p> <p>McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., &amp; Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(3), 1085–1091. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., &amp; McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 219–256. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., &amp; Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. <em>Psychology of Popular Media Culture</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 365–375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202">https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., &amp; McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 502–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676</a></p> <p>Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. <em>Porn Studies</em>, 1–14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366</a></p> <p>Shachner, J. (2015). Unwrapped: How the Los Angeles County Safer Sex in the Adult Film Industry Act's condom mandate hurts performers &amp; violates the First Amendment. <em>Health Matrix: The Journal of Law Medicine</em>, <em>24</em>(1), 345–375.</p> <p>Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., &amp; Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>48</em>(3), 725–737. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0</a></p> <p>Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>51</em>(2), 1237–1255. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1</a></p> <p>Tollini, C. (2019). How two holdouts went bareback: CockyBoys and Men. com's initial transition to producing videos without condoms. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(3), 282-300. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2019.1602958">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2019.1602958</a></p> <p>West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 264–267. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540</a></p> <p>Williams, L. (1989). <em>Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible</em>. University of California Press.</p> 2022-10-24T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3876 Relational Context of Sex (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography) 2022-10-22T21:11:48+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Dan J. Miller daniel.miller1@jcu.edu.au <p>Pornography is a <em>fictional media genre</em> that depicts <em>sexual</em> <em>fantasies</em> and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, <em>pornography’s portrayals of sexuality</em> are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices or relational dynamics and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). This entry focuses on the representation of <em>relational context of sex</em> as one of eight important dimensions of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In the field of pornographic media content research, different theories are used, mainly 1) general media effects theories, 2) sexual media effects theories, 3) gender role, feminist and queer theories, 4) sexual fantasy and desire theories, and different 5) mold theories versus mirror theories. The DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5k">Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>” introduces all these theories and explains their application to pornography. The respective theories are applicable to the analysis of the depiction of relational context of sex as one dimension of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:</em></strong></p> <p>Common research hypotheses state that sex in pornography is mostly depicted as casual and/or extrarelational, even though real life sex predominantly occurs in committed relationships. To test such hypotheses and code pornographic material accordingly, it is necessary to clarify the concept of “relational context of sex” and use valid and reliable measures for different types of relational contexts. In addition, it is necessary to code the sex/gender of the persons involved.</p> <p>It is important to note that the relational context of sex may be determined based on the interactions and dialogue between performers or based on video titles and descriptions. For example, a video might depict sex with little or no dialogue indicative of the nature of the relationship between performers, but include a title or description that contextualizes this relationship (e.g., “Cheating wife has sex with stranger” or “woman surprises her fiancé”).</p> <p> </p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Coding Material</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 873px;" colspan="5"> <p><strong><em>Relational Context of Sex</em></strong><strong>: </strong>Two people engaging in sex (a dyad) can have different types of romantic or non-romantic relationships with each other and with further people outside this dyad. If a person is having sex with a person they just met, this is defined as casual sex; and if a person is in a monogamous relationship and engages in sex with another person outside this relationship, this is considered extrarelational sex or infidelity (Rasmussen et al., 2019).</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>N=190 scenes (average length 14 min.) taken from the highest rated section of PornHub (86 scenes) and Xvideos (104 scenes)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Casual sex and further relationship contexts with sex partners</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Relationship between dyad members for each dyad engaging in sex during the scene. Polytomous coding (0: no relational information; 1: just met / casual sex; 2: acquaintances/friends; 3: dating; 4: married; 5: not enough information).</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Krippendorff’s Alpha average of .74 for all variables in codebook</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Rasmussen et al. (2019)</p> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 166px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Extrarelational sex</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Sexual scene with at least one of the sexual participants being in a romantic relationship with someone not present in the sexual encounter. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td style="width: 137px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 87px;"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td style="width: 87px;"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Extrarelational participant dating (type of extrarelational sex)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Sexual scene with at least one participant dating someone not present in the sexual encounter. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td style="width: 137px;"> <p> </p> </td> <td style="width: 137px;"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>- Extrarelational participant married (type of extrarelational sex)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Sexual scene with at least one participant being married to someone not present in the sexual encounter. Binary coding (1: yes; 2: no).</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>If sex is determined to be extrarelational it is possible to further code whether this extrarelational sex is happening with the knowledge, encouragement, or participation of the individual’s partner (e.g., as part of a cuckold fantasy). Rasmussen et al. (2019) refer to this as <em>consensual non-monogamy</em>.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., &amp; Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>22</em>(5), Article e16702. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/16702">https://doi.org/10.2196/16702</a></p> <p>Cowan, G., &amp; Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 11–21. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726</a></p> <p>Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>25</em>(5), 1089–1101. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003</a></p> <p>Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., &amp; Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 117–129. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047</a></p> <p>Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. <em>Nordic Journal of English Studies</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 49–80.</p> <p>Kohut, T., &amp; Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>22</em>(1), 40–50. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935</a></p> <p>McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., &amp; Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(3), 1085–1091. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., &amp; McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 219–256. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., &amp; Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. <em>Psychology of Popular Media Culture</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 365–375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202">https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., &amp; McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 502–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676</a></p> <p>Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. <em>Porn Studies</em>, 1–14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366</a></p> <p>Rasmussen, K. R., Millar, D., &amp; Trenchuk, J. (2019). Relationships and infidelity in pornography: An analysis of pornography streaming websites. <em>Sexuality &amp; Culture</em>, <em>23</em>(2), 571–584. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9574-7">https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-018-9574-7</a></p> <p>Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., &amp; Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>48</em>(3), 725–737. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0</a></p> <p>Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>51</em>(2), 1237–1255. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1</a></p> <p>West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 264–267. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540</a></p> <p>Williams, L. (1989). <em>Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible</em>. University of California Press.</p> 2022-10-24T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3877 Consent Communication (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography) 2022-10-22T21:19:47+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Dan J. Miller daniel.miller1@jcu.edu.au <p>Pornography is a <em>fictional media genre</em> that depicts <em>sexual</em> <em>fantasies</em> and explicitly presents naked bodies and sexual activities for the purpose of sexual arousal (Williams, 1989; McKee et al., 2020). Regarding media ethics and media effects, pornography has traditionally been viewed as highly problematic. Pornographic material has been accused of portraying sexuality in unhealthy, morally questionable and often sexist ways, thereby harming performers, audiences, and society at large. In the age of the Internet, pornography has become more diverse, accessible, and widespread than ever (Döring, 2009; Miller et al., 2020). Consequently, the depiction of sexuality in pornography is the focus of a growing number of content analyses of both mass media (e.g., erotic and pornographic novels and movies) and social media (e.g., erotic and pornographic stories, photos and videos shared via online platforms). Typically, <em>pornography’s portrayals of sexuality</em> are examined by measuring the prevalence and frequency of sexual practices or relational dynamics and related gender roles via quantitative content analysis (for research reviews see Carrotte et al., 2020; Miller &amp; McBain, 2022). This entry focuses on the representation of <em>consent communication</em> as one of eight important dimensions of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>In the field of pornographic media content research, different theories are used, mainly 1) general media effects theories, 2) sexual media effects theories, 3) gender role, feminist and queer theories, 4) sexual fantasy and desire theories, and different 5) mold theories versus mirror theories. The DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5k">Conceptual Overview (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>” introduces all these theories and explains their application to pornography. The respective theories are applicable to the analysis of the depiction of consent communication as one dimension of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Manual quantitative content analyses of pornographic material can be combined with qualitative (e.g., Keft-Kennedy, 2008) as well as computational (e.g., Seehuus et al., 2019) content analyses. Furthermore, content analyses can be complemented with qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys to investigate perceptions and evaluations of the portrayals of sexuality in pornography among pornography’s creators and performers (e.g., West, 2019) and audiences (e.g., Cowan &amp; Dunn, 1994; Hardy et al., 2022; Paasoonen, 2021; Shor, 2022). Additionally, experimental studies are helpful to measure directly how different dimensions of pornographic portrayals of sexuality are perceived and evaluated by recipients, and if and how these portrayals can affect audiences’ sexuality-related thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (e.g., Kohut &amp; Fisher, 2013; Miller et al., 2019).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies for manual quantitative content analyses:</em></strong></p> <p>A common research hypothesis states that pornography depicts sex mostly without consent communication, especially explicit verbal communication. To test this hypothesis and code pornographic material accordingly, it is necessary to clarify the concept of “consent communication” and use valid and reliable measures for different types of consent communication.</p> <p>Here it is important to conceptually differentiate between consent communication <em>between characters</em> in the fictional world of the porn scene and consent communication <em>between performers</em> on set (or consent <em>of</em> performers to have their image be recorded and disseminated as pornography). This distinction becomes murky with regard to amateur pornography, which ostensibly is meant to depict “authentic” sex (although this sex may still be performative), and also professional pornography in which a performer is playing “themselves” as opposed to a character. Some production studios (especially those specializing in BDSM content) embed interviews with performers into their videos, in which performers indicate that they consented to the activities presented.</p> <p> </p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="879"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Coding Material</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Measure</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization (excerpt)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Source</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="5" width="879"> <p><strong><em>Consent Communication: </em></strong>Whenever in the sequence of sexual activities depicted in pornography a new activity is started, the question arises if all participants have consented to the new behavior. Sexual consent between characters can be communicated verbally and nonverbally (Willis et al., 2020). Further, verbal or nonverbal communication may be explicit or implicit (Willis et al., 2020). Apart from issues of performer health protection, explicit consent communication on camera is also regarded as relevant in terms of modelling behaviors for audiences.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>N=50 segments (length 20 min. each) from a random sample of 50 bestselling pornographic films (1 segment per film) depicting a total of 1,109 sexual behaviors</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Explicit verbal sexual consent</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Straightforward statements, questions, or responses expressing agreement to engage in sexual behavior stated using words for actual sexual behavior or a very close synonym”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa: .72</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Willis et al. (2020)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Implicit verbal sexual consent</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Verbally initiating sexual behavior or communicating agreement to engage in sexual behavior without explicitly using the word sex or other close synonyms. The content of the words may not be sexual in nature, but the connotation or tone of voice used by the characters implies sex or is sexual in nature”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa: .63</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Explicit nonverbal sexual consent</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Behaviors or actions that are sexually explicit including bodily touching in a sexual way”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa: .76</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Implicit nonverbal sexual consent</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Behaviors or actions that imply interest in engagement in sexual behavior”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa: .65</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>No response</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Characters do not say anything, do not resist, or let the sexual activity happen without much action. The person is a passive participant in sexual behavior, but not uncomfortable, distressed, or showing signs of disinterest”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa: .72</p> </td> <td width="87"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>No sexual consent shown</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>“Scene begins or video cuts away and comes back with characters engaging in sexual behavior without any preceding actions to assess consent”. Binary coding (1: present; 2: not present).</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa: .95</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p>For more nuanced analyses of consent communication, the sex/gender of the persons involved in consent communication can be coded (see DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5o">Performer Demographics (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>”) and the respective sex acts that are to be consented to (see DOCA entry “<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5n">Sex Acts (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography)</a>”). Furthermore, relationship status between characters might play an important role for consent communication (Willis et al., 2020): Characters in established relationships might be more likely to communicate sexual consent nonverbally than those in casual encounters (see DOCA entry "<a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5r">Relational Context of Sex (Portrayals of Sexuality in Pornography</a>").</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Carrotte, E. R., Davis, A. C., &amp; Lim, M. S. (2020). Sexual behaviors and violence in pornography: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of video content analyses. <em>Journal of Medical Internet Research</em>, <em>22</em>(5), Article e16702. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/16702">https://doi.org/10.2196/16702</a></p> <p>Cowan, G., &amp; Dunn, K. F. (1994). What themes in pornography lead to perceptions of the degradation of women? <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 11–21. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499409551726</a></p> <p>Döring, N. (2009). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of research. <em>Computers in Human Behavior</em>, <em>25</em>(5), 1089–1101. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003</a></p> <p>Hardy, J., Kukkonen, T., &amp; Milhausen, R. (2022). Examining sexually explicit material use in adults over the age of 65 years. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>31</em>(1), 117–129. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2021-0047</a></p> <p>Keft-Kennedy, V. (2008). Fantasising masculinity in Buffyverse slash fiction: Sexuality, violence, and the vampire. <em>Nordic Journal of English Studies</em>, <em>7</em>(1), 49–80.</p> <p>Kohut, T., &amp; Fisher, W. A. (2013). The impact of brief exposure to sexually explicit video clips on partnered female clitoral self-stimulation, orgasm and sexual satisfaction. <em>The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality</em>, <em>22</em>(1), 40–50. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935">https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.935</a></p> <p>McKee, A., Byron, P., Litsou, K., &amp; Ingham, R. (2020). An interdisciplinary definition of pornography: Results from a global Delphi panel. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>49</em>(3), 1085–1091. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01554-4</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., &amp; McBain, K. A. (2022). The content of contemporary, mainstream pornography: A literature review of content analytic studies. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 219–256. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2021.2019648</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., McBain, K. A., &amp; Raggatt, P. T. F. (2019). An experimental investigation into pornography’s effect on men’s perceptions of the likelihood of women engaging in porn-like sex. <em>Psychology of Popular Media Culture</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 365–375. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202">https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000202</a></p> <p>Miller, D. J., Raggatt, P. T. F., &amp; McBain, K. (2020). A literature review of studies into the prevalence and frequency of men’s pornography use. <em>American Journal of Sexuality Education</em>, <em>15</em>(4), 502–529. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676">https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1831676</a></p> <p>Paasonen, S. (2021). “We watch porn for the fucking, not for romantic tiptoeing”: Extremity, fantasy and women’s porn use. <em>Porn Studies</em>, 1–14. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2021.1956366</a></p> <p>Seehuus, M., Stanton, A. M., &amp; Handy, A. B. (2019). On the content of "real-world" sexual fantasy: Results from an analysis of 250,000+ anonymous text-based erotic fantasies. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>48</em>(3), 725–737. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1334-0</a></p> <p>Shor, E. (2022). Who seeks aggression in pornography? Findings from interviews with viewers. <em>Archives of Sexual Behavior</em>, <em>51</em>(2), 1237–1255. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-021-02053-1</a></p> <p>West, C. (2019). Pornography and ethics: An interview with porn performer Blath. <em>Porn Studies</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 264–267. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540">https://doi.org/10.1080/23268743.2018.1505540</a></p> <p>Williams, L. (1989). <em>Hard Core: Power, pleasure, and the frenzy of the visible</em>. University of California Press.</p> <p>Willis, M., Canan, S. N., Jozkowski, K. N., &amp; Bridges, A. J. (2020). Sexual consent communication in best-selling pornography films: A content analysis. <em>Journal of Sex Research</em>, <em>57</em>(1), 52–63. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1655522">https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1655522</a></p> 2022-10-24T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4004 Rationality (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality) 2022-11-29T18:03:59+01:00 Dominique Heinbach dominique.heinbach@hhu.de <p>Rationality is considered the most important dimension to assess the deliberative quality of online discussions. In quantitative content analyses, it is usually measured with a set of variables, including (among others) reasoning, justification, fact claims, evidence, additional knowledge, and topic relevance.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Field of application/Theoretical foundation</strong></p> <p>Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative theories to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions (Ziegele et al., 2020). It focuses on a free and equal exchange of arguments to bridge social differences and legitimize political decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019; Fishkin, 1991, Habermas, 2015). Rationality is considered the most important dimension of deliberative quality, which is inherent in most conceptualizations (Frieß &amp; Eilders, 2015). Rationality is primarily about reasoning, justifications, and facts (Engelke, 2019). Discussion participants should provide justifications and evidence to support their positions (Friess et al., 2021). These reasons and arguments must be both criticizable and verifiable or falsifiable (Esterling, 2011; Habermas, 1995). Counterarguments and different perspectives should also be included (Engelke, 2019; Ziegele et al., 2020). This allows the elaboration of the best arguments in the deliberation process and an informed opinion formation based on these arguments (“the unforced force of the better argument”, Habermas, 2015). A rational discourse and a constructive discussion atmosphere are also considered necessary for reaching a rationally motivated consensus, a central aim of formal deliberation (Cohen, 1989; Friess &amp; Eilders, 2015; Stromer-Galley, 2007).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References/Combination with other methods</strong></p> <p>Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (e.g., Graham &amp; Witschge, 2003; Price &amp; Capella, 2002). Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of the quality of online discussions are investigated with qualitative interviews (e.g., Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016) or a combination of qualitative interviews and content analysis (Díaz Noci et al., 2012).</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Cross-references</em></p> <p>Rationality is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5u">interactivity</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5x">inclusivity</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5v">explicit civility</a>, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5w">storytelling</a> regarding theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Heinbach &amp; Wilms (2022)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Dominique Heinbach &amp; Lena K. Wilms (Codebook by Dominique Heinbach, Marc Ziegele, &amp; Lena K. Wilms)</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which attributes differentiate moderated from unmoderated comments?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The quantitative content analysis was based on a stratified random sample of moderated and unmoderated comments (N = 1.682) from the German online participation platform “#meinfernsehen202” [#myTV2021], a citizen participation platform to discuss the future of public broadcasting in Germany.</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>November 24, 2020 to March 3, 2021</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>User comment</p> <p><strong>Variables and reliability:</strong> see Table 1</p> <p><em>Table 1: Variables and reliability (Heinbach &amp; Wilms, 2022)</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Dimension</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Measure</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Krippendorff’s α (ordinal)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Rationality</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Topic relevance</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment refer to the topic of the post?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.70</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Fact claims</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain at least one objectively falsifiable statement with a claim to truth?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.78</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Reasoning</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain at least one justification to support a statement (e.g., an assertion, opinion, or claim)?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.73</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Solution proposal</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain at least one suggestion on how to resolve problems or issues?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.75</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Additional knowledge</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain additional information that is of a knowledge nature of and adds content-related value?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.72</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Genuine questions</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain at least one question with a genuine need for</p> <p>information, e.g. questions of knowledge, understanding, justification or opinion?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.75</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>n = 159, 3 coders</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong>Values: </strong>All variables were coded on a four-point scale (1 = clearly not present; 2 = rather not present; 3 = rather present; 4 = clearly present). Detailed explanations and examples for each value are provided in the Codebook (in German).</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> in the appendix of this entry (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Zimmermann (2017)</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Tobias Zimmermann</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11)</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective.</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>June 2012 to May 2013</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Variables: </strong>Based on the DQI (Steenbergen et al., 2003) the author operationalizes the <em>level of justification</em> as an indicator for rationality. This variable distinguishes four levels of justification (p. 164). Besides the ordinal variable “Level of justification”, the author also uses a dichotomous measurement to distinguish between substantiated and unsubstantiated claims.</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Individual contribution</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong> see Table 2</p> <p><em>Table 2: Variables and Values (pp. 163-166; p. 188)</em></p> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Variable</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Value</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td rowspan="4" width="113"> <p>Level of Justification</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>No justification</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>The author makes a demand without justifying it argumentatively. The demand stands for itself.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Indirect justification</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>The author introduces an argument but its connection to the demand is incomplete, or its justification is not falsifiable.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Qualified justification</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>An argument substantiates a demand. A (falsifiable) link is made as to why one should expect that X contributes to or detracts from Y.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Detailed justification</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>At least two complete justifications are given, either two complete justifications for the same demand or complete justifications for two different demands (broad justification). Or one justification explains the represented position in depth from several points of view (deep justification).</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b" rowspan="2" width="113"> <p>Justification</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>No justification</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>A user makes a demand that X should (not) be done or happen without giving a justification.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Justification</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>A user substantiates a demand why X should (not) be done or happen.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Intracoder reliability was tested on a subset of 100 comments. The ordinal variable “level of justification” exceeded a Krippendorff’s Alpha above .73. The dichotomous variable “justification” reached a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .75 (p. 200-201).</p> <p><strong>Codebook: </strong>pp. 159-185 (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Ziegele et al. </strong><strong>(2020)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Marc Ziegele, Oliver Quiring, Katharina Esau, &amp; Dennis Friess</p> <p><strong>Research questions:</strong> RQ1: “Which news factors predict the <em>civility</em> and <em>rationality</em> of reactive user comments?” (p. 869) RQ3: “Which illustration factors predict <em>civil</em> and <em>rational</em> reactive user comments?” (p. 871)</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The quantitative content analysis was based on a sample of top-level comments (i.e., comments responding to the article) from the Facebook pages of nine established German news media outlets (N = 11.218). Three artificial weeks were constructed for the sampling of news articles and user comments. On each access day, three or four news articles and the corresponding user comments were randomly selected from each news page. Then, for each article, the oldest five top-level comments, the most recent five top-level comments, five random top-level comments from the middle of the discussion, and the five most popular comments were selected (20 comments per article) (pp. 872-873).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>May 2015 to August 2015</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>User comment</p> <p><strong>Variables and reliability:</strong> see Table 3</p> <p><em>Table 3: Variables and reliability (p. 874)</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Dimension</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Measure</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Krippendorff’s α</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p>Rationality</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Topic relevance</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Is the comment on-topic?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.67</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Balance</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment include a balanced view on the commented issue?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.74</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Additional knowledge</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain additional knowledge?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.79</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Elaboration</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment appear elaborate to the coders?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.81</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Arguments</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment provide reasons for its claims?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.74</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Analytical</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment analyze the background of the issue at hand?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.70</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Factual claims</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment provide facts and factual claims?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.72</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Questions</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment include genuine questions?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.80</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>n = 100, 9 coders</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong>Values:</strong> “Each factor was coded on 3-point scales (0 = <em>absent</em>, 1 = <em>sporadically</em> <em>present</em>, 2 = <em>highly present</em>)” (p. 874).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Example studies</strong></p> <p>Esau, K., Fleuß, D. &amp; Nienhaus, S.‑M. (2021). Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>13</em>(1), 86–112. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232">https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232</a></p> <p>Esau, K., Friess, D. &amp; Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>9</em>(3), 321–342. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154">https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154</a></p> <p>Friess, D., Ziegele, M. &amp; Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>38</em>(5), 624–646. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322">https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322</a></p> <p>Heinbach, D. &amp; Wilms, L. K. (2022): Der Einsatz von Moderation bei #meinfernsehen2021 [The deployment of moderation at #meinfernsehen2021]. In: F. Gerlach, C. Eilders &amp; K. Schmitz (Eds.): <em>#meinfernsehen2021. Partizipationsverfahren zur </em>Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens. Baden-Baden: Nomos.</p> <p>Monnoyer-Smith, L. &amp; Wojcik, S. (2012). Technology and the quality of public deliberation: a comparison between on and offline participation. <em>International Journal of Electronic Governance</em>, <em>5</em>(1), Artikel 47443, 24. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2012.047443">https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2012.047443</a></p> <p>Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. <em>Journal of Broadcasting &amp; Electronic Media</em>, <em>59</em>(4), 539–555. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482">https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482</a></p> <p>Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. <em>Journal of Public Deliberation</em>, <em>3</em>(1), Article 12.</p> <p>Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A. &amp; Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites. <em>Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication</em>, <em>20</em>(2), 188–203. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104">https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104</a></p> <p>Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. &amp; Friess, D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. <em>Communication Research</em>, <em>47</em>(6), 860-890. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884">https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884</a></p> <p>Zimmermann, T. (2017). <em>Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren</em>. <em>Edition Politik: Bd. 44</em>. transcript Verlag. <a href="http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886">http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886</a></p> <p><strong><em>Further references</em></strong></p> <p>Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberation and democratic legitimacy. In A. P. Hamlin &amp; P. Pettit (Hrsg.), <em>The good polity: Normative analysis of the state </em>(S. 67–92). Blackwell.</p> <p>Díaz Noci, J., Domingo, D., Masip, P., Micó, J. L. &amp; Ruiz, C. (2012). Comments in news, democracy booster or journalistic nightmare: Assessing the quality and dynamics of citizen debates in Catalan online newspapers. <em>#ISOJ</em>, <em>2</em>(1), 46–64. <a href="https://isoj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Journal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46">https://isoj.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Journal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46</a></p> <p>Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D. &amp; Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. <em>Science (New York, N.Y.)</em>, <em>363</em>(6432), 1144–1146. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694</a></p> <p>Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. <em>Digital Journalism</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 1–20. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567">https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567</a></p> <p>Esterling, K. M. (2011). “Deliberative Disagreement” in U.S. Health Policy Committee Hearings. <em>Legislative Studies Quarterly</em>, <em>36</em>(2), 169–198. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00010.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00010.x</a></p> <p>Fishkin, J. S. (1991). <em>Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform</em>. Yale University Press. <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v%20https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v">http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v</a></p> <p>Friess, D. &amp; Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>7</em>(3), 319–339. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95">https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95</a></p> <p>Graham, T. &amp; Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. <em>Communications</em>, <em>28</em>(2). <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012">https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012</a></p> <p>Habermas, J. (2015). <em>Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy</em> (Reprinted.). Polity Press.</p> <p>Price, V. &amp; Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. <em>IT&amp;Society</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 303–329. <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf</a></p> <p>Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. &amp; Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. <em>Comparative European Politics</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 21–48. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002">https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002</a></p> <p>Ziegele, M. (2016). <em>Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten</em><em> [T</em><em>he Discussion Value of Online News. </em><em>An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]</em>. Springer VS.</p> 2022-11-29T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4005 Interactivity/Reciprocity (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality) 2022-11-29T20:08:23+01:00 Dominique Heinbach dominique.heinbach@hhu.de <p>Interactivity (or reciprocity) is a key dimension to assess the deliberative quality of online discussions. In quantitative content analyses, this dimension measures if participants engage in dialog with each other and refer to each other.</p> <p><strong>Field of application/Theoretical foundation</strong></p> <p>Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative norms to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions (Ziegele et al., 2020). It focuses on a free and equal exchange of arguments to bridge social differences and legitimize political decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019; Fishkin, 1991, Habermas, 2015). Interactivity is a key dimension of deliberative quality, since deliberation is always a reciprocal and dialogical process (Goodin, 2000; Zimmermann, 2017). Participants engage in a dialogic exchange with each other, reflecting on other views and perspectives, and referring to each other (Friess et al., 2021; Ziegele et al., 2020). This reciprocal process includes both responding and listening (Barber, 1984; Graham, 2009). Interactivity is considered essential for desirable effects of deliberation such as learning, tolerance building and opinion change (Estlund &amp; Landmore, 2018; Friess et al., 2021).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References/Combination with other methods</strong></p> <p>Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (e.g., Graham &amp; Witschge, 2003; Price &amp; Capella, 2002). Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of the quality of online discussions are investigated with qualitative interviews (e.g., Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016) or a combination of qualitative interviews and content analy­sis (Díaz Noci et al., 2012).</p> <p><em>Cross-references</em></p> <p>Interactivity is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5x">inclusivity</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5t">rationality</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5v">explicit civility</a>, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5w">storytelling</a> regarding theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Esau et al. (2017)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Katharina Esau, Dennis Friess, &amp; Christiane Eilders</p> <p><strong>Research question: “</strong>How does platform design affect the level of deliberative quality?” (p. 323)</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: “</strong>We conducted a quantitative content analysis of user comments left in a news forum, on news websites, and on Facebook news pages concerning the same journalistic content on two topics […] A sample of news articles […] with related user comments, was drawn from the online platforms of four German news media […] The first step of the sampling process consisted of 18 news articles from which 3,341 comments were collected […] In the second step for each article, up to 100 sequential comments were randomly selected for content analysis, leading to a total sample of 1,801 comments (979 on Facebook, 591 on news websites, and 231 in the news forum)” (p. 331).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>December 2015</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>individual comment</p> <p><strong>Variables and reliability:</strong> see Table 1</p> <p><em>Table 1: Variables and Reliability (Esau et al., 2017, pp. 332-333):</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Dimension</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Measure</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>RCA</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Cohen’s Kappa</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="99"> <p>Reciprocity</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>General engagement</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>This measure captures whether a comment addresses another comment.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.92</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="99"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Argumentative engagement</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>This measure captures whether a comment addresses a specific argument made in another comment.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.77</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.542</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Critical engagement</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>This measure captures whether a comment is critical of another comment.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.89</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> </td> <td>n = 40; 12 coders</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong>Values</strong>: Dichotomous measures (yes, no) </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Heinbach &amp; Wilms (2022)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Dominique Heinbach &amp; Lena K. Wilms (Codebook by Dominique Heinbach, Marc Ziegele, &amp; Lena K. Wilms)</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which attributes differentiate moderated from unmoderated comments?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The quantitative content analysis was based on a stratified random sample of moderated and not moderated comments (N = 1.682) from the German online participation platform “#meinfernsehen202” [#myTV2021], a citizen participation platform to discuss the future of public broadcasting in Germany.</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>November 24, 2020 to March 3, 2021</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>User comment</p> <p><strong>Variables and reliability:</strong> see Table 2</p> <p><em>Table 2: Variables and reliability (Heinbach &amp; Wilms, 2022)</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Dimension</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Measure</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Krippendorff’s α</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p>Reciprocity</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Reference to other users or to the community</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment refer to at least one other user, a group of users, or all users in the community?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.78</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Reference to the content of other comments</p> </td> <td width="255"> <p>Does the comment refer to content, arguments or positions in other comments?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.78</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="104"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td width="132"> <p>Critical reference</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment refer to other comments in a critical manner?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.86</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>n = 159, 3 coders</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>All variables were coded on a four-point scale (1 = clearly not present; 2 = rather not present; 3 = rather present; 4 = clearly present). Detailed explanations and examples for each value are provided in the Codebook (in German).</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> in the appendix of this entry (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Stromer-Galley (2007)</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Jennifer Stromer-Galley</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The aim of the paper was developing a coding scheme for academics and practitioners of deliberation to systematically measure what happens during group deliberations (p. 1; p. 7).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The author conducted a secondary analysis of online group discussions (23 groups with 5-12 participants) in an experiment called “The Virtual Agora Project” at Carnegie Mellon Unversitiy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants attended the discussions from dormitory rooms that were equipped with a computer, headphones, and microphone. The group discussions were recorded and transcribed for analysis (pp. 7-8). Although strictly speaking the study does not analyze media content, the coding scheme has provided the basis for numerous other studies on the deliberative quality of online discussions (e.g., Rowe, 2015; Stroud et al., 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>Three weeks in July 2004 (p. 7).</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong><em>Level of the turn</em>: Speaking contribution of a participant. Participants had to get “in line” to speak. When a speaker had finished their turn, the software activated the next speaker (max. 3 minutes per turn) (p. 8). <em>Level of the thought</em>: Coders segmented each turn into thought units before coding the categories. “A thought is defined as an utterance (from a single sentence to multiple sentences) that expresses an idea on a topic. A change in topic signaled a change in thought. A second indicator of a change in thought was a change in the type of talk. The distinct types of talk that this coding captured were the following: talk about the problem of public schools, talk about the process of the talk, talk about the process of the deliberation, and social talk” (p. 9).</p> <p><strong>Variables an values:</strong> see Table 3</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>“Two coders spent nearly two months developing and training with the coding scheme. The intercoder agreement measures […] were established from coding 3 of the 23 groups, which were randomly selected. […] Cohen’s Kappas of the coding elements described above are as follows: thought statements on the problem of public schools, .95; […] turn type (new topic, continuing self, responding to others) .97; meta-talk, 1.0 […]” (p. 13-14).</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong>: in the appendix (pp. 22-33)</p> <p><em>Table 3: Variables and values of the dimension “engagement” (Stromer-Galley, 2007, p.12; pp. 24-26). </em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Category</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Level</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Description</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Value</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="77"> <p>Turn-type</p> </td> <td width="74"> <p>Turn</p> </td> <td width="151"> <p>Identify whether and to whom this turn is referring.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Starting a new topic</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>A new topic (not prompted by the moderator).</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="77"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td width="74"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="151"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Respond on topic</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>A turn that is in response to a prior speaker or is on a topic that has been discussed. Includes responding to multiple speakers.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="77"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td width="74"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="151"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Respond to moderator</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>A turn that is a response to a prompt or question from the moderator.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="77"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td width="74"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="151"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Continue self</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>A turn that seems not to respond to anything a prior speaker said but to continue the current speaker’s ideas from one of his or her prior turns.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Problem</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Thought</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Talk about the problem is talk that focuses on the issue under consideration.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Question</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>A genuine question directed to another speaker that is trying to seek information or an opinion from others.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="77"> <p>Metatalk</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td width="74"> <p>Thought</p> </td> <td width="151"> <p>Metatalk is talk about the talk. It attempts to step back and assess what has transpired or is transpiring in the interaction.</p> </td> <td width="102"> <p>Consensus</p> </td> <td width="209"> <p>Consensus metatalk is talk about the speaker’s sense of consensus of the group (“I think we all agree that . . . .”), including an explanation for the collective’s opinions or the collective’s behavior (We’re asking you these questions because . .).</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="77"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td width="74"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="151"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Conflict</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Highlighting some disagreement or conflict in the group (“I sense some disagreement around . . . .”).</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="77"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td width="74"> <p> </p> </td> <td width="151"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Clarify own</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Clarify the speaker’s own opinion or fact statement (“what I’m trying to say is”). It’s an attempt to clarify what the speaker means. This will arise ONLY after they’ve provided an opinion, NOT a question, and are now trying to clarify their original opinion on the problem, likely because they believe someone has misunderstood them.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Clarify other</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Clarify someone else’s argument/opinion or fact statement (“Sally, so, what you’re saying is . . . “). It is an attempt to clarify what someone else <em>means</em>. Pay attention to the use of another participants’ name. That can be a sign of metatalk of another’s position.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Example studies</strong></p> <p>Esau, K., Fleuß, D. &amp; Nienhaus, S.‑M. (2021). Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>13</em>(1), 86–112. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232">https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232</a></p> <p>Esau, K., Friess, D. &amp; Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>9</em>(3), 321–342. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154">https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154</a></p> <p>Esau, K., Frieß, D. &amp; Eilders, C. (2019). Online-Partizipation jenseits klassischer Deliberation: Eine Analyse zum Verhältnis unterschiedlicher Deliberationskonzepte in Nutzerkommentaren auf Facebook-Nachrichtenseiten und Beteiligungsplattformen. In I. Engelmann, M. Legrand &amp; H. Marzinkowski (Hrsg.), <em>Digital Communication Research: Bd. 6. Politische Partizipation im Medienwandel </em>(S. 221–245).</p> <p>Friess, D., Ziegele, M. &amp; Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>38</em>(5), 624–646. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322">https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322</a></p> <p>Heinbach, D. &amp; Wilms, L. K. (2022): Der Einsatz von Moderation bei #meinfernsehen2021 [The deployment of moderation at #meinfernsehen2021]. In: F. Gerlach, C. Eilders &amp; K. Schmitz (Eds.): <em>#meinfernsehen2021. Partizipationsverfahren zur </em>Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens. Baden-Baden: Nomos.</p> <p>Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. <em>Journal of Broadcasting &amp; Electronic Media</em>, <em>59</em>(4), 539–555. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482">https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482</a></p> <p>Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. <em>Journal of Public Deliberation</em>, <em>3</em>(1), Article 12.</p> <p>Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. &amp; Friess, D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. <em>Communication Research</em>, <em>47</em>(6), 860-890. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884">https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884</a></p> <p>Zimmermann, T. (2017). <em>Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren</em>. <em>Edition Politik: Bd. 44</em>. transcript Verlag. <a href="http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886">http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886</a></p> <p><strong><em>Further references</em></strong></p> <p>Barber, B. R. (1984). <em>Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age</em>. University of California Press.</p> <p>Díaz Noci, J., Domingo, D., Masip, P., Micó, J. L. &amp; Ruiz, C. (2012). Comments in news, democracy booster or journalistic night­mare: Assessing the quality and dynamics of citizen debates in Catalan online new­spapers. #ISOJ, 2(1), 46–64. <a href="https://isoj.org/%20wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Jour­nal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46">https://isoj.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Jour­nal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46</a></p> <p>Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D. &amp; Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. <em>Science (New York, N.Y.)</em>, <em>363</em>(6432), 1144–1146. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694</a></p> <p>Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. <em>Digital Journalism</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 1–20. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567">https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567</a></p> <p>Estlund, D. &amp; Landemore, H. (2018). The epistemic value of democratic deliberation. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. J. Mansbridge &amp; M. E. Warren (Hrsg.), <em>Oxford handbooks online. The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy: An introduction </em>(S. 113–131). Oxford University Press.</p> <p>Fishkin, J. S. (1991). <em>Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform</em>. Yale University Press. <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v%20https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v">http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v</a></p> <p>Goodin, R. E. (2000). Democratic Deliberation Within. <em>Philosophy &amp; Public Affairs</em>, <em>29</em>(1), 81–109. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00081.x">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2000.00081.x</a></p> <p>Graham, T. (2009). <em>What's Wife Swap got to do with it? Talking politics in the net-based public sphere</em> Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3413.0088</p> <p>Graham, T. &amp; Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. <em>Communications</em>, <em>28</em>(2). <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012">https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012</a></p> <p>Habermas, J. (2015). <em>Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy</em> (Reprinted.). Polity Press.</p> <p>Price, V. &amp; Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. <em>IT&amp;Society</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 303–329. <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf</a></p> <p>Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., &amp; Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites. <em>Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20</em>(2), 188–203. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104">https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104</a></p> <p>Ziegele, M. (2016). <em>Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten</em><em> [T</em><em>he Discussion Value of Online News. </em><em>An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]</em>. Springer VS.</p> 2022-11-29T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4006 Explicit civility (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality) 2022-11-29T20:28:23+01:00 Dominique Heinbach dominique.heinbach@hhu.de <p>Explicit civility or respect is a key dimension to assess the (deliberative) quality of online discussions. In contrast to operationalizations that address civility through the mere absence of incivility or offensive language, this construct measures explicit indicators for respect, such as acknowledgements, endorsement, and explicit valuation.</p> <p><strong>Field of application/Theoretical foundation</strong></p> <p>Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative norms to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions and consists of a fair and respectful exchange of arguments between participants who are deemed as equals (Graham &amp; Witschge, 2003; Ziegele et al., 2020). Mutual respect and appreciation of one another are considered fundamental assets of a democratic society (Papacharissi, 2004). A minimum level of respect ensures the mutual acknowledgement of participants as free and equal members of society and hence is a requirement for deliberation (Habermas, 2007; Steiner, 2012; Ziegele et al., 2020).</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>References/Combination with other methods</strong></p> <p>Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (Graham &amp; Witschge, 2003; Price &amp; Capella, 2002). Furthermore, perceptions of civility and incivility are investigated with qualitative interviews and focus groups (Bormann, 2022; Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016), surveys (Kenski et al., 2020; Stryker et al., 2016) and experimental designs (Muddiman, 2017; Ziegele et al., 2019).</p> <p><em>Cross-references</em></p> <p>Explicit civility is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5u">interactivity</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5x">inclusivity</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5t">rationality</a>, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5w">storytelling</a> regarding theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Information on Heinbach &amp; Wilms (2022)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Dominique Heinbach &amp; Lena K. Wilms (Codebook by Dominique Heinbach, Marc Ziegele, &amp; Lena K. Wilms)</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which attributes differentiate moderated from unmoderated comments?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The quantitative content analysis was based on a stratified random sample of moderated and not moderated comments (N = 1.682) from the German online participation platform “#meinfernsehen2021” [#myTV2021], a citizen participation platform to discuss the future of public broadcasting in Germany.</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>November 24, 2020 to March 3, 2021</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: User comment</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables and reliability:</strong> see Table 1</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>All variables were coded on a four-point scale (1 = clearly not present; 2 = rather not present; 3 = rather present; 4 = clearly present). Detailed explanations and examples for each value are provided in the Codebook (in German).</p> <p><strong>Codebook: in the appendix of this entry (in German)</strong></p> <p><em>Table 1: Variables and reliability (Heinbach &amp; Wilms, 2022)</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Dimension</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Measure</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Krippendorff’s α</p> <p>(n = 159, 3 coders)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="113"> <p>Explicit</p> <p>respect</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Polite salutation</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain formulations of polite salutations, greetings or farewell phrases, e.g., “Dear …”, “Have a good weekend”?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.80</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Expression of respect</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain appreciation, approval, praise, or acknowledgements, e.g, “Kudos!”, “You are doing a great job, “Thank you”, “I respect your opinion“?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.71</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Stromer-Galley (2007)</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Jennifer Stromer-Galley</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The aim of the paper was developing a coding scheme for academics and practitioners of deliberation to systematically measure what happens during group deliberations (p. 1; p. 7).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis:</strong> The author conducted a secondary analysis of online group discussions (23 groups with 5-12 participants) in an experiment called “The Virtual Agora Project” at Carnegie Mellon Unversitiy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants attended the discussions from dormitory rooms that were equipped with a computer, headphones, and microphone. The group discussions were recorded and transcribed for analysis (pp. 7-8). Although strictly speaking the study does not analyze media content, the coding scheme has provided the basis for numerous other studies on the deliberative quality of online discussions (e.g., Rowe, 2015; Stroud et al., 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>Three weeks in July 2004 (p. 7).</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Social talk was measured on the <em>level of the thought</em>. Coders segmented each speaking contribution into thought units before coding the categories. “A thought is defined as an utterance (from a single sentence to multiple sentences) that expresses an idea on a topic. A change in topic signaled a change in thought. A second indicator of a change in thought was a change in the type of talk. The distinct types of talk that this coding captured were the following: talk about the problem of public schools, talk about the process of the talk, talk about the process of the deliberation, and social talk” (p. 9).</p> <p><strong>Variables and values:</strong> see Table 2</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Reliability scores for social talk are not provided.</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong>: in the appendix (pp. 22-33)</p> <p><em>Table 2: Variables and values (Stromer-Galley, 2007, p. 9; pp. 26-27).</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Variable</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Description</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Value</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="86"> <p>Social talk</p> </td> <td width="169"> <p>Social talk is talk that brings the strangers together by building social bonds, including salutations, praise, and apologies.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Salutations</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Statements of welcome, greeting, hello, and good bye, see you later, and the like.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="86"> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> </td> <td width="169"> <p>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Apologies</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Statements of apology: I’m sorry, and ‘I hope’ statements, such as “I hope I haven’t been too obnoxious.” Includes statements of reflection of how the participant performed in the group (likely comes at the end of the group’s discussion): “I hope my few ideas did get across.”</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="86"> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> </td> <td width="169"> <p>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Praise</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Includes thank you, you’re welcome, as well as praise for other individuals or the group (“you’ve been a good group.” I’ve really enjoyed myself,” “this has been fun”) Praise in the service of an argument about the problem is coded as a problem thought (“I want to commend Sally for volunteering at her school. We need more people to be volunteers”).</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> </td> <td class="b"> <p>&nbsp;</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>ChitChat</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Thought statements that are not on topic relative to the deliberation. These could be jokes or puns (but not as they relate to the problem of schools), social chit chat about the weather, and the like.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Zimmermann (2017)</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Tobias Zimmermann</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11)</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective.</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>June 2012 to May 2013</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Variables:</strong> For the variable respect towards groups, the author extends the respect variable of the Discourse Quality Index (DQI, Steenbergen et al., 2003) by adding anti-democratic behavior following Papacharissi (2004). Besides the ordinal variable “respect”, the author measured the dichotomous variable “democratic respect”.</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Individual contribution</p> <p><strong>Variables and values:</strong> see Table 3</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Intracoder reliability was tested on a subset of 100 comments. The ordinal respect variable exceeded a Krippendorff’s Alpha above .73 (p. 201). The dichotomous variable “democratic respect” that measured if a comment contained anti-democratic behavior or not reached a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .89 (p. 200-201).</p> <p><strong>Codebook: </strong>pp. 159-185 (in German)</p> <p><em>Table 3: Variables and values (Zimmermann, 2017, p. 171; p. 189)</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Variable</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Value</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="159"> <p>Respect</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Anti-democratic behavior</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Only or predominantly statements are made that either contain at least one threat against the democratic system as a whole, use negative stereotypes, or question other individuals’ individual liberty rights.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="159"> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>No respect</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>This category applies when exclusively or predominantly negative statements about others, but not anti-democratic statements are made.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="159"> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Implicit respect</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>There are no explicitly positive or negative statements to others, that is, a comment is neither explicitly respectful nor disrespectful.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="159"> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Balanced respect</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Both positive and negative statements in relation to others are expressed in the same degree.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Explicit respect</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>This category is applied when there is at least one explicitly positive statement regarding others and no negative statements, or if the positive statement clearly dominates the negative.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="159"> <p>Democratic respect</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Anti-democratic behavior</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Only or predominantly statements are made that either contain at least one threat against the democratic system as a whole, use negative stereotypes, or question other individuals’ individual liberty rights.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Democratic respect</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Anti-democratic behavior does not occur.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><strong>Example studies</strong></p> <p>Heinbach, D. &amp; Wilms, L. K. (2022): Der Einsatz von Moderation bei #meinfernsehen2021 [The deployment of moderation at #meinfernsehen2021]. In: F. Gerlach, C. Eilders &amp; K. Schmitz (Eds.): <em>#meinfernsehen2021. Partizipationsverfahren zur </em>Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens. Baden-Baden: Nomos.</p> <p>Stromer Galley,&nbsp;J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. <em>Journal of Public Deliberation</em>, <em>3</em>(1), Article 12.</p> <p>Zimmermann,&nbsp;T. (2017). <em>Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren [Digital discussions: On political participation trough online reader comments]</em>. <em>Edition Politik: Bd. 44</em>. transcript Verlag. <a href="http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886">http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886</a></p> <p><strong><em>Further references</em></strong></p> <p>Bormann,&nbsp;M. (2022). Perceptions and Evaluations of Incivility in Public Online Discussions—Insights From Focus Groups With Different Online Actors. <em>Frontiers in Political Science</em>, <em>4</em>, Article 812145. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.812145">https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.812145</a></p> <p>Engelke,&nbsp;K.&nbsp;M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. <em>Digital Journalism</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 1–20. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567">https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567</a></p> <p>Esau,&nbsp;K., Friess,&nbsp;D. &amp; Eilders,&nbsp;C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>9</em>(3), 321–342. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154">https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154</a></p> <p>Friess,&nbsp;D., Ziegele,&nbsp;M. &amp; Heinbach,&nbsp;D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>38</em>(5), 624–646. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322">https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322</a></p> <p>Graham,&nbsp;T. &amp; Witschge,&nbsp;T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. <em>Communications</em>, <em>28</em>(2). <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012">https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012</a></p> <p>Habermas,&nbsp;J. (2007). <em>Moral consciousness and communicative action</em> (Repr). Polity.</p> <p>Kenski,&nbsp;K., Coe,&nbsp;K. &amp; Rains,&nbsp;S.&nbsp;A. (2020). Perceptions of Uncivil Discourse Online: An Examination of Types and Predictors: An examination of types and predictors. <em>Communication Research</em>, <em>47</em>(6), 795–814. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933">https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650217699933</a></p> <p>Muddiman,&nbsp;A. (2017). Personal and Public Levels of Political Incivility. <em>International Journal of Communication</em>, <em>11</em>, 3182–3202.</p> <p>Papacharissi,&nbsp;Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. <em>new media &amp; society</em>, <em>6</em>(2), 259–283. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444">https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804041444</a></p> <p>Price,&nbsp;V. &amp; Cappella,&nbsp;J.&nbsp;N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. <em>IT&amp;Society</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 303–329. <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf</a></p> <p>Rowe,&nbsp;I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. <em>Journal of Broadcasting &amp; Electronic Media</em>, <em>59</em>(4), 539–555. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482">https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482</a></p> <p>Steenbergen,&nbsp;M.&nbsp;R., Bächtiger,&nbsp;A., Spörndli,&nbsp;M., &amp; Steiner,&nbsp;J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. <em>Comparative European Politics</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 21–48. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002">https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002</a></p> <p>Steiner,&nbsp;J. (2012). <em>The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy</em>. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057486">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057486</a></p> <p>Stroud,&nbsp;N.&nbsp;J., Scacco,&nbsp;J.&nbsp;M., Muddiman,&nbsp;A., &amp; Curry,&nbsp;A.&nbsp;L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites. <em>Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20</em>(2), 188–203. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104">https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104</a></p> <p>Stryker,&nbsp;R., Conway,&nbsp;B.&nbsp;A. &amp; Danielson,&nbsp;J.&nbsp;T. (2016). What is political incivility? <em>Communication Monographs</em>, <em>83</em>(4), 535–556. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1201207">https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2016.1201207</a></p> <p>Ziegele,&nbsp;M. (2016). <em>Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten</em><em> [T</em><em>he Discussion Value of Online News. </em><em>An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]</em>. Springer VS.</p> <p>Ziegele,&nbsp;M., Naab,&nbsp;T.&nbsp;K. &amp; Jost,&nbsp;P. (2020). Lonely together? Identifying the determinants of collective corrective action against uncivil comments. <em>New Media &amp; Society</em>, <em>22</em>(5), 731-751. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819870130">https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819870130</a></p> <p>Ziegele,&nbsp;M., Quiring,&nbsp;O., Esau,&nbsp;K. &amp; Friess,&nbsp;D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. <em>Communication Research</em>, <em>47</em>(6), 860-890. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884">https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884</a></p> 2022-11-29T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4007 Storytelling (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality) 2022-11-29T20:36:41+01:00 Dominique Heinbach dominique.heinbach@hhu.de <p>Storytelling is a variable to assess the quality of online discussions beyond traditional deliberation criteria, such as rationality, interactivity, and inclusiveness. It belongs to the so-called type II deliberation (Bächtiger et al., 2010) and includes personal experiences and narratives from participants’ own lives and environments.</p> <p><strong>Field of application/Theoretical foundation</strong></p> <p>In addition to traditional criteria such as rationality, more inclusive forms are increasingly playing a role in deliberation research, for example, the so-called "type II deliberation" (Bächtiger et al., 2010) or "democratic deliberation" (Mansbridge, 2007). Following these approaches, the use of expressive forms of communication such as participants’ personal experiences and stories, emotions, and humor are also legitimate in deliberative discourse (Esau et al., 2019; Esau et al., 2021). Of these inclusive quality criteria, the most important is probably storytelling, where participants contribute personal stories, narratives, and experiences to the discussion (Bächtiger et al., 2010; Polletta &amp; Lee, 2006). By now, storytelling is widely accepted as an indicator of quality in deliberation research (Bächtiger et al., 2010; Zimmermann, 2017). It is considered the most significant alternative to rational argumentation, which has been so crucial in traditional deliberation literature, since positions can also be justified with personal stories and experiences (Bächtiger et al., 2010; Polletta &amp; Lee, 2006; Steiner, 2012).</p> <p><strong>References/Combination with other methods</strong></p> <p>Besides quantitative content analyses, storytelling is examined by means of qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (Graham &amp; Witschge, 2003; Steiner et al., 2017) or a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses (Polletta &amp; Lee, 2006).</p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><em>Cross-references</em></p> <p>Storytelling is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5u">interactivity</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5x">inclusivity</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5t">rationality</a>, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5v">explicit civility</a> regarding theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies.</p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Esau et al. </strong><strong>(2021)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Katharina Esau, Dannica Fleuß, &amp; Sarah-Michelle Nienhaus</p> <p><strong>Research question: “</strong>RQ1: How does the deliberative quality of online participatory practices vary between different deliberative arenas? RQ2: Does deliberative quality, according to a classic concept of deliberation, vary between different arenas? RQ 1.2: Does the proportion of alternative forms of communication (expressions of emotion and storytelling) vary between arenas?” (p. 88)</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The authors conducted comparative content analyses of three different deliberative arenas: A government-run online consultation platform (all user comments, N = 603), the comment sections of mass media platforms (stratified random sample, N = 794), and a civil society Facebook community page (all user comments, N = 767). This resulted in a final sample of 2,164 user comments across all three platforms (pp. 101-102).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>2015</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>User comment (p. 101)</p> <p><strong>Variables:</strong> see Table 1</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>Dichotomous measure (yes,no)</p> <p><strong>Reliability: “</strong>The comments were analyzed by a team of five trained coders. […] All variables had a Krippendorff’s α &gt; 0.70“ (p. 102).</p> <p><em>Table 1: Variables (Esau et al., 2021, p. 102).</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Dimension</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Measure</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Personal storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>This measure captured whether a comment reported a personal experience (or an experience of known others), expressed in a narrative form.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Heinbach &amp; Wilms (2022)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Dominique Heinbach &amp; Lena K. Wilms (Codebook by Dominique Heinbach, Marc Ziegele, &amp; Lena K. Wilms)</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which attributes differentiate moderated from unmoderated comments?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The quantitative content analysis was based on a stratified random sample of moderated and not moderated comments (N = 1.682) from the German online participation platform “#meinfernsehen202” [#myTV2021], a citizen participation platform to discuss the future of public broadcasting in Germany.</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>November 24, 2020 to March 3, 2021</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>User comment</p> <p><strong>Variables and reliability:</strong> see Table 2</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>All variables were coded on a four-point scale (1 = clearly not present; 2 = rather not present; 3 = rather present; 4 = clearly present). Detailed explanations and examples for each value are provided in the Codebook (in German).</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> in the appendix of this entry (in German)</p> <p><em>Table 2: Variables and reliability (Heinbach &amp; Wilms, 2022)</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Dimension</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Measure</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Krippendorff’s α</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="113"> <p>Storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain personal stories and experiences?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.85</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="113"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Narrative reasoning</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Does the comment contain personal stories or experiences to support an argument or position?</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.75</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>n = 159, 3 coders</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Zimmermann (2017)</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Tobias Zimmermann</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11)</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective.</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>June 2012 to May 2013</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Variables: </strong>Following Bächtiger et al. (2011, p. 17), the variable storytelling measures “whether participants use personal narratives or experiences”. However, the author interprets storytelling in a narrow sense, that is, if users clarify the narration as their personal story of experience. Consequently, only own experiences are considered (p. 173). Following Steiner (2012), the study operationalizes storytelling on an ordinal scale in order to measure its deliberative quality (p. 174).</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Individual contribution</p> <p><strong>Variables and values:</strong> see Table 3</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Intracoder reliability for storytelling was tested on a subset of 100 comments and exceeded a Krippendorff’s Alpha (ordinal) above .73 (p. 201).</p> <p><strong>Codebook: </strong>pp. 159-185 (in German)</p> <p><em>Table 3: Variables and values (Zimmermann, 2017, p. 174)</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Variable</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Value</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="123"> <p>Storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>No storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>The comment does not contain any personal story of experience of the author.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="123"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Unfocused storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>The comment does contain at least one personal story of experience of the author.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="123"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Justifying storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>The comment does contain at least one personal story of experience of the author, which serves as sole justification for the demand.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Complementary storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>The comment does contain at least one personal story of experience of the author that supports the justification.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong>Example studies</strong></p> <p>Esau, K., Fleuß, D. &amp; Nienhaus, S.‑M. (2021). Different Arenas, Different Deliberative Quality? Using a Systemic Framework to Evaluate Online Deliberation on Immigration Policy in Germany. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>13</em>(1), 86–112. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232">https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.232</a></p> <p>Heinbach, D. &amp; Wilms, L. K. (2022): Der Einsatz von Moderation bei #meinfernsehen2021 [The deployment of moderation at #meinfernsehen2021]. In: F. Gerlach, C. Eilders &amp; K. Schmitz (Eds.): <em>#meinfernsehen2021. Partizipationsverfahren zur </em>Zukunft des öffentlich-rechtlichen Fernsehens. Baden-Baden: Nomos.</p> <p>Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. <em>Journal of Broadcasting &amp; Electronic Media</em>, <em>59</em>(4), 539–555. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482">https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482</a></p> <p>Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. <em>Journal of Public Deliberation</em>, <em>3</em>(1), Article 12.</p> <p>Zimmermann, T. (2017). <em>Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren [Digital discussions: On political participation trough online reader comments]</em>. <em>Edition Politik: Bd. 44</em>. transcript Verlag. <a href="http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886">http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886</a></p> <p><strong><em>Further references</em></strong></p> <p>Bächtiger, A., Gerber, M., &amp; Shikano, S. (2011, August). Deliberative Abilities of Ordinary Citizens. In <em>6th ECPR General Conference, Reykjavik</em>.</p> <p>Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Pedrini, S. &amp; Ryser, M. (2010). <em>Measuring Deliberation 2.0: Standards, Discourse Types, and Sequentialization. </em>University of Konstanz and University of Bern. <a href="https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/baechtiger_0.pdf">https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/baechtiger_0.pdf</a></p> <p>Graham, T. &amp; Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. <em>Communications</em>, <em>28</em>(2). <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012">https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012</a></p> <p>Mansbrige, J. (2007). “Deliberative Democracy” or “Democratic Deliberation”? In S. W. Rosenberg (Hrsg.), <em>Deliberation, Participation and Democracy </em>(S. 251–271). Palgrave Macmillan, London. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591080_12">https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591080_12</a></p> <p>Polletta, F. &amp; Lee, J. (2006). Is Telling Stories Good for Democracy? Rhetoric in Public Deliberation after 9/11. <em>American Sociological Review</em>, <em>71</em>(5), 699–721. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100501">https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100501</a></p> <p>Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., &amp; Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. <em>Comparative European Politics</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 21–48. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002">https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002</a></p> <p>Steiner, J. (2012). <em>The Foundations of Deliberative Democracy.</em> Cambridge University Press.</p> <p>Steiner, J., Jaramillo, M. C., Maia, R. C. M. &amp; Mameli, S. (2017). <em>Deliberation Across Deeply Divided Societies</em>. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941591">https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316941591</a></p> 2022-11-29T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/4008 Inclusivity (Online Discussions/Discussion Quality) 2022-11-29T20:45:46+01:00 Dominique Heinbach dominique.heinbach@hhu.de <p>Inclusivity is a key dimension to assess the deliberative quality of online discussions. In quantitative content analyses, this dimension measures the openness and accessibility of and the equality and diversity within a discussion.</p> <p><strong>Field of application/Theoretical foundation</strong></p> <p>Most studies on online discussions draw on deliberative norms to measure the quality of their discourse (e.g., Esau et al., 2017; Friess et al., 2021; Rowe, 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020; Zimmermann, 2017). Deliberation is an important concept for the study of (political) online discussions (Ziegele et al., 2020). It focuses on a free and equal exchange of arguments to bridge social differences and legitimize political decisions (Dryzek et al., 2019; Fishkin, 1991, Habermas, 2015). Inclusivity or open participation is one of the central criteria of Habermas’ discourse ethics. Deliberative discussions should be open to everyone and all participants should be able to express their attitudes, desires, and needs (Habermas, 2015; Steenbergen et al., 2003). Inclusivity occurs on two levels: On the one hand, it is a matter of open and free access for all citizens, which precedes the actual discussion process (input, Friess &amp; Eilders, 2015). This precondition is often referred to as universalism or openness (Engelke, 2019; Kersting, 2008). In the discussion process itself (troughput, Friess &amp; Eilders, 2015), all voices should have an equal opportunity to be heard and responded to, regardless of factors such as gender, race, or social background. Inclusivity usually implies opinion diversity, since one-sided discussions carry the risk of marginalizing other positions (Habermas, 2006; Manin, 1987; Zimmermann, 2017).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References/Combination with other methods</strong></p> <p>Besides quantitative content analyses, the (deliberative) quality of online discussions is examined with qualitative content analyses and discourse analyses (e.g., Graham &amp; Witschge, 2003; Price &amp; Capella, 2002). Furthermore, participants’ perceptions of the quality of online discussions are investigated with qualitative interviews (e.g., Engelke, 2019; Ziegele, 2016) or a combina­tion of qualitative interviews and content analy­sis (Díaz Noci et al., 2012).</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Cross-references</em></p> <p>Inclusivity is one of five dimensions of deliberative quality in this database written by the same author. Accordingly, there are overlaps with the entries on <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5t">rationality</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5u">interactivity</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5v">explicit civility</a>, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.34778/5w">storytelling</a> regarding the theoretical background, references/combinations with other methods, and some example studies.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Stromer-Galley (2007)</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Jennifer Stromer-Galley</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The aim of the paper was developing a coding scheme for academics and practitioners of deliberation to systematically measure what happens during group deliberations (p. 1; p. 7).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The author conducted a secondary analysis of online group discussions (23 groups with 5-12 participants) in an experiment called “The Virtual Agora Project” at Carnegie Mellon Unversitiy in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Participants attended the discussions from dormitory rooms that were equipped with a computer, headphones, and microphone. The group discussions were recorded and transcribed for analysis (pp. 7-8). Although strictly speaking the study does not analyze media content, the coding scheme has provided the basis for numerous other studies on the deliberative quality of online discussions (e.g., Rowe, 2015; Stroud et al., 2015; Ziegele et al., 2020).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>Three weeks in July 2004 (p. 7).</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Equality was measured on the <em>level of the group discussion</em> as well as on the <em>level of the thought</em>. Coders segmented each speaking contribution into thought units as first stage of the coding process. “A thought is defined as an utterance (from a single sentence to multiple sentences) that expresses an idea on a topic. A change in topic signaled a change in thought. A second indicator of a change in thought was a change in the type of talk. The distinct types of talk that this coding captured were the following: talk about the problem of public schools, talk about the process of the talk, talk about the process of the deliberation, and social talk” (p. 9).</p> <p><strong>Variables and values: </strong>For measuring the variable equality, the <em>number of speakers within a group</em> was counted. Furthermore, the thoughts were counted for the <em>number of words per thought</em>. Additionally, the total <em>number of thoughts spoken in a given</em> group was counted (p. 15).</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>“Two coders spent nearly two months developing and training with the coding scheme. The intercoder agreement measures […] were established from coding 3 of the 23 groups, which were randomly selected. […] The coders of the unitizing process achieved a statistically significant correlation of .86 (p &lt; .001)” (p. 14).</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong>: in the appendix (pp. 22-33)</p> <p><strong>Information on Zimmermann (2017)</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Tobias Zimmermann</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which role do online reader comments play for a deliberative-democratic understanding of a digital public sphere? (p. 11)</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>To compare discursive participation online and offline, the author conducted a full-sample content analysis of online reader comments (N = 1.176) and letters to the editor (N = 381) from German local newspapers on three similar conflicts in local politics concerning the renaming of streets and squares. Because the coding scheme was based on the discourse quality index (DQI), only contributions that contained a demand were included in the analysis, that is, “a proposal on what decision should or should not be made” Steenbergen et al., 2003, p. 27). Only then, a speech act is considered relevant from a discourse ethics perspective.</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>June 2012 to May 2013</p> <p><strong><em>Info about variables</em></strong></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> see Table 1</p> <p><strong>Variables:</strong> Following Stromer-Galley (2007) and Bächtiger et al. (2010), the author operationalizes <em>participation (egalitarian openness)</em> based on frequency and volume of the comments. Furthermore, the study assigns the comments to a pro or contra side in regard to their content. This allows conclusions regarding the equality of different positions (pp. 161-163). Additionally, based on the DQI (Steenbergen et al., 2003), he included the variable <em>common good reference</em>, because reasoning oriented to common interests represents the most inclusive form of reasoning (pp. 190-191).</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Intracoder reliability was tested on a subset of 100 comments. The variable “common good reference” reached a Krippendorff’s Alpha of .71 (p. 201).</p> <p><strong>Codebook: </strong>pp. 159-185 (in German)</p> <p><em>Table 1: Variables, values and level of analysis (Zimmermann, 2017, p. 163; p. 191)</em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Indicator</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Category</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Definition</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Level of analysis</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="111"> <p>Egalitarian openness</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Egalitarian openness (a)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Length of a comment (or letter to the editor)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Individual contribution</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="111"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Egalitarian openness (b)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Number of contributions per participant</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Discussion</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Egalitarian openness (c)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Number of contributions per thematic position</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Discussion</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="111"> <p>Common good reference</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>No common good reference</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>No reference to the common good is explicitly made</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Individual contribution</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Explicit common good reference</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>The contribution includes at least one explicit reference to the common good (utilitarian or disadvantaged-oriented)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Individual contribution</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Example studies</strong></p> <p>Ruiz, C., Domingo, D., Micó, J. L., Díaz-Noci, J., Meso, C. &amp; Masip, P. (2011). Public Sphere 2.0? The Democratic Qualities of Citizen Debates in Online Newspapers. <em>The International Journal of Press/Politics</em>, <em>16</em>, 463–487.</p> <p>Stromer Galley, J. (2007). Measuring Deliberation's Content: A Coding Scheme. <em>Journal of Public Deliberation</em>, <em>3</em>(1), Article 12.</p> <p>Ziegele, M., Quiring, O., Esau, K. &amp; Friess, D. (2020). Linking News Value Theory With Online Deliberation: How News Factors and Illustration Factors in News Articles Affect the Deliberative Quality of User Discussions in SNS’ Comment Sections. <em>Communication Research</em>, <em>47</em>(6), 860-890. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884">https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650218797884</a></p> <p>Zimmermann, T. (2017). <em>Digitale Diskussionen: Über politische Partizipation mittels Online-Leserkommentaren [Digital discussions: On political participation trough online reader comments]</em>. <em>Edition Politik: Bd. 44</em>. transcript Verlag. <a href="http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886">http://www.content-select.com/index.php?id=bib_view&amp;ean=9783839438886</a></p> <p><strong><em>Further references</em></strong></p> <p>Bächtiger, A., Shikano, S., Pedrini, S. &amp; Ryser, M. (2010). <em>Measuring Deliberation 2.0: Standards, Discourse Types, and Sequentialization. </em>University of Konstanz and University of Bern. <a href="https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/baechtiger_0.pdf">https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/baechtiger_0.pdf</a></p> <p>Díaz Noci, J., Domingo, D., Masip, P., Micó, J. L. &amp; Ruiz, C. (2012). Comments in news, democracy booster or journalistic night­mare: Assessing the quality and dynamics of citizen debates in Catalan online new­spapers. #ISOJ, 2(1), 46–64. <a href="https://isoj.org/%20wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Jour­nal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46">https://isoj.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ISOJ_Jour­nal_V2_N1_2012_Spring.pdf#page=46</a></p> <p>Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D. &amp; Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. <em>Science (New York, N.Y.)</em>, <em>363</em>(6432), 1144–1146. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2694</a></p> <p>Engelke, K. M. (2019). Enriching the Conversation: Audience Perspectives on the Deliberative Nature and Potential of User Comments for News Media. <em>Digital Journalism</em>, <em>8</em>(4), 1–20. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567">https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2019.1680567</a></p> <p>Esau, K., Friess, D. &amp; Eilders, C. (2017). Design Matters! An Empirical Analysis of Online Deliberation on Different News Platforms. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>9</em>(3), 321–342. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154">https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.154</a></p> <p>Fishkin, J. S. (1991). <em>Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform</em>. Yale University Press. <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v%20https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v">http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1dt006v</a></p> <p>Friess, D. &amp; Eilders, C. (2015). A systematic review of online deliberation research. <em>Policy &amp; Internet</em>, <em>7</em>(3), 319–339. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95">https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.95</a></p> <p>Friess, D., Ziegele, M. &amp; Heinbach, D. (2021). Collective Civic Moderation for Deliberation? Exploring the Links between Citizens’ Organized Engagement in Comment Sections and the Deliberative Quality of Online Discussions. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>38</em>(5), 624–646. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322">https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2020.1830322</a></p> <p>Graham, T. &amp; Witschge, T. (2003). In Search of Online Deliberation: Towards a New Method for Examining the Quality of Online Discussions. <em>Communications</em>, <em>28</em>(2). <a href="https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012">https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012</a></p> <p>Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. <em>Communication Theory</em>, <em>16</em>(4), 411–426.</p> <p>Habermas, J. (2015). <em>Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy</em> (Reprinted.). Polity Press.</p> <p>Kersting, N. (2008). Innovative Partizipation: Legitimation, Machtkontrolle und Transformation. Eine Einführung [Innovative participation. Legitimation, control of power, and transformation. An introduction]. In N. Kersting (Hrsg.), <em>Politische Beteiligung: Einführung in dialogorientierte Instrumente politischer und gesellschaftlicher Partizipation </em>(S. 11–39). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.</p> <p>Manin, B. (1987). On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation. <em>Political Theory</em>, <em>15</em>(3), 338–368. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591787015003005">https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591787015003005</a></p> <p>Price, V. &amp; Cappella, J. N. (2002). Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Campaign 2000. <em>IT&amp;Society</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 303–329. <a href="https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.9.5945&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf</a></p> <p>Rowe, I. (2015). Deliberation 2.0: Comparing the Deliberative Quality of Online News User Comments Across Platforms. <em>Journal of Broadcasting &amp; Electronic Media</em>, <em>59</em>(4), 539–555. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482">https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2015.1093482</a></p> <p>Steenbergen, M. R., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M. &amp; Steiner, J. (2003). Measuring Political Deliberation: A Discourse Quality Index. <em>Comparative European Politics</em>, <em>1</em>(1), 21–48. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002">https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cep.6110002</a></p> <p>Stroud, N. J., Scacco, J. M., Muddiman, A., &amp; Curry, A. L. (2015). Changing Deliberative Norms on News Organizations' Facebook Sites. <em>Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20</em>(2), 188–203. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104">https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12104</a></p> <p>Ziegele, M. (2016). <em>Nutzerkommentare als Anschlusskommunikation: Theorie und qualitative Analyse des Diskussionswerts von Online-Nachrichten</em><em> [T</em><em>he Discussion Value of Online News. An Analysis of User Comments on News Platforms]</em>. Springer VS.</p> 2022-11-29T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/3621 Iconography of Child Sexual Abuse in the News (Justice and Crime Reporting) 2022-04-21T15:34:26+02:00 Nicola Döring nicola.doering@tu-ilmenau.de Roberto Walter roberto.walter@tu-ilmenau.de <p>Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a major global problem (Barth et al., 2013). Therefore, it is important for researchers in communication science to systematically examine the representation of the CSA issue in the media using manual and computational methods of content analysis. According to previous review papers (Popović, 2018; Weatherred, 2015), existing content-analytical studies are mostly manual and limited to newspaper articles and the text level. Currently, it is unclear what kind of visual representations are used to illustrate the CSA issue in the media. We therefore present a tested new instrument to analyze the dominant image motifs (= iconography) in CSA news media coverage (Döring &amp; Walter, 2021).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>CSA reporting often focuses on specific cases of CSA (Dorfman et al., 2011). Therefore, media reporting on CSA mainly falls into the area of justice and crime reporting. From a theoretical perspective, CSA representations in the media are mostly analyzed based on <em>framing theory</em> (Entman, 1993). Respective studies investigate which aspects of the CSA problem are emphasized in the media and which are neglected. Research shows that stereotypes and myths are spread and episodic framing (= focus on individual cases) is often prevalent, while thematic framing (= representation of CSA as a societal issue) is missing in the media coverage (Popović, 2018; Weatherred, 2015). There are hardly any empirical findings on visual framing and the iconography used in CSA media reporting (Döring &amp; Walter, 2021). However, some more research exists on the broader issue of visual representations of sexual violence in the news (e.g., Schwark, 2017).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Generally, the text analysis method dominates in the field of justice and crime reporting (e.g., portrayals of crimes in newspapers vs. television; Pollak &amp; Kubrin, 2007). The few available image analyses in this field have not yet addressed CSA but focus on different crimes (e.g., portrayal of the 9/11 terrorist attack and its commemoration in the press; Ammann, 2015).</p> <p>In addition to pure content analyses, combinations with other methods of data collection that incorporate the communicator’s perspective can contribute to a more in-depth investigation of the CSA iconography. For example, interviews with journalists on how they select CSA-related images for news reporting would be insightful, but such studies are currently lacking.</p> <p>Equally important are combinations of content analyses with data collection methods that focus on possible media effects on the recipients, for example by conducting experiments exploring the effects of different textual and visual CSA representations. Although there are experimental studies on the effects of textual elements of CSA reporting (e.g., different perpetrator and victim constellations; Scheufele, 2005), there is a lack of studies on the effects of visual elements.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Example studies:</em></strong></p> <p>Researchers interested in conducting content analyses about CSA reporting in general – and visualizations of the CSA problem in particular – can consult the following example studies:</p> <ul> <li>review papers on content analyses of CSA media reporting (Popović, 2018; Weatherred, 2015),</li> <li>CSA-related content analyses focusing on textual elements (Dorfman et al., 2011; Mejia et al., 2012),</li> <li>CSA-related content analyses focusing on both textual and visual elements (Popović, 2021: explained below),</li> <li>CSA-related content analyses focusing on visual elements and in particular the dominant image motifs in terms of the CSA iconography (Döring &amp; Walter, 2021: explained below).</li> </ul> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Popović, 2021</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors:</strong> Stjepka Popović</p> <p><strong>Research question:</strong> How are victims of child sexual abuse represented in the press in Croatia?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis:</strong> Probabilistic cluster sample of N = 1 159 CSA-related news reports (text and photos) of the six most popular daily printed Croatian newspapers</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>2007-2016</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Info about photo-related variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Victim endangering CSA news reporting practices linked to photos were measured with three mutually exclusive variables (p. 238).</p> <ol> <li>Indirect disclosure of victim’s identity: photo of either a) victim’s home; b) location of abuse; c) family members, relatives or neighbors</li> <li>Direct disclosure of victim’s identity: a) blurred photo of victim OR b) photo of victim taken from the back</li> <li>Sexually explicit material: a) photographs or illustrations of the child in explicit poses or underwear OR b) photographs or illustrations of abuse OR c) forensic drawings of victim</li> </ol> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Symbolic and documentary images.</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong> 0 = absent, 1 = present (binary coding for each image)</p> <p><strong>Reliability:</strong> Krippendorff’s Alpha: 0.90 for entire coding matrix</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Döring &amp; Walter, 2021</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors:</strong> Nicola Döring &amp; Roberto Walter</p> <p><strong>Research question:</strong> Which iconography (i.e. set of main types of image motifs) is used to visualize the issue of child sexual abuse in newspaper articles?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis:</strong> Convenience sample of N = 1 437 CSA-related online news reports including N = 419 stock photos from different German-language newspapers and news magazines (e.g., Die Zeit, Bild, taz, Süddeutsche, Spiegel, Focus)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>2014-2018</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Info about image-related variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Iconography of child sexual abuse in the news (set of 7 mutually exclusive image motif types categorized into three image motif groups; see Table 1). The complete codebook, data and analysis scripts are available at <a href="https://osf.io/g2cxa/">https://osf.io/g2cxa/</a> (Döring &amp; Walter, 2021).</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Symbolic image.</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong> 0 = absent, 1= present (binary coding for each image motif type)</p> <p><strong>Reliability:</strong> Holsti: 0.94 – 0.98; Gwet’s AC1: 0.90 – 0.98 (see Table 1 for each image motif type)</p> <p> </p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <p><strong>Table 1.</strong> Codebook for the iconography of child sexual abuse in the news</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table style="width: 757px;"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p><strong>Variables: Types of image motifs</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 417.117px;"> <p><strong>Variable descriptions plus example images</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 61.1641px;"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 79.2188px;"> <p><strong>Reliability <br />- Holsti<br />- Gwet’s AC1</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p><strong>1. Context of the crime</strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 417.117px;"> </td> <td style="width: 61.1641px;"> </td> <td style="width: 79.2188px;"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p>1.1 Real-world context</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 417.117px;"> <p>Code as present if the image shows the real-world context of CSA (e.g., a church, school or swimming pool) but does not focus on the people involved.</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb1.png" alt="" width="432" height="346" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 61.1641px;"> <p>0 = absent</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 79.2188px;"> <p>.94</p> <p>.91</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p>1.2 Virtual context</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 417.117px;"> <p>Code as present if the image shows the virtual context of CSA (e.g., a laptop, keyboard or webcam) but does not focus on the people involved.</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb2.png" alt="" width="432" height="348" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 61.1641px;"> <p>0 = absent</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 79.2188px;"> <p>.98</p> <p>.98</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p><strong>2. Course of the crime and people involved</strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 417.117px;"> </td> <td style="width: 61.1641px;"> </td> <td style="width: 79.2188px;"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p>2.1 Perpetrator before/during the crime</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 417.117px;"> <p>Code as present if the image shows the perpetrator before/during the crime but does not focus on the context or victim.</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb3.png" alt="" width="456" height="270" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 61.1641px;"> <p>0 = absent</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 79.2188px;"> <p>-<sup>a</sup></p> <p>-</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p>2.2 Victim before/during the crime</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 417.117px;"> <p>Code as present if the image shows the victim before/during the crime but does not focus on the context or perpetrator.</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb4.png" alt="" width="478" height="298" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 61.1641px;"> <p>0 = absent</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 79.2188px;"> <p>.96</p> <p>.95</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p>2.3 Perpetrator and victim before/during the crime</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 417.117px;"> <p>Code as present if the image shows the perpetrator and the victim before/during the crime but does not focus on the context.</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb5.png" alt="" width="456" height="236" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 61.1641px;"> <p>0 = absent</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 79.2188px;"> <p>.94</p> <p>.90</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p><strong>3. Consequences of the crime</strong></p> </td> <td style="width: 417.117px;"> </td> <td style="width: 61.1641px;"> </td> <td style="width: 79.2188px;"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p>3.1 Consequences for the victim</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 417.117px;"> <p>Code as present if the image shows the consequences of the crime for the victim (e.g., physical and emotional pain, trauma).</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb6.png" alt="" width="474" height="346" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 61.1641px;"> <p>0 = absent</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 79.2188px;"> <p>.94</p> <p>.93</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" style="width: 187.5px;"> <p>3.2 Consequences for the perpetrator</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 417.117px;"> <p>Code as present if the image shows the consequences of the crime for the perpetrator (e.g., arrest, conviction).</p> <p><img src="https://www.hope.uzh.ch/public/site/images/mcanopardo/abb7.png" alt="" width="480" height="374" /></p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 61.1641px;"> <p>0 = absent</p> <p>1 = present</p> </td> <td class="t b" style="width: 79.2188px;"> <p>.98</p> <p>.97</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><em>Note.</em> <sup>a</sup>Reliability for this variable could not be calculated, because the image motif was not present in the pretest sample.</p> <p><span style="font-size: 0.875rem; font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">Depending on the research question, the whole set of seven main types of image motifs of the CSA iconography can be measured or only selected motifs can be chosen as all binary variables are independent from each other. Also, new motifs can be added. For example, visualizations that illustrate the societal relevance of CSA (e.g., info graphics that show prevalence rates) or visualizations of primary, secondary and tertiary prevention methods (e.g., therapy for victims and/or perpetrators) could be added as further image motif types. For a more granular quantitative analysis of a large-scale sample of newspaper articles, it is possible to code not only the image motif type (e.g., real-world context), but also the individual motifs that belong to this type (e.g., church, school, swimming pool, sports club). Last but not least, for selected image motif types an additional qualitative image analysis might be fruitful. For example, the image type “victim before/during the crime” often operates with objectification and sexualization of the victim than can be further explored qualitatively (e.g., type of clothing of the victim, camera angle and perspective).</span></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Ammann, I. (2015). Im Bilde gedacht. Der Gedenktag 9/11 in der deutschen und US-amerikanischen Pressefotografie [Picturing commemoration. A comparative analysis of anniversary 9/11 in German and US-American press photography]. <em>Studies in Communication | Media, 4</em>(4), 436–453. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2015-4-436</p> <p>Barth, J., Bermetz, L., Heim, E., Trelle, S., &amp; Tonia, T. (2013). The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide. A systematic review and meta-analysis. <em>International Journal of Public Health, 58</em>(3), 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0426-1</p> <p>Dorfman, L., Mejia, P., Cheyne, A., &amp; Gonzalez, P. (2011). <em>Case by Case: News coverage of child sexual abuse, 2007-2009</em>. http://www.bmsg.org/sites/default/files/bmsg_issue19.pdf</p> <p>Döring, N., &amp; Walter, R. (2021).<strong> </strong>Ikonografien des sexuellen Kindesmissbrauchs: Symbolbilder in Presseartikeln und Präventionsmaterialien [Iconographies of child sexual abuse: Symbolic images in press articles and prevention materials]. <em>Studies in Communication and Media, 10</em>(3), 362-405. https://doi.org/10.5771/2192-4007-2021-3-362</p> <p>Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. <em>Journal of Communication, 43(4)</em>, 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1460-2466.1993.TB01304.X</p> <p>Mejia, P., Cheyne, A., &amp; Dorfman, L. (2012). News Coverage of Child Sexual Abuse and Prevention, 2007-2009. <em>Journal of Child Sexual Abuse</em>, <em>21</em>(4), 470–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2012.692465</p> <p>Pollak, J. M. , &amp; Kubrin, C. E. (2007). Crime in the news: How crimes, offenders and victims are portrayed in the media. <em>Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 14</em>, 59–83.</p> <p>Popović, S. (2018). Child sexual abuse news. A systematic review of content analysis studies. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 27(7), 752–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1486935</p> <p>Popović, S. (2021). Presentation of Victims in the Press Coverage of Child Sexual Abuse in Croatia. <em>Journal of Child Sexual Abuse</em>, <em>30</em>(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2020.1871459</p> <p>Scheufele, B. (2005). <em>Sexueller Missbrauch: Mediendarstellung und Medienwirkung</em> <em>[Child Sexual Abuse: Media Representations and Media Effects]</em> (1st Ed.). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.</p> <p>Schwark, S. (2017). Visual Representations of Sexual Violence in Online News Outlets. <em>Frontiers in Psychology</em>, <em>8</em>, Article 774. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00774</p> <p>Weatherred, J. L. (2015). Child sexual abuse and the media: A literature review. <em>Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24</em>(1), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2015.976302</p> </div> 2022-04-21T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2022 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2638 Format (Formats and Genre) 2021-03-05T16:23:02+01:00 Lisa Schwaiger lisa.schwaiger@foeg.uzh.ch Daniel Vogler d.vogler@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>The variable “format” is a formal variable that is widely used for content analyses of news media. “Format” characterizes the news media outlet and/or channel and is often synonymously labelled as “media type” in various studies.</p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/Theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>The variable can be used for content analyses of print, broadcast or online media. It is an important part of a codebook, as it provides context information of the analyzed content. Also, it helps to categorize other (latent) variables.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>The variable is usually part of the meta-data when content is accessed through common databases like Factiva or Lexis-Nexis. The variable “format” also makes an ex ante categorization of media content possible. A combination with automated content analyses or any other manually coded variables is thus easily possible.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Sample operationalization:</em></strong></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Medium</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Unit of analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Studies</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Holistic</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Print</p> <p>Online</p> <p>Radio</p> <p>Fernsehen</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Channel</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>fög – Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft (Ed.) (2020). Jahrbuch Qualität der Medien – Schweiz Suisse Svizzera. Basel: Schwabe.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Holistic</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Abonnement-Online</p> <p>Boulevard/ Pendler-Online: Sonntagszeitungen/ Magazine </p> <p>Öffentlicher Rundfunk</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Outlet</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Eisenegger, M., Oehmer, F., Udris, L., Vogler, D. (2020). Die Qualität der Medienberichterstattung zur Corona-Pandemie. In fög – Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft (Ed.) Jahrbuch Qualität der Medien – Schweiz Suisse Svizzera (S. 29–48). Basel: Schwabe.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Print</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Abonnementszeitungen<br />Boulevardzeitungen<br />Pendlerzeitungen<br />Sonntagzeitungen/ Magazine</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Outlet</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>fög – Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft (Ed.) (2020). Jahrbuch Qualität der Medien – Schweiz Suisse Svizzera. Basel: Schwabe.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Print</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>National</p> <p>Tabloid</p> <p>Local</p> <p>Religious</p> <p>Regional</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Outlet</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Levinsen, K., &amp; Wien, C. (2011). Changing media representations of youth in the news – a content analysis of Danish newspapers 1953–2003. Journal of Youth Studies, 14(7), 837–851. doi:10.1080/13676261.2011.607434</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Broadcast</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Universelle Nachrichtensendungen</p> <ul> <li>Nachrichten</li> <li>Nachrichtenmagazine</li> <li>Schlagzeilen, Kurznachrichten</li> </ul> <p>Regionale Nachrichten</p> <ul> <li>Nachrichten</li> <li>Nachrichtenmagazine</li> <li>Schlagzeilen, Kurznachrichten</li> </ul> <p>Themenspezifische Nachrichtensendungen</p> <ul> <li>Wetternachrichten</li> <li>Wirtschaftsnachrichten</li> <li>Europanachrichten</li> </ul> <p>Sonstige Sendungen</p> <p>Programmtrailer</p> <p>Werbung und Sponsoring</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Program</p> </td> <td width="229"> <p>Trebbe, J. (2013). Zwischen Boulevard und Ratgeber-TV. Eine vergleichende Programmanalyse von SWR und NDR. OBS-Arbeitspapier Nr. 12. Frankfurt am Main: Otto Brenner Stiftung.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="80"> <p>Broadcast</p> </td> <td width="212"> <p>Information</p> <p>Journalistische Unterhaltung</p> <p>Factual Entertainment</p> </td> <td width="83"> <p>Program</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Krüger, U. M., Zapf-Schramm, T., &amp; Jung, M. (2019). Sendungsformen, Themen und Akteure im Nonfictionangebot von ARD, ZDF, RTL und Sat.1. Media Perspektiven, 5(2019), 232–252.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Online</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Tageszeitungen</p> <p>Überregionale Wochen- und Sonntagszeitungen</p> <p>“General interest”-Publikumszeitschriften</p> <p>Mindestens landesweit verbreitete Fernseh- und Hörfunkanbieter</p> <p>Formate der Nur-Internetangebote:</p> <ul> <li>Professionelle, redaktionell organisierte Angebote</li> <li>Portale</li> <li>Nutzerplattformen</li> <li>Nachrichtensuchmaschinen</li> </ul> <p>Weblogs</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Outlet</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Neuberger, C., Nuernbergk, C., &amp; Rischke, M. (2009). Journalismus – neu vermessen. Die Grundgesamtheit journalistischer Internetangebote – Methode und Ergebnisse. In C. Neuberger, C. Nuernbergk, &amp; M. Rischke (Eds.), Journalismus im Internet (pp. 197–230). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Codebook example:</em></strong></p> <p>Oehmer, Eisenegger, Udris &amp; Vogler (2020)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References:</strong></p> <p>Oehmer, F., Eisenegger, M., Udris, L. &amp; Vogler, D. (2020). Codebuch zur Studie «Die Qualität der Medienberichterstattung zur Corona-Pandemie». Retrieved from: https://zenodo.org/record/3958929#.X24FDu1CQuU</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2639 Genre (Formats and Genre) 2021-03-05T16:32:26+01:00 Lisa Schwaiger lisa.schwaiger@foeg.uzh.ch Daniel Vogler d.vogler@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>“Genre” is a formal variable that describes the form of presentation or type of a news item. Some studies use the label “genre” when collecting the addressed social sphere of a news item, although we recommend using the variable “news section” for this purpose.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>The variable can be used for content analyses of print, broadcast or online media. It is an important part of a codebook, as it provides important context information of the analyzed news item. Also, it helps to categorize other (latent) variables.</p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>Sometimes the variable can be accessed through common databases like Factiva or LexisNexis. The variable can be easily combined with any other type of variable collected through automated or manual content analysis.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>Sample operationalization:</em></strong><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Medium</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Operationalization</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Unit of analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Studies</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Holistic</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Informationsbeitrag</p> <p>Interpretationsbeitrag</p> <p>Meinungsbeitrag</p> <p>Ratgeberbeitrag</p> <p>Community-Beitrag</p> <p>Interview</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>News item</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Eisenegger, M., Oehmer, F., Udris, L., Vogler, D. (2020). Die Qualität der Medienberichterstattung zur Corona-Pandemie. In fög – Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft (Ed.) Jahrbuch Qualität der Medien - Schweiz Suisse Svizzera (S. 29–48). Basel: Schwabe.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Print</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Porträt, Reportage</p> <p>Meinungsformat (Kommentar, Leitartikel, Rezension)</p> <p>Interview</p> <p>Blog</p> <p>Redaktioneller Bericht</p> <p>Redaktionell bearbeiteter Beitrag</p> <p>Zugelieferter Inhalt, Ticker</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>News item</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>fög – Forschungszentrum Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft (Ed.) (2020). Jahrbuch Qualität der Medien – Schweiz Suisse Svizzera. Basel: Schwabe.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Print</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Nachricht/ Bericht</p> <p>Editorial/ Leitartikel</p> <p>Kommentar/ Glosse</p> <p>Interview</p> <p>Hintergrundbericht/ Reportage/ Feature</p> <p>Informierender/ dienstleistender Sachtext</p> <p>Sonstige</p> <p>Unklar</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>News item</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Gerhards, J., Roose, J., &amp; Offerhaus, A. (2004). AttrEU: Die Europäische Union und die massenmediale Attribution von Verantwortung. Eine länder-, zeit- und medienvergleichende Untersuchung. Codebuch zur Inhaltsanalyse der EU-Berichterstatung der Süddeutschen Zeitung, der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, der Times und des Guardian von 1994 bis 2003. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/soziologie/arbeitsbereiche/makrosoziologie/projekte/attribution/dateien/pdf/AttrEU_Codebuch.pdf">https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/soziologie/arbeitsbereiche/makrosoziologie/projekte/attribution/dateien/pdf/AttrEU_Codebuch.pdf</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Print</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Nachricht/ Meldung/ Bericht</p> <p>Kommentar</p> <p>Reportage/ Feature</p> <p>Dokumentation</p> <p>Interview</p> <p>Porträt</p> <p>Pressestimme</p> <p>Glosse</p> <p>Werbung</p> <p>Sonstiges</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>News item</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Wolling, J., &amp; Arlt, D. (2012). Codebuch zur inhaltsanalytischen Untersuchung der Weltklimakonferenz 2009 in den Medien. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/dbt_derivate_00025455/ilm1-2012200112.pdf">https://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/dbt_derivate_00025455/ilm1-2012200112.pdf</a></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Broadcast</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Sprechernachricht</p> <p>Nachricht im Film</p> <p>Beitrag</p> <p>Interview</p> <p>Sonstiges</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>News item</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Maier, M., Ruhrmann, G., &amp; Klietsch, K. (2006). Der Wert von Nachrichten im deutschen Fernsehen. Ergebnisse einer Inhaltsanalyse 1992 – 2004. Düsseldorf: Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Broadcast</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Nachrichten</p> <p>Magazin</p> <p>Doku/ Bericht/ Reportage</p> <p>Diskussion/ Gespräch/ Talk/ Ansprache</p> <p>Ereignisübertragung</p> <p>Doku-Soap/ Doku-Inszenierung</p> <p>Sonstige nonfiktionale Form</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>News item</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Krüger, U. M., Zapf-Schramm, T., &amp; Jung, M. (2019). Sendungsformen, Themen und Akteure im Nonfictionangebot von ARD, ZDF, RTL und Sat.1. Media Perspektiven, 5(2019), 232–252.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Online</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Standard news item</p> <p>Interview</p> <p>Background/ analysis</p> <p>Info/ encyclopedia</p> <p>Lead</p> <p>Report</p> <p>Comment/ critique</p> <p>Other subject forms</p> <p>Others</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>News item</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Quandt, T. (2008). (No) News on the World Wide Web? Journalism Studies, 9(5), 717–738. doi:10.1080/14616700802207664</p> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong><em>Codebook examples:</em></strong></p> <p>Gerhards, Roose, &amp; Offerhaus (2004); Oehmer, Eisenegger, Udris &amp; Vogler (2020); Wolling, &amp; Arlt (2012)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Gerhards, J., Roose, J., &amp; Offerhaus, A. (2004). AttrEU: Die Europäische Union und die massenmediale Attribution von Verantwortung. Eine länder-, zeit- und medienvergleichende Untersuchung. Codebuch zur Inhaltsanalyse der EU-Berichterstatung der Süddeutschen Zeitung, der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung, der Times und des Guardian von 1994 bis 2003. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/soziologie/arbeitsbereiche/makrosoziologie/projekte/attribution/dateien/pdf/AttrEU_Codebuch.pdf">https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/soziologie/arbeitsbereiche/makrosoziologie/projekte/attribution/dateien/pdf/AttrEU_Codebuch.pdf</a></p> <p>Oehmer, F., Eisenegger, M., Udris, L., Vogler, D. (2020). Codebuch zur Studie «Die Qualität der Medienberichterstattung zur Corona-Pandemie». Retrieved from: https://zenodo.org/record/3958929#.X24FDu1CQuU</p> <p>Wolling, J., &amp; Arlt, D. (2012). Codebuch zur inhaltsanalytischen Untersuchung der Weltklimakonferenz 2009 in den Medien. Retrieved from <a href="https://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/dbt_derivate_00025455/ilm1-2012200112.pdf">https://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/dbt_derivate_00025455/ilm1-2012200112.pdf</a></p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2r Formal reporting style (Journalistic Reporting Styles) 2020-07-23T15:34:26+02:00 Miriam Steiner miriam.steiner@uni-mainz.de <p>Formal reporting styles refer to news formats or journalistic genres within a media outlet, e.g., news stories as the standard formal reporting style but also interviews as an alternative form of journalistic coverage. Each formal reporting style or news format is associated with specific rules of how to write it. For example, the journalist has to answer the most important W-questions (Who, What, When, Where, Why) at the beginning of a news story whereas feature journalism builds up tension, that is, tells a story and the important questions are answered only in the course of the article. The interview as another example is characterized by the formal interplay between questions (interviewer) and answers (interviewee).</p> <p>Apart from general reporting styles (news story, interview etc.), some codebooks also measure media-specific reporting styles (e.g., Donsbach &amp; Büttner, 2005 for television). Furthermore, reporting styles can be distinguished between “rather factual” or “rather opinionated” (Seethaler, 2015).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Formal reporting styles can be seen as a formal variable of quantitative content analyses which is therefore often part of the “standard repertoire” within codebooks that analyse journalistic (news) coverage. It can be used to identify different news formats (e.g., the share of comments in quality newspapers). It can also be used for research conducted on the norm of separating news and opinion. It may also be helpful in determining the units of analysis within analyses of news coverage. For example, if a news story is followed by an interview with a politician on the same issue, this change in the formal reporting style often means a new unit of analysis in content analyses.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Content analyses can also be combined with surveys or qualitative interviews. One example is a study by Schäfer-Hock (2018), in which he examined how journalistic reporting has changed within recent years. In order to gain more in-depth insights into this, he combined the findings of a quantitative content analysis (years 1992 and 2012) with guided interviews conducted with journalists from the analysed newspapers.</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Donsbach &amp; Büttner, 2005; Kösters, 2020; Seethaler, 2015</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Kösters, 2020</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Raphael Kösters</p> <p>This study is part of the DFG-project “Media Performance and Democracy” (<a href="https://en.mediaperformance.uni-mainz.de/">https://en.mediaperformance.uni-mainz.de/</a>)</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The project investigates how media interpret political topics with regard to political value orientations (value framing) by means of a standardized content analysis. The study aims to answer the question whether the political heterogeneity of modern societies is reflected in media reporting. The analysis is conducted on news coverage about migration.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The study investigates news coverage on the issue “migration” in German news media: 1) newspapers/ news magazines (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Süddeutsche Zeitung, ZEIT, SPIEGEL, BILD, Rheinische Post, taz, Junge Freiheit, junge Welt); 2) TV (Tagesschau, RTL Aktuell), 3) radio (WDR Aktuell - Der Tag); 4) online (t-online.de, bild.de, spiegel.de, faz.net, tagesschau.de, sueddeutsche.de)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>March 1, 2018 to July 6, 2018 </p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name:</strong> Stilform [reporting style]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values</strong> (in German)<strong>:</strong> 1) Nachricht, Bericht; 2) Reportage, Feature, Portraits; 3) Kommentar, Kolumne, Glosse, Leitartikel; 4) Interview; 8) sonstiges</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement: </strong>nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>five student coders, Holsti: 0.93</p> <p><strong>Codebook: </strong>attached (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Seethaler, 2015</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Josef Seethaler</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The study is a cross-media analysis of media performance in Austria. Furthermore, media performance indicators are evaluated from the standpoint of different models of democracy (representative liberal, deliberative, participatory).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>1) newspapers (paid press: Standard, Presse, Kleine Zeitung, Kronen Zeitung, Kurier, Oberösterreichische Nachrichten, Salzburger Nachrichten, Tiroler Tageszeitung, Vorarlberger Nachrichten); 2) newspapers (free dailies: Heute, Österreich); 3) public service/commercial and national/regional radio stations (Ö1, Ö3, FM4, KRONEHIT, ORF – Radio Niederösterreich, Radio Oberösterreich, Radio Steiermark, Radio Wien, 88.6 Wien, Antenne Steiermark, Life Radio Oberösterreich, Radio Arabella Wien, Radio Energy Wien); 4) national public service (ORF eins, ORF 2, ORF III) and commercial (ATV I, ATV II, PULS 4, ServusTV) TV stations; 5) online (derstandard.at, krone.at, oe24.at, orf.at, gmx.at)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis:</strong> four artificial weeks (without Sundays) in 2014</p> <p>In this study, the codebook does not distinguish different news formats/ formal reporting styles, but generally differentiates between factual-based and opinion-based reporting styles (as well as interviews that cannot be categorized properly).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name:</strong> Journalistische Stilform [journalistic reporting style]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values</strong> (in German)<strong>:</strong> 1) tatsachenbetont: (Nachricht, Bericht, Reportage, Feature, Personenporträt, Dokumentation, in der Zeitung: auch Foto als Einzelbild); 2) meinungsbetont: Kommentar, [Print/Online:] Leitartikel, Glosse, Karikatur; 3 Interviews, Talks; 9) nicht entscheidbar</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement: </strong>nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>six coders, Fleiss’ Kappa: 0.90</p> <p><strong>Codebook </strong>(in German) available under: <a href="https://www.rtr.at/medien/aktuelles/publikationen/Publikationen/SchriftenreiheNr12015.de.html">https://www.rtr.at/medien/aktuelles/publikationen/Publikationen/SchriftenreiheNr12015.de.html</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Donsbach &amp; Büttner, 2005</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Wolfgang Donsbach, Katrin Büttner</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The study examines the presentation of political news coverage in the most important public service and commercial main German newscasts in 1983, 1990 and 1998 with the aim of revealing changes in the presentation of politics and the extent to which there are convergent trends (→ tabloidization).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis:</strong> news on politics within four German newscasts: Tagesschau (ARD), ZDF heute, Sat.1 Blick/18.30, RTL Aktuell (in 1983: only Tagesschau and ZDF heute)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>for each year, every second day within the last four weeks before election day were analysed: 1) February 7, 1983 to March 6, 1983 (March 6, 1983 = election day); 2) November 5, 1990 to December 2, 1990 (December 2, 1990 = election day); 3) August 31, 1998 to September 27, 1998 (September 27, 1998 = election day)</p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p>This variable measures TV-specific formats but also includes general journalistic formats.</p> <p><strong>Variable name:</strong> Darstellungsformen [forms of presentation]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: news report</p> <p><strong>Values</strong> (in German)<strong>:</strong> 1) Anmoderation; 2) Ab- bzw. Zwischenmoderation; 3) Meldung; 4) Nachrichtenfilm; 5) Bericht; 6) Interview; 7) Statement/Redeausschnitt; 8) Kommentar; 9) sonstige Präsentationsform</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement: </strong>nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>four coders, reliability: N.A.</p> <p><strong>Codebook </strong>(in German) available under: <a href="http://donsbach.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Codebuch_TV-Nachrichten.pdf">http://donsbach.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Codebuch_TV-Nachrichten.pdf</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Donsbach, W., &amp; Büttner, K. (2005). Boulevardisierungstrend in deutschen Fernsehnachrichten [Tabloidization trend in German TV news]. <em>Publizistik, 50</em>(1), 21–38.</p> <p>Kösters, R. (2020). <em>Medien als Mittler im Konflikt? Der Streit um die Migration im Spiegel der Berichterstattung </em>[Media as intermediaries in conflicts? The debate on migration in media coverage]. (Doctoral dissertation, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf). Retrieved from <a href="https://d-nb.info/1203369883/34">https://d-nb.info/1203369883/34</a></p> <p>Schäfer-Hock, C. (2018). <em>Journalistische Darstellungsformen im Wandel. Eine Untersuchung deutscher Tageszeitungen von 1992 bis 2012</em> [Journalistic reporting styles in transition. A study of German daily newspapers from 1992 to 2012]. Wiesbaden: Springer</p> <p>Seethaler, J. (2015). <em>Qualität des tagesaktuellen Informationsangebots in den österreichischen Medien. Eine crossmediale Untersuchung</em> [News media quality in Austria: A crossmedia analysis]. Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH. Retrieved from https://www.rtr.at/de/inf/SchriftenreiheNr12015/Band1-2015.pdf</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2s Impartiality (Journalistic Reporting Styles) 2020-08-06T16:48:09+02:00 Miriam Steiner miriam.steiner@uni-mainz.de <p>Impartiality is a journalistic norm that requires journalists to not express their opinions within factual-based news stories and to report fairly and balanced on opinions and viewpoints from others (e.g., Bentele, 1988; Donsbach &amp; Klett, 1993; Hackett, 2008). Based on the impartiality standard, journalists should only express their own opinions in news formats that are intended for this purpose and appropriately labelled (e.g., commentaries).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>The journalistic norm of impartiality is often analysed in the context of studies on media performance (e.g., Fahr, 2001; Maurer, 2005; Seethaler, 2015). Here, elite media outlets are often compared with popular media outlets. An increasing convergence between these types of media may also be a sign of an increasing tabloidization of elite media. However, increasingly opinionated news stories can also be regarded as an indicator of a more interpretive journalism (see Salgado &amp; Strömbäck, 2012 for an overview of interpretive journalism).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Content analyses can be combined with survey data on the editorial policy/ ideological orientation of the respective media outlets (e.g., see Kepplinger, 2011 with his research on instrumental actualization).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Example study:</strong></em></p> <p>Seethaler, 2015</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Seethaler, 2015</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Josef Seethaler</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The study is a cross-media analysis of media performance in Austria. Furthermore, media performance indicators are evaluated from the standpoint of different models of democracy (representative liberal, deliberative, participatory).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>1) newspapers (paid press: Standard, Presse, Kleine Zeitung, Kronen Zeitung, Kurier, Oberösterreichische Nachrichten, Salzburger Nachrichten, Tiroler Tageszeitung, Vorarlberger Nachrichten); 2) newspapers (free dailies: Heute, Österreich); 3) public service/commercial and national/regional radio stations (Ö1, Ö3, FM4, KRONEHIT, ORF – Radio Niederösterreich, Radio Oberösterreich, Radio Steiermark, Radio Wien, 88.6 Wien, Antenne Steiermark, Life Radio Oberösterreich, Radio Arabella Wien, Radio Energy Wien); 4) national public service (ORF eins, ORF 2, ORF III) and commercial (ATV I, ATV II, PULS 4, ServusTV) TV stations; 5) online (derstandard.at, krone.at, oe24.at, orf.at, gmx.at)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>four artificial weeks (without Sundays) in 2014 </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p>The degree of the appearance of the journalist’s point of view (in factual news formats) is evaluated on a 5-point-scale ranging from “explicitly personal” (1) to “purely distanced-impartial” (5).</p> <p><strong>Variable name:</strong> Unparteilichkeit [Impartiality]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values</strong> (in German)<strong>:</strong> 1) explizit persönlich gefärbt; 2) eher persönlich gefärbt; 3) sowohl persönlich gefärbt als auch distanziert-unparteiisch; 4) eher distanziert-unparteiisch; 5) ausschließlich distanziert-unparteiisch</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement:</strong> ordinal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>six coders, Fleiss’ Kappa: 0.97</p> <p><strong>Codebook </strong>(in German) available under: <a href="https://www.rtr.at/medien/aktuelles/publikationen/Publikationen/SchriftenreiheNr12015.de.html">https://www.rtr.at/medien/aktuelles/publikationen/Publikationen/SchriftenreiheNr12015.de.html</a></p> <p>see also DFG-Project “Media Performance and Democracy” (<a href="https://en.mediaperformance.uni-mainz.de/">https://en.mediaperformance.uni-mainz.de/</a>)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p class="p1">Bentele, G. (1988). Wie objektiv können Journalisten sein? [How objective can journalists be?]. In L. Erbring, S. Ruß-Mohl, B. Seewald &amp; B. Sösemann (Eds.), <em>Medien ohne Moral. Variationen über Journalismus und Ethik</em> (pp. 196–225). Berlin: Argon.</p> <p>Donsbach, W., &amp; Klett, B. (1993). Subjective objectivity: How journalists in four countries define a key term of their profession. <em>Gazette, 51</em>(1), 53–83.</p> <p>Fahr, A. (2001). <em>Katastrophale Nachrichten? Eine Analyse der Qualität von Fernsehnachrichten</em> [Disastrous news? An analysis of the quality of television news]. München: R. Fischer.</p> <p>Hackett, R. A. (2008). Objectivity in reporting. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), <em>The International Encyclopedia of Communication</em> (pp. 3345–3350). Malden et al.: Blackwell.</p> <p>Kepplinger, H. M. (2011). <em>Journalismus als Beruf [Journalism as a profession]</em>. Wiesbaden: VS.</p> <p>Maurer, T. (2005). <em>Fernsehnachrichten und Nachrichtenqualität: Eine Längsschnittstudie zur Nachrichtenentwicklung in Deutschland</em> [Television news and news quality: A longitudinal study on the development of news in Germany]. München: R. Fischer.</p> <p>Salgado, S., &amp; Strömbäck, J. (2012). Interpretive journalism: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. <em>Journalism: Theory, Practice &amp; Criticism, 13</em>(2), 144–161.</p> <p>Seethaler, J. (2015). <em>Qualität des tagesaktuellen Informationsangebots in den österreichischen Medien. </em><em>Eine crossmediale Untersuchung</em> [News media quality in Austria: A crossmedia analysis]. Rundfunk und Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH. Retrieved from https://www.rtr.at/de/inf/SchriftenreiheNr12015/Band1-2015.pdf</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2t Soft news/tabloidization (Journalistic Reporting Styles) 2020-08-06T17:29:31+02:00 Miriam Steiner miriam.steiner@uni-mainz.de <p>The concept of “softening the news” or “tabloidization” refers to the adaption of tabloid standards by elite media, as a result of competitive pressures and with the aim of attracting the attention of the mass audience (e.g., Magin, 2019). Reinemann et al. (2012) distinguish three important dimensions:</p> <ul> <li><em>topic dimension</em>: According to this dimension, “soft news” can be distinguished from “hard news” by their political relevance; one can either determine the level of political relevance (Reinemann et al., 2012) or – as most studies do (e.g., Steiner, 2016) – distinguish between topics that can be classified as either hard (e.g., politics) or soft (e.g., crime, sports, lifestyle).</li> <li><em>focus dimension</em>: Soft news in this respect reports on issues in a rather episodic and less thematic way which means that the news coverage focuses more on the event itself instead of framing the event in a more general context (see also Entman, 1993; Iyengar, 1991). Furthermore, soft news rather focuses on individual rather than societal consequences.</li> <li><em>style dimension</em>: According to this dimension, soft news can be distinguished from hard news by the way of presentation. Soft news is presented inter alia in a more emotional, subjective or narrative way.</li> </ul> <p>News softening therefore represents a multi-dimensional concept (Esser, 1999; Reinemann et al., 2012) in which the different dimensions and indicators form a continuum. On this basis one can assess the degree of overall news softening. The concept thereby incorporates various other concepts of communication science (e.g., framing, subjective/objective reporting, etc.) and can thus be also attributed to distinct research traditions. Particularly in the style dimension, many different indicators are analysed – although studies often differ as to which indicators are used.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Since soft news journalism is often seen as a threat to normative standards for quality media, research on soft news and tabloidization trends is often part of studies on media performance. So far, studies on news softening and tabloidization focus on the comparison of (elite and popular) newspapers (e.g., Lefkowitz, 2018) or (public service and commercial) TV newscasts (e.g., Donsbach &amp; Büttner, 2005). More recent studies also take online media into account (e.g., Karlsson, 2016) or compare social media platforms such as Facebook with offline and/or online media (e.g., Lischka &amp; Werning, 2017; Magin et al., 2021).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Content analyses can be combined with survey data from/ interviews with journalists (e.g., Leidenberger, 2015; Lischka &amp; Werning, 2017; Lischka, 2018) or with experiments on the effect of soft news on the audience (e.g., trust in the news, information processing: see Bernhard, 2012 or Grabe et al., 2003 as examples, although these studies do not combine the results on the effects with content analyses).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Indicator</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Name of variable(s)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Study</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><em>Topic Dimension:</em></p> </td> <td width="274"> <p><em> </em></p> </td> <td width="161"> <p><em> </em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p>Political relevance</p> </td> <td width="274"> <p>Political relevance</p> </td> <td width="161"> <p>Reinemann et al., 2012</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p>Topic</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p>Thema (kategorisiert) [topic (categorized)]</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p>Steiner, 2016</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p><em>Focus Dimension:</em></p> </td> <td width="274"> <p><em> </em></p> </td> <td width="161"> <p><em> </em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="170"> <p>Episodic framing</p> </td> <td width="274"> <p>Episodic – thematic framing</p> </td> <td width="161"> <p>Reinemann et al., 2012</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p>Individual framing</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p>Individual – societal relevance</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p>Reinemann et al., 2012</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p><em>Style Dimension:</em></p> </td> <td width="274"> <p><em> </em></p> </td> <td width="161"> <p><em> </em></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="b"> <p>1. Emotional reporting (incl. affective wording, visual presentation of emotions)</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p>Emotional – unemotional reporting</p> </td> <td class="b"> <p>Reinemann et al., 2012</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>2. Personal reporting</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Personal – impersonal reporting</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Reinemann et al., 2012</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>3. Colloquial/ loose language</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Umgangssprache, Lockerheit der Sprache [colloquial, loose language]</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Steiner, 2016</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>4. Narrative presentation</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Nachrichtenpyramide vs. Narration [news pyramid vs. narration]</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Donsbach &amp; Büttner, 2005</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>5. Emphasis on conflicts</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Konflikthaltigkeit [conflicts]</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Donsbach &amp; Büttner, 2005</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>Topic Dimension</strong></p> <p>With respect to the topic dimension, soft and hard news can be determined either by the extent to which the political relevance is made clear within the article (e.g., Reinemann et al., 2012) or by the distinction between topics (e.g., Steiner, 2016). Most studies use the latter option with politics (and sometimes economics as well) being considered hard news and topics such as sports and celebrity news being considered soft news.</p> <p><strong>Topic Dimension, Indicator 1: political relevance</strong></p> <p>(Reinemann et al., 2012)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Reinemann et al., 2012</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Carsten Reinemann, James Stanyer, Sebastian Scherr, Guido Legnante</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>This study is a meta-analysis that wants to find out 1) how different studies define news softening and 2) which dimensions and indicators are most often used to measure news softening. As a result, the paper suggests three important dimensions (topic, focus, style) and concrete indicators and operationalizations to measure these dimensions.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>24 studies</p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p>“Four aspects are distinguished that indicate the degree of political relevance of a news item: (1) <em>societal actors</em>, (2) <em>decision-making authorities</em>, (3) <em>policy plan</em> and (4) <em>actors concerned</em>. For each of those aspects the presence (1) or non-presence (0) is coded.” (Reinemann et al. 2012, p. 237)</p> <ul> <li>“Two or more societal actors that disagree on a societal issue (e.g., two parties, a party and an NGO, voters and politicians, employers and trade unions).</li> <li>Decision-making authorities (legislative, executive, judiciary) that are or could be involved in the generally binding decision about that societal issue.</li> <li>The substance of a planned or realized decision, measure, programme that relates to the issue.</li> <li>The persons or groups concerned by the planned or realized decisions, measures, programmes.” (Reinemann et al., 2012, p. 237)</li> </ul> <p><strong>Variable name:</strong> political relevance</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong> 0) not present; 1) present</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement:</strong> nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Variable was not tested within this study.</p> <p><strong>Codebook </strong>(in the appendix of the paper, p. 237-238) available under:</p> <p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1464884911427803?casa_token=M5obNFSYi2MAAAAA%3ATaCwxI9Nt24w4NB9wbTrzHSa7CYxYXIO_AcDEdYOV2fxJbx5r2G-NiriFdjuDt6Ho_U67Uv9Wg">DOI: 10.1177/1464884911427803</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Topic Dimension, Indicator 2: topic</strong></p> <p>(Steiner, 2016)</p> <p><strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Steiner, 2016</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Miriam Steiner</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The study investigates the news softening of German public service and commercial political news on TV and on Facebook.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis:</strong> ARD Tagesschau (TV); ZDF heute (TV); Sat.1 Nachrichten (TV); RTL Aktuell (TV); ARD Tagesschau (Facebook); ZDF heute (Facebook); Sat.1 Nachrichten (Facebook); RTL Aktuell (Facebook)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis:</strong> artificial week in 2014 (April, 10 – October, 10) </p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name:</strong> Thema (kategorisiert)/ Ressort [Topic (categorized)/ (newspaper) section]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values</strong> (in German)<strong>:</strong></p> <ul> <li>101-247) Politik [politics]; 310-399) Wirtschaft [economics] → defined as “hard news”</li> <li>900) Unfall/Katastrophe [accident, catastrophe]; 1000-1010) Kriminalität [crime]; 1100) human interest; 1200) Sport [sports] → defined as “soft news”</li> </ul> <p><strong>Level of measurement:</strong> nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>one coder; intra-coder-reliability: 0.81 (Krippendorff’s Alpha), 83.3% (Holsti)</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong> attached (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Focus Dimension</strong></p> <p>According to this dimension, hard and soft news can be distinguished by the framing of the article. Reinemann et al. (2012) hereby differentiate between 1) episodic (soft) vs. thematic (hard) framing and 2) individual (soft) vs. societal (hard) framing.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Focus Dimension, Indicator 1: episodic vs. thematic framing</strong></p> <p>(Reinemann et al., 2012: for information about the study, see above)</p> <p>“Here, the focus of a news item as related to the <em>accentuation of episodes</em> or <em>themes</em> is coded. Episodically focused news items present an issue by offering a specific example, case study, or event oriented report, e.g., covering unemployment by presenting a story on the plight of a particular unemployed person […]” (Reinemann et al. 2012, p. 238)</p> <p><strong>Variable name: </strong>episodic – thematic framing</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>article</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>0) pure or predominant episodic framing; 1) mixed episodic and thematic framing; 2) pure or predominant thematic framing</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement: </strong>ordinal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Variable was not tested within this study.</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong> (in the appendix of the paper, p. 237-238) available under:</p> <p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1464884911427803?casa_token=M5obNFSYi2MAAAAA%3ATaCwxI9Nt24w4NB9wbTrzHSa7CYxYXIO_AcDEdYOV2fxJbx5r2G-NiriFdjuDt6Ho_U67Uv9Wg">DOI: 10.1177/1464884911427803</a></p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Focus Dimension, Indicator 2: individual vs. societal framing</strong></p> <p>(Reinemann et al., 2012: for information about the study, see above)</p> <p>“Here, the focus of a news item as related to the accentuation of <em>personal or societal relevance</em> is coded. Individually focused news stress [sic!] the personal, private meaning or consequences of the incidents, developments, decisions etc. reported about for members of society. […]” (Reinemann et al. 2012, p. 237)</p> <p><strong>Variable name</strong>: individual – societal relevance</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values</strong>: 0) pure or predominant focus on individual relevance/ consequences; 1) mixed attention to individual and societal relevance/ consequences; 2) pure or predominant focus on societal relevance/ consequences</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement</strong>: ordinal</p> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: Variable was not tested within this study.</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong> (in the appendix of the paper, p. 237-238) available under:</p> <p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1464884911427803?casa_token=M5obNFSYi2MAAAAA%3ATaCwxI9Nt24w4NB9wbTrzHSa7CYxYXIO_AcDEdYOV2fxJbx5r2G-NiriFdjuDt6Ho_U67Uv9Wg">DOI: 10.1177/1464884911427803</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Style Dimension</strong></p> <p>This dimension is about <em>how</em> news is presented. Studies thereon analyse different indicators with 1) emotional reporting being most frequently used. Besides, studies refer to 2) personal reporting (i.e., the presence of the journalist’s point of view), 3) colloquial/ loose language, 4) narrative presentation or 5) emphasis on conflicts as indicators of a soft news style.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Style Dimension, Indicator 1: emotional reporting</strong></p> <p>Most studies measure emotional reporting with the help of only one variable (usually a multi-level scale) (e.g., Reinemann et al., 2012). Alternatively, one can further distinguish (Magin &amp; Stark, 2015) between verbal style (linguistic features such as strong adjectives and superlatives or emotional metaphors) and visual style (showing emotions in pictures) (e.g., Leidenberger, 2015).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Style Dimension, Indicator 1: emotional reporting</strong></p> <p>(Reinemann et al., 2012: for information about the study, see above)</p> <p>“Here, the journalistic style of a news item as related to the <em>emotional presentation of information</em> is coded. […] Emotional news items use verbal, visual or auditive means that potentially arouse or amplify emotions among audience members. This can be done, for example, (a) by dramatizing events, i.e. presenting them as exceptional, exciting, or thrilling; (b) by affective wording and speech, e.g. superlatives, strong adjectives, present tense in the description of past events, pronounced accentuation; (c) by reporting on or visually presenting explicit expressions of emotions (e.g., hurt, anger, fear, distress, joy). […]” (Reinemann et al. 2012, p. 238)</p> <p><strong>Variable name</strong>: emotional – unemotional reporting</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values</strong>: 0) purely or predominantly emotional; 1) mix of emotional and unemotional elements; 2) purely or predominantly unemotional</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement</strong>: ordinal</p> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: Variable was not tested within this study.</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong> (in the appendix of the paper, p. 237-238) available under:</p> <p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1464884911427803?casa_token=M5obNFSYi2MAAAAA%3ATaCwxI9Nt24w4NB9wbTrzHSa7CYxYXIO_AcDEdYOV2fxJbx5r2G-NiriFdjuDt6Ho_U67Uv9Wg">DOI: 10.1177/1464884911427803</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Style Dimension, Indicator 2: personal reporting</strong></p> <p>(Reinemann et al., 2012: for information about the study, see above)</p> <p>“Here, the journalistic style of a news item as related to the <em>explicit appearance of journalists’ personal points of view</em> is concerned. It is coded whether a news item includes explicit statements of the reporting journalists’ personal impressions, interpretations, points of view or opinions. […]” (Reinemann et al. 2012, p. 238)</p> <p><strong>Variable name</strong>: personal – impersonal reporting</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values</strong>: 0) purely or predominantly personal; 1) mix of personal and impersonal elements; 2) purely or predominantly impersonal</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement</strong>: ordinal</p> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: Variable was not tested within this study.</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong> (in the appendix of the paper, p. 237-238) available under:</p> <p><a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1464884911427803?casa_token=M5obNFSYi2MAAAAA%3ATaCwxI9Nt24w4NB9wbTrzHSa7CYxYXIO_AcDEdYOV2fxJbx5r2G-NiriFdjuDt6Ho_U67Uv9Wg">DOI: 10.1177/1464884911427803</a></p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Style Dimension, Indicator 3: colloquial/ loose language</strong></p> <p>(Steiner, 2016: for information about the study, see above)</p> <p>The variable measures the degree of colloquial language on a 3-point-scale, ranging from 0 (not colloquial at all) to 2 (very colloquial).</p> <p><strong>Variable name</strong>: Umgangssprache/ Lockerheit der Sprache [colloquial/ loose language]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values (in German)</strong>: 0) gar nicht umgangssprachlich; 1) wenig umgangssprachlich; 2) stark umgangssprachlich</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement</strong>: ordinal</p> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: one coder; intra-coder-reliability: 0.72 (Krippendorff’s Alpha, interval), 88.9% (Holsti, nominal)</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong> attached (in German)</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Style Dimension, Indicator 4: narrative presentation</strong></p> <p>(Donsbach &amp; Büttner, 2005)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Donsbach &amp; Büttner, 2005</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Wolfang Donsbach, Katrin Büttner</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The study examines the presentation of political news coverage in the most important public service and commercial main German newscasts in 1983, 1990 and 1998 with the aim of revealing changes in the presentation of politics and the extent to which there are convergent trends (→ tabloidization).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>news on politics within four German newscasts: Tagesschau (ARD), ZDF heute, Sat.1 Blick/18.30, RTL Aktuell (in 1983: only Tagesschau and ZDF heute)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis:</strong> for each year, every second day within the last four weeks before election day was analysed: 1) February 7, 1983 to March 6, 1983 (March 6, 1983 = election day); 2) November 5, 1990 to December 2, 1990 (December 2, 1990 = election day); 3) August 31, 1998 to September 27, 1998 (September 27, 1998 = election day)</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p>This variable is used to measure whether news is presented in terms of the “inverted news pyramid” (that is, answering the important W-questions at the beginning) or whether the journalist tells a story. This variable is measured on a 5-point-scale ranging from -2) (news pyramid) to 2) narration.</p> <p><strong>Variable name</strong>: Nachrichtenpyramide vs. Narration [news pyramid vs. narration]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values (in German)</strong>: -2) Nachrichtenpyramide; -1); 0) weder/nich; 1); 2) narrativ</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement</strong>: ordinal</p> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: four coders, reliability: N.A.</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong> (in German) available under:</p> <p><a href="http://donsbach.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Codebuch_TV-Nachrichten.pdf">http://donsbach.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Codebuch_TV-Nachrichten.pdf</a></p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Style Dimension, Indicator 5: emphasis on conflicts</strong></p> <p>(Donsbach &amp; Büttner, 2005: for information about the study, see above)</p> <p>The variable measures whether conflicts are mentioned or not (=9). The variable also distinguishes between implicit (=1; conflict is apparent, but not openly addressed) and explicit (=2; conflict is openly addressed) conflicts.</p> <p><strong>Variable name</strong>: Konflikthaltigkeit [conflicts]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p><strong>Values (in German)</strong>: 1) impliziter Konflikt; 2) expliziter Konflikt; 9) kein Konflikt</p> <p><strong>Level of measurement</strong>: nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: four coders, reliability: N.A.</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong> (in German) available under:</p> <p><a href="http://donsbach.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Codebuch_TV-Nachrichten.pdf">http://donsbach.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Codebuch_TV-Nachrichten.pdf</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Bernhard, U. (2012). <em>Infotainment in der Zeitung: Der Einfluss unterhaltungsorientierter Gestaltungsmittel auf die Wahrnehmung und Verarbeitung politischer Informationen </em>[Infotainment in the newspaper: The influence of entertainment-oriented style elements on the perception and processing of political information]. Baden-Baden: Nomos.</p> <p>Donsbach, W., &amp; Büttner, K. (2005). Boulevardisierungstrend in deutschen Fernsehnachrichten [Tabloidization trend in German TV news]. <em>Publizistik, 50</em>(1), 21–38.</p> <p>Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. <em>Journal of Communication, 43</em>(4), 51–58.</p> <p>Esser, F. (1999). `Tabloidization’ of news: A comparative analysis of Anglo-American and German press journalism. <em>European Journal of Communication, 14</em>(3), 291-324.</p> <p>Grabe, M. E., Lang, A., &amp; Zhao, X. (2003). News content and form: Implications for memory and audience evaluations. <em>Communication Research, 30</em>(4), 387-413.</p> <p>Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.</p> <p>Karlsson, M. B. (2016). Goodbye politics, hello lifestyle. Changing news topics in tabloid, quality and local newspaper websites in the U.K. and Sweden from 2002 to 2012. <em>Observatorio, 10</em>(4), 150-165.</p> <p>Lefkowitz, J. (2018). “Tabloidization” or dual-convergence: Quoted speech in tabloid and “quality” British newspapers 1970–2010. <em>Journalism Studies, 19</em>(3), 353-375.</p> <p>Leidenberger, J. (2015). <em>Boulevardisierung von Fernsehnachrichten: Eine Inhaltsanalyse deutscher und französischer Hauptnachrichtensendungen</em> [Tabloidization of TV news: A content analysis comparing German and French main newscasts]. Wiesbaden: VS.</p> <p>Lischka, J. A. (2021). Logics in social media news making: How social media editors marry the Facebook logic with journalistic standards. <em>Journalism, 22</em>(2), 430–447.</p> <p>Lischka, J. A., &amp; Werning, M. (2017). Wie Facebook den Regionaljournalismus verändert: Publikums- und Algorithmusorientierung bei der Facebook-Themenselektion von Regionalzeitungen [How Facebook alters regional journalism: Audience and algorithm orientation in the Facebook topic selection of regional newspapers]. <em>kommunikation@gesellschaft, 18</em>.</p> <p>Magin, M. (2019). Attention, please! Structural influences on tabloidization of campaign coverage in German and Austrian elite newspapers (1949–2009). <em>Journalism, 20</em>(12), 1704–1724.</p> <p>Magin, M., &amp; Stark, B. (2015). Explaining national differences of tabloidisation between Germany and Austria. <em>Journalism Studies, 16</em>(4), 577–595.</p> <p>Magin, M., Steiner, M., Häuptli, A., Stark, B., &amp; Udris, L. (2021). Is Facebook driving tabloidization? A cross-channel comparison of two German newspapers. In M. Conboy &amp; S. A. Eldridge II (Eds.), <em>Global Tabloid: Culture and Technology</em> (pp. 56-74). London, New York: Routledge.</p> <p>Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., &amp; Legnante, G. (2012). Hard and soft news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. <em>Journalism, 13</em>(2), 221–239.</p> <p>Steiner, M. (2016). Boulevardisierung goes Facebook? Ein inhaltsanalytischer Vergleich politischer Nachrichten von tagesschau, heute, RTL Aktuell und Sat.1 Nachrichten im Fernsehen und auf Facebook [Tabloidization goes Facebook? A comparative content analysis of the news quality of tagesschau, heute, RTL Aktuell and Sat.1 on TV and on Facebook]. In L. Leißner, H. Bause &amp; L. Hagemeyer (Eds.), <em>Politische Kommunikation – neue Phänomene, neue Perspektiven, neue Methoden</em> (pp. 27-46). Berlin: Frank &amp; Timme.</p> </div> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2l Actor diversity (News Performance) 2020-07-20T21:50:56+02:00 Edda Humprecht edda.humprecht@ntnu.no <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Analyses of actor diversity are theoretically linked to news performance and the democratic media function of integration (Imhof, 2010). This construct is related to the normative assumption that news content should represent society as a whole and thus cover a large variety of societal groups (Boydstun et al., 2014). More recent studies also focus on the influence of algorithms on news diversity (Möller et al., 2018).</p> <p>Analyses are often carried out in three steps. First, all actors are (inductively or deductively) identified. Second, actors are coded according to predefined lists. Third, the level of diversity is determined using diversity indices (van Cuilenburg, 2007). Diversity indices are calculated at article level (internal diversity) or at the organizational level (external diversity) to compare diversity between news articles of a single outlet or between different news outlets.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Studies on actor diversity use both manual and automated content analysis to investigate the occurrence of actors and in texts. They use inductive or deductive approaches and/or a combination of both to identify actor categories and extend predefined lists of actors (van Hoof et al., 2014).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies: </strong></em></p> <p>Masini et al. (2018); Humprecht &amp; Esser (2018)</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>Table 1. Summary of studies on actor diversity</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Unit of Analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l r"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t l"> <p>Masini et al. (2018)</p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><em>Content type:</em> news about immigration</p> <p><em>Outlet/ country:</em> 2 news outlets in four countries (BE, DE, IT, UK)</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>January 2013 to April 2014</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>N=2490)</p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><em>Unit of analysis:</em> news article</p> <p><em>No. of actors coded:</em> max. 10 quoted or paraphrased actors per article</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> article and news outlet level</p> <p><em>Diversity measure:</em> Simpson’s diversity index</p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p>National politics, international politics, public opinion and ordinary people, immigrants, civil society, public agencies/ organizations, judiciary/police/military, religion, business/corporate/finance, journalists/ media celebrities, traffickers/smugglers</p> </td> <td class="t l r"> <p>Krippendorff’s alpha average ≥0.78</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t l b"> <p>Humprecht &amp; Esser (2018)</p> </td> <td class="t l b"> <p><em>Content type:</em> Political routine-period news</p> <p><em>Outlet/ country:</em> 48 online news outlets from six countries (CH, DE, FR, IT, UK, US)</p> <p><em>Sampling period:</em> June – July 2012</p> <p><em>Sample size:</em> N= 1660</p> </td> <td class="t l b"> <p><em>Unit of analysis:</em> Political news items (make reference to a political actor, e.g. politician, party, institution in headline, sub?headline, in first paragraph or in an accompanying visual)</p> <p>News items are all journalistic articles mentioned on the front page (‘first layer’ of the website) that are linked to the actual story (on second layer of website)</p> <p><em>No. of actors coded:</em> Max. 5 main actors (mentioned twice) per news item measured</p> <p><em>Level of analysis:</em> news outlet level</p> <p><em>Diversity measure:</em> relative entropy</p> </td> <td class="t l b"> <p>Executive (head of state and national government), legislative (national parliament and national parties), judicial (national courts and judges), national administration (prosecution, regional government authority, and police or army), foreign politicians (foreign heads of state and other foreign politicians), and international organizations (supranational and international organizations)</p> </td> <td class="t l b r"> <p>Cohen’s kappa average ≥0.76</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Boydstun, A. E., Bevan, S., &amp; Thomas, H. F. (2014). The importance of attention diversity and how to measure it. <em>Policy Studies Journal</em>, <em>42</em>(2), 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12055</p> <p>Humprecht, E., &amp; Esser, F. (2018). Diversity in Online News: On the importance of ownership types and media system types. <em>Journalism Studies</em>, <em>19</em>(12), 1825–1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1308229</p> <p>Imhof, K. (2010). Die Qualität der Medien in der Demokratie. In fög – Forschungsbereich Öffentlichkeit und Gesellschaft (Ed.), <em>Jahrbuch 2010: Qualität der Medien Qualität der Medien</em> (pp. 11–20). Schwabe. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-97101-2_1</p> <p>Masini, A., Van Aelst, P., Zerback, T., Reinemann, C., Mancini, P., Mazzoni, M., Damiani, M., &amp; Coen, S. (2018). Measuring and Explaining the Diversity of Voices and Viewpoints in the News: A comparative study on the determinants of content diversity of immigration news. <em>Journalism Studies</em>, <em>19</em>(15), 2324–2343. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2017.1343650</p> <p>Möller, J., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., &amp; van Es, B. (2018). Do not blame it on the algorithm: an empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. <em>Information Communication and Society</em>, <em>21</em>(7), 959–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444076</p> <p>van Cuilenburg, J. (2007). Media Diversity, Competition and Concentration: Concepts and Theories. In E. de Bens (Ed.), <em>Media Between Culture and Commerce</em> (pp. 25–54). Intellect.</p> <p>van Hoof, A., Jacobi, C., Ruigrok, N., &amp; van Atteveldt, W. (2014). Diverse politics, diverse news coverage? A longitudinal study of diversity in Dutch political news during two decades of election campaigns. <em>European Journal of Communication</em>, <em>29</em>(6), 668–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114545712</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2j Change of perspectives (News Performance) 2020-07-20T21:49:18+02:00 Edda Humprecht edda.humprecht@ntnu.no <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Analyses of change of perspectives are theoretically linked to the news performance and democratic function of the media (McQuail, 1992). This construct is related to viewpoint diversity and the normative expectation that different views should be presented in news coverage (Napoli &amp; Gillis, 2008). In addition, more recent analysis focus on different perspective articulated in user comments, often linked to theories of deliberation (Baden &amp; Springer, 2015).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Perspective change in news coverage is measured i) directly (e.g., by asking whether change of perspective is presented in an article) or i) indirectly by coding different perspective (e.g. statements including different viewpoints). Indirect measures can also be used in automated approaches (Möller et al., 2018).<strong> </strong></p> <p><strong><em>Example studies:</em> </strong></p> <p>Baden &amp; Springer (2014); Humprecht (2016)</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Study summaries</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Unit of Analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l r"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t l"> <p>Baden &amp; Springer (2014)</p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><em>Content type:</em> Online news coverage on selected key events and user comments</p> <p><em>Outlet/country:</em> 5 German newspapers (Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt, TZ, Die Zeit, Spiegel)</p> <p><em>Sampling period: </em>Feb– July 2012</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>42 news articles, 384 user comments</p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p>News article: max. 2 main interpretative frames (the text’s ‘central organizing idea’)</p> <p>User comments: main frame</p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><em>Object of problem definition</em></p> <p><em>Logic of evaluation</em>:</p> <p>inspired (Good is what is true, divine &amp; amazing)</p> <p>popular (Good is what the people want)</p> <p>moral (Good is what is social, fair, &amp; moral)</p> <p>civic (Good is what is accepted &amp; conventional)</p> <p>economic (Good is what is profitable &amp; creates value)</p> <p>functional (good is what works)</p> <p>ecological (good is what is sustainable &amp; natural)</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Logic of (inter)action</em>: believing (interactions between the mind &amp; the world)</p> <p>desire (interaction btw the mind &amp; objects)</p> <p>ought (interaction btw the mind &amp; people)</p> <p>negotiation (interaction btw people &amp; the social world)</p> <p>exchange (interactions btw people &amp; objects)</p> <p>technology (interactions btw objects &amp; the world)</p> <p>life (interactions btw people &amp; the natural world)</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t l r"> <p>Authors coded coverage consensually</p> <p>User comments: Holsti = 0.78</p> <p>Problem definition’s object: Holsti = 0.60</p> <p>Logic of Action: Holsti = 0.56</p> <p>Evaluation logic: Holsti = 1</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t l b"> <p>Humprecht (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t l b"> <p><em>Content type:</em> Political routine-period news</p> <p><em>Outlet/ country:</em> 48 online news outlets from six countries (CH, DE, FR, IT, UK, US)</p> <p><em>Sampling period:</em> June – July 2012</p> <p><em>Sample size:</em> N= 1660</p> </td> <td class="t l b"> <p><em>Unit of analysis:</em> Political news items (make reference to a political actor, e.g. politician, party, institution in headline, sub?headline, in first paragraph or in an accompanying visual)</p> <p>News items are all journalistic articles mentioned on the front page (‘first layer’ of the website) that are linked to the actual story (on second layer of website)</p> </td> <td class="t l b"> <p><em>Only one perspective</em> (because underlying topic is uncontroversial)</p> <p><em>One perspective</em> (of a debated/controversial issue, no opposition voice)</p> <p><em>Different perspectives</em> mentioned (different sides, voices, camps, perspectives mentioned but not elaborated)</p> <p><em>Co-presence of speakers with opposing views</em> (expressed in separate utterances) in the same article. Story shows clear attempt at giving a balanced, fair account of debated/controversial issue by including diverse viewpoints and statements)</p> </td> <td class="t l b r"> <p>Cohen’s kappa = 0.64</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Baden, C., &amp; Springer, N. (2014). Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. <em>European Journal of Communication</em>. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114538724</p> <p>Baden, C., &amp; Springer, N. (2015). Conceptualizing viewpoint diversity in news discourse. <em>Journalism</em>, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915605028</p> <p>Humprecht, E. (2016). Shaping Online News Performance. In <em>Palgrave Macmillan</em>. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56668-3</p> <p>McQuail, D. (1992). <em>Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest</em>. Sage Publications.</p> <p>Möller, J., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., &amp; van Es, B. (2018). Do not blame it on the algorithm: an empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. <em>Information Communication and Society</em>, <em>21</em>(7), 959–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444076</p> <p>Napoli, P., &amp; Gillis, N. (2008). <em>Media Ownership and the Diversity Index: Outlining a Social Science Research Agenda</em> (No. 5; McGannon Center Working Paper Series).</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2i Cause/antecedents/history (News Performance) 2020-07-20T21:48:24+02:00 Edda Humprecht edda.humprecht@ntnu.no <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Analyses using the constructs cause/antecedents/history in news content are theoretically related to news performance and the democratic function of the media (McQuail, 1992). This construct is linked to professional standards and the normative assumption that the media should provide the audience with background information on current events and issues (Westerstahl, 1983). For example, news can be used to explain how a particular problem occurred, what happened beforehand and what the concrete reasons are for the current situation.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>The analysis of reporting on the causes, background and history of events is complex and requires an understanding of the context and the relationships established by the journalist. As a result of this complexity, no automated measurement procedures have yet been developed.</p> <p><strong><em>Example study:</em> </strong></p> <p>Humprecht (2016)</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p>Table 1. Study summary</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table class="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t l" style="width: 79px;"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l" style="width: 118px;"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l" style="width: 260px;"> <p><strong>Unit of Analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l" style="width: 116px;"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l r" style="width: 75px;"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l" style="width: 79px;"> <p>Humprecht (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t b l" style="width: 118px;"> <p><em>Content type:</em> Political routine-period news</p> <p><em>Outlet/ country:</em> 48 online news outlets from six countries (CH, DE, FR, IT, UK, US)</p> <p><em>Sampling period:</em> June – July 2012</p> <p><em>Sample size:</em> N = 1660</p> </td> <td class="t b l" style="width: 260px;"> <p><em>Unit of analysis:</em> Political news items (make reference to a political actor, e.g. politician, party, institution in headline, sub?headline, in first paragraph or in an accompanying visual)</p> <p>News items are all journalistic articles mentioned on the front page (‘first layer’ of the website) that are linked to the actual story (on second layer of website)</p> </td> <td class="t b l" style="width: 116px;"> <p>Not mentioned</p> <p>Rudimental mention (e.g. reference to previous events without explanation)</p> <p>Mentioned in detail (e.g. explanation of historical events, causes, etc.)</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="width: 75px;"> <p>Cohen’s kappa average ≥ 0.69</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Humprecht, E. (2016). Shaping Online News Performance. In <em>Palgrave Macmillan</em>. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56668-3</p> <p>McQuail, D. (1992). <em>Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest</em>. Sage Publications.</p> <p>Westerstahl, J. (1983). Objective news reporting: General premises. <em>Communication Research</em>, <em>10</em>, 403–424.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2k Critical analysis and comment (News Performance) 2020-07-20T21:50:06+02:00 Edda Humprecht edda.humprecht@ntnu.no <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Studies of critical analysis and comment are theoretically linked to news performance and the watchdog function of the media (Donsbach, 1995; McQuail, 1992). This construct is related to the normative expectation that the news media should critically analyze and comment on cases of abuse of power, incompetence, failures and grievances in government institutions, non-profit organizations, or the private sector (Downie &amp; Schudson, 2009).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>The analysis of critical reporting and comment is complex and requires an understanding of the context and the references made by the journalist. Furthermore, it is empirically demanding to distinguish between critical reporting in the sense of the watchdog function and criticism in the sense of negativity or sensationalism (Humprecht, 2016). Due to this complexity, automated approaches have hardly been employed so far.</p> <p><strong><em>Example studies:</em></strong></p> <p>Benson (2010); Humprecht (2016)</p> <p>Table 1. Study summaries</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="100%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Unit of Analysis</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t l r"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t l"> <p>Benson (2010)</p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><em>Content type: </em>immigration news coverage (all articles focused on broad immigration trends, policy making and politics, or individual immigrants)</p> <p><em>Outlet/ country:</em> 14 newspapers from two countries (FR, US)</p> <p><em>Sampling period:</em> 1991/1994; 2002/2004; 2006)</p> <p><em>Sample size: </em>N= 1088</p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p><em>Unit of analysis: </em>critical statements in news articles (from sources/ journalists)</p> <p>Critical statements are classified according to their target, substantive focus, and sources</p> <p>Target (government; dominant left parties; dominant right parties; minor political parties; civil society organizations; business; foreign or international organizations)</p> <p>Focus (administrative, character, truth, ideology, policy, and strategy)</p> </td> <td class="t l"> <p>Administrative criticism (e.g., corruption, incompetence, mismanagement)</p> <p>Truth criticism (e.g., evidence to demonstrate the falsity of claims)</p> <p>Character criticisms (e.g., attacks on personal characteristics of powerful individuals in public life)</p> <p>Policy criticism (e.g., logical coherence, feasibility, empirical justification, evidence supporting any pro- posed policy)</p> <p>Ideology criticism (e.g., criticisms of fascism, racism, sexism, other worldviews)</p> <p>Strategy criticisms (negative assessments of effectiveness of a particular idea/ action; normative criticisms of political strategies)</p> </td> <td class="t l r"> <p>Holsti <em>M </em>= 0.85</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t l b"> <p>Humprecht (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t l b"> <p><em>Content type:</em> Political routine-period online news</p> <p><em>Outlet/ country:</em> 48 online news outlets from six countries (CH, DE, FR, IT, UK, US)</p> <p><em>Sampling period:</em> June – July 2012</p> <p><em>Sample size:</em> N = 1660</p> </td> <td class="t l b"> <p><em>Unit of analysis:</em> Political news items (make reference to a political actor, e.g. politician, party, institution in headline, sub?headline, in first paragraph or in an accompanying visual)</p> </td> <td class="t l b"> <p>Story shows critical perspective towards authorities/power holders</p> <p>Story raises probing questions at actors responsible for a problem</p> <p>Story discovers new, previously unknown information about a problem of social/political relevance; story may unveil a ‘scandal’</p> </td> <td class="t l b r"> <p>Cohen’s kappa:</p> <p>critical perspective = 0.74</p> <p>probing questions = 0.67</p> <p>unveiling scandals = 0.81</p> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Benson, R. (2010). What Makes for a Critical Press? A Case Study of French and U.S. Immigration News Coverage. <em>The International Journal of Press/Politics</em>, <em>15</em>(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161209349346</p> <p>Donsbach, W. (1995). Lapdogs, Watchdogs and Junkyard Dogs. <em>Media Studies Journal</em>, <em>Fall 1995</em>, 17–30.</p> <p>Downie, L., &amp; Schudson, M. (2009). <em>The Reconstruction of American Journalism</em>.</p> <p>Humprecht, E. (2016). Shaping Online News Performance. In <em>Palgrave Macmillan</em>. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56668-3</p> <p>McQuail, D. (1992). <em>Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest</em>. Sage Publications.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2708 Institutional references (European/Global Public Sphere) 2021-04-25T12:57:00+02:00 Dennis Lichtenstein dennis.lichtenstein@oeaw.ac.at <p>The variable “institutional references” refers to international institutions which are mentioned in the coverage of national media outlets. International institutions can be related to the EU (e.g., the European Commission, the European Parliament) or other transnational communities (e.g., the NATO for the transatlantic community). Studies using the variable “institutional references” aim to compare the share of mentions of transnational and national institutions and search for differences between countries and/or an increase of references over time. The variable has been measured in analyses on quality and the popular press and in single country studies as well as in comparative research. It is usually coded on the level of articles. Some studies consider headlines or the articles’ first paragraph only.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></p> <p>The variable “institutional references” is used to analyze the monitoring of transnational governance in national media outlets. It is one indicator for the vertical transnationalization of the public sphere (Koopmans &amp; Erbe, 2004; Trenz, 2004; Wessler et al., 2008).</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></p> <p>Research on vertical transnationalization of the public sphere has been combined with qualitative studies on editorial processes and interviews with journalists (Hepp et al., 2012). The aim is to gain a deeper understanding of which editorial processes and which occasions drive EU coverage.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Example studies:</strong></p> <p>Wessler et al. (2008); Hepp et al. (2016)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Wessler et al., 2008</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Hartmut Wessler, Bernhard Peters, Michael Brüggemann, Katharina Kleinen-von Königslöw, Stefanie Sifft</p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Comparison of the transnationalization of public spheres in six countries</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>National quality newspapers, popular press, regional papers</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis: </strong>1982–2013</p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Institutional references</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Hepp et al., 2016</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Andreas Hepp, Monika Elsler, Swantje Lingenberg, Anne Mollen, Johanna Möller, Anke Offerhaus</p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Comparison of the transnationalization of public spheres in six countries</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>National quality newspapers, popular press, regional papers</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis: </strong>1982–2013</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> Institutional references</p> <p>“What international institutions were mentioned in the article? Institutions were coded, but concepts were not; for example the euro is not an institution. If the reference occurred in the header or the first paragraph of the article, it was coded as a <em>primary institutional reference</em>. Up to three primary institutional references could be coded per article. All international institutions that were mentioned in an article but had not already been coded as primary institutional references were coded as <em>secondary institutional refences</em>. Up to five secondary institutional references could be coded per article.” (Wessler et al., 2008, p. 212)</p> <p>01 European Union in general (EU)</p> <p>02 European Commission</p> <p>03 European Council</p> <p>04 Council of the European Union</p> <p>05 European Parliament</p> <p>06 European Court of Justice</p> <p>07 European Central Bank</p> <p>08 other EU institutions</p> <p>09 EU Intergovernmental Conference</p> <p>10 EU Convention</p> <p>11 NATO</p> <p>12 OECD</p> <p>13 GATT/WTO</p> <p>14 UN</p> <p>15 UN Security Council</p> <p>16 UN World Conference</p> <p>17 Bretton Wood Institutions (World Bank, IMF)</p> <p>18 Commonwealth</p> <p>19 West European Union (WEU)</p> <p>20 CSCE/OSCE (Conference/Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe)</p> <p>21 European Court of Human Rights</p> <p>22 EFTA</p> <p>23 EEC</p> <p>25 Warsaw Pact</p> <p>997 Other institutions – please specify!</p> <p>998 Unclear</p> <p>999 Not applicable</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Article</p> <p><strong>Scale level: </strong>Nominal<strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Kappa 0.79</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Hepp, A., Elsler, M., Lingenberg, S., Mollen, A., Möller, J., Offerhaus, A. (2016). The <em>Communicative Construction of Europe. Cultures of Political Discourse, Public Sphere and the Euro Crisis</em>. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.</p> <p>Wessler, H., Peters, B., Brüggemann, M., Kleinen-von Königslöw, K., Sifft, S. (2008). <em>Transnationalization of Public Spheres</em>. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.</p> 2021-04-25T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2709 Speakers (European/Global Public Sphere) 2021-04-25T13:03:14+02:00 Dennis Lichtenstein dennis.lichtenstein@oeaw.ac.at <p>In research on the transnationalization of the public sphere, speakers are coded in claim analysis (Adam, 2007; Koopmans &amp; Statham, 2010) and in research on European identity (Lichtenstein &amp; Eilders, 2015, 2019). Speakers are politicians, societal actors or journalists who are given voice in a news story. In claim analyses, a speaker directs, for instance, a thematic demand or decision towards another actor. In research on European identity, speakers address an EU frame in a news story. The variable “speaker” provides a broad categorization of the first or most important speaker in an article. He or she is more precisely classified using further variables which target the actors’ degree of organization, his or her country of origin and his or her more detailed function within the EU or other international institutions.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></p> <p>In research on the transnationalization of the public sphere, speakers are coded to measure interactions between countries (horizontal transnationalization) and to analyze the extent to which EU actors get a voice in the coverage of national media outlets (vertical transnationalization). They are also coded to analyze to which extent civil society actors are heard compared to politicians. The share of EU and international speakers differs between countries, media outlets, and policy fields. In research on European identity the variable additionally enables to differentiate between the kinds of speakers who are given a voice in the collective construction of European identity.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></p> <p>Content analyses that examine the claims of speakers in transnational public spheres has been combined with interview studies with journalists, politicians, and interest groups (Koopmans &amp; Statham, 2010).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Example study:</strong></p> <p>Koopmans &amp; Statham (2010)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Koopmans &amp; Statham, 2010</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Ruud Koopmans, Paul Statham</p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Analysis of the visibility of the EU level in the transnational public sphere, the inclusiveness of public demands, and public contestation regarding EU decision making</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>National quality newspapers, popular press, regional papers from seven countries</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis: </strong>1990–2002</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> speakers</p> <p>“If a claim has more than one actor (e.g., a coalition), the following priority rules apply: 1) actors mentioned in the article as 'leaders', 'organizers', 'spokespersons', etc. have priority, unless, of course, they do not make any claims; 2) organizations, institutions or representatives thereof (e.g., 'National Organization of Peasants') have priority over unorganized collectivities or individuals (e.g., 'peasants', 'farmer X'); 3) active actors or speakers have priority over passive audiences/rank-and-file participants (e.g., if a party representative addresses a crowd at a peace rally, the party representative has priority). If there are several actors or no actor at all who have priority according to these three criteria, the order in which they are mentioned in the article decides (with, again, the main headline as the start of the article). If of one physical actor two functions are mentioned, the highest level capacity in terms of the scope variable (see below) is coded. E.g., if the article says “Portuguese prime minister and current Chair of the EU Presidency Guttierez” would be code as “EU presidency” even if Portuguese prime minister would be mentioned first. However, the precondition would be that the EU presidency function is really mentioned in the article - that you know that the Portuguese prime minister is present Chair of the Council is not decisive, it should be explicitly mentioned. (…) Only if two capacities are at the same scope level the rule is that the first mentioned is coded.”</p> <p class="p1">(Haunss &amp; Kohlmorgen, 2008, p. 18;</p> <p class="p2"><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236346735_Codebook_for_the_Analysis_of_Political_Claims_in_Conflicts_on_Intellectual_Property_Rights_in_Europe"><span class="s1">https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236346735_Codebook_for_the_Analysis_of_Political_Claims_in_Conflicts_on_Intellectual_Property_Rights_in_Europe</span></a><span class="s2">; in Anlehnung an Koopmans, 2002)</span></p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Claim</p> <p><strong>Scale level:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>84%</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Koopmans, R. &amp; Statham, P. (2010) (Eds.). <em>The Making of a European Public Sphere</em>. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</p> 2021-04-25T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2707 EU identity frame (European/Global Public Sphere) 2021-04-25T12:51:39+02:00 Dennis Lichtenstein dennis.lichtenstein@oeaw.ac.at <p>The variable “EU identity frame” is used to analyze the content of collective European identity as it is constructed in media discourses. An EU frame establishes an understanding of the EU as a certain kind of community (e.g., political community, common market, community with political values). Identity frames are indicated by statements on general objectives, norms and/or historic aspects of the EU. For example, the frame that addresses the EU as a currency union is characterized by the objective to be economically strong and competitive and to uphold the norm of fiscal stability. The variable is usually combined with the coding of the evaluation of an identity frame as support for the EU as a specific kind of community or its rejection. Since one media piece can entail several EU identity frames, addressed by different speakers, EU identity frames have been taken as the coding unit in content analyses.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></p> <p>The variable “EU identity frame” is used in comparative research on the construction of collective European identity in media outlets (Lichtenstein, 2016; Lichtenstein &amp; Eilders, 2015, 2019). Identity is understood as a sense of belonging and togetherness. It is analyzed in the context of conflicts and crises within the EU, when identity should provide a basis for the legitimacy of EU governance and transnational solidarity. Differences in the framing of European identity between countries indicate conflicts that are related to different political and economic objectives or a different understanding of European values and culture. In contrast, a shared understanding of European identity between countries provides orientation for political decisions. In its theoretical foundation, the coding of EU frames has some parallels to the coding of thematic frames on conflict events in research on horizontal transnationalization of the public sphere.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></p> <p>The framing of European identity can also be analyzed with surveys in media effect studies.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Example study:</strong></p> <p>Lichtenstein &amp; Eilders (2019)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Lichtenstein &amp; Eilders, 2019</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Dennis Lichtenstein, Christiane Eilders </p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Conflicts in the framing of European identity between countries during the Euro crisis</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Weekly quality papers from Germany, France, and the UK</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis: </strong>2011–2014</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>EU Frame</p> <p>„Grundlegend für diese Variable ist die Frage, was Europa ist oder sein soll. Hier wird erhoben, welche Idee von Europa in einer Aussage aktualisiert wird. Diese Idee kann direkt vom Sprecher ausgedrückt werden und zwar entweder durch ein direktes oder indirektes Zitat oder durch die Beschreibung einer aktiven Handlung des Sprechers, die Qualitäten einer Meinungsäußerung aufweist. Außerdem kann eine Europaidee durch das Verhältnis zwischen Europa und einem BZO (Bezugsobjekt) aufgezeigt werden. Hier zeigt sich die Konsistenz des BZO zu der Europaidee: Die Beziehung zwischen dem BZO und der Europaidee kann in einem konformen oder in einem konflikthaften Verhältnis stehen. Z.B. ist die Aussage, „die Türkei passt nicht zum europäischen Wertegefüge“ auf die Idee von Europa als Wertgemeinschaft bezogen und nur in diesem Verständnis wird hier ein konflikthaftes Verhältnis zur Türkei behauptet.“ (Lichtenstein, 2014)</p> <p>This variable is related to the question of what Europe is or should be according to a speaker’s statement. This idea of Europe can be expressed directly by the speaker, either by a direct or indirect quotation, or by the description of an active action of the speaker that has qualities of an expression of opinion. An idea of Europe can be expressed through the relationship between Europe and a BZO (reference object). Here the consistency of the BZO to the idea of Europe is evident: the relationship between the BZO and the idea of Europe can be either conformist or conflictual. For example, the statement that "Turkey does not fit to the European values" refers to Europe as a community of values, and it is only in this understanding that a conflictual relationship with Turkey is asserted here.</p> <p> </p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>EU frames</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Coded EU sub frames</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Political integration:</p> <p> EU as a federation</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Strongly politically integrated community</p> <p>Community with a common constitution</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Political integration:</p> <p>EU as a confederation</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Loosely connected community of sovereign nation states</p> <p>Community of states with equal power</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Market regulations:</p> <p>EU as an authority for market regulations</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Market intervention by the EU</p> <p>Community with a common economic, finance and tax law</p> <p>Economic solidarity between states with strong and weak economies</p> <p>European social policy</p> <p>European environmental and energy policy</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Market regulations:</p> <p>EU as a free market</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>EU as a market in competition with other big players</p> <p>EU as a free trade area with competition and labor migration</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Finance policy:</p> <p>Economic growth</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Investments for economic growth in the EU and in crisis countries</p> <p>Financial solidarity</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Finance policy:</p> <p>Finance stability</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Financial stability in the Euro zone</p> <p>Austerity politics to foster budged discipline in EU countries</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Common political values</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Democracy as a European value</p> <p>Peace as a European value</p> <p>Solidarity with other EU countries</p> <p>Rule of law</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Currency Union</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Euro zone as an economically strong and competitive currency union</p> <p>Fiscal stability in the Eurozone</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Cultural community</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Common European history and mythology</p> <p>EU countries connected by religion</p> <p>Education and arts</p> <p>Diversity of cultures in Europa and encounters with people from different European cultures</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Community with a common foreign policy</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Common engagement and interests in foreign policy</p> <p>Common military and defense policy</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>EU as a geographic entity</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Legitimate EU borders equals the borders of the European continent</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> EU frame</p> <p><strong>Scale level:</strong> Nominal</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Krippendorff’s Alpha = .75</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Lichtenstein, D. &amp; Eilders, C. (2019). Lost in uncertainty. How the Euro crisis affected European identity constructions in national media discourses. <em>International Communication Gazette, 81</em>(6–8), 602–622.</p> 2021-04-25T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2g Personalization (Election Campaign Coverage) 2020-07-20T20:53:55+02:00 Melanie Leidecker-Sandmann leidecker-sandmann@kit.edu <p>The term personalization refers to a news factor and to a tendency of media coverage. Personalization as a news factor means that topics and events, where individuals act respectively are affected by actions or events are more likely to become news than topics and events that cannot be portrayed as actions of individuals. A personalized reporting style puts destinies of individuals (and celebrities) in the foreground and/or connects topics and events on personal stories of individuals. As a tendency of media coverage, personalization means an increasing orientation towards (prominent) people (e.g., Blöbaum, 2013; Galtung &amp; Ruge, 1965; Handstein, 2016).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Personalization is widely analyzed in communication science. Probably most often personalization (as a news factor) is analyzed in news value studies respectively studies that analyze journalistic news selection criteria. Furthermore, personalization as a concept is a considerable issue in political communication research. Here, personalization means that, on the one hand, individual politicians (for example election campaign candidates) are becoming increasingly important in the context of political communication (e.g., Rahat &amp; Sheafer, 2007; Van Aelst et al., 2012), whereas less emphasis is being placed on parties, political institutions and/or political issues and content. This form of personalization is also referred to as ‘individualization’. On the other hand, personalization also means that, in order to describe and evaluate individual politicians, apolitical characteristics, i.e., their personal characteristics and their personal life, are becoming increasingly relevant in political communication and election coverage. This aspect is also known as ‘privatization’ (e.g., Adam &amp; Maier, 2010; Kriesi, 2012; Van Aelst et al., 2012). In principle, personalization can be analyzed in almost all subject areas, for example also in science communication, sports coverage and many more.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>The analysis of personalization in media coverage may be combined or compared with (quantitative and/or qualitative) journalist surveys on news selection and processing. Furthermore, input-output-analyses (for example by comparing press releases and media coverage) are possible as well as experimental studies that analyze the potential effects of a personalized style of news coverage on recipients.</p> <p><strong><em>Example:</em></strong></p> <p>The concept of personalization lacks an agreed-upon operationalization. Van Aelst et al. (2012) review relevant studies <em>in the field of political communication research</em> and make some recommendations for how the concept might be operationalized for content analyses of, for example, election (campaign) coverage. These recommendations are cited below.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Coding instructions (direct quotation) by Van Aelst et al. (2012, pp. 219-220):</em></p> <p><strong>Individualization</strong></p> <p><u>General visibility (shift from parties to individual politicians)</u></p> <p>The relative attention for politicians compared to the total amount of attention for political actors (politicians vs parties; government ministers vs the government).</p> <p>Attention scores: count the total number of references to individual politicians (or candidates, ministers) and parties (government) within the unit of analysis (e.g. article, paragraph, and sentence):</p> <p>1 How many times is a political party (or government, institution) mentioned within the unit of analysis?</p> <p>2 How many times is a politician mentioned within the unit of analysis?</p> <p>Additional similar categories can be inserted if the researcher is interested in several specific politicians, parties, institutions or types of politicians, parties or institutions. Note that the total number of references to a certain actor can easily be reduced to binary codes (presence or absence).</p> <p><u>Concentrated visibility (shift from parties to leaders)</u></p> <p>The relative attention on leaders compared to the total amount of attention on political actors (leaders vs parties; PM/President vs government).</p> <p>Attention scores: count the total number of references to party leaders (or candidates for highest position, PM/President) and parties (government) within the unit of analysis. The coding category of leaders is similar to that of other politicians, but it refers to leaders.</p> <p><strong>Privatization</strong></p> <p><u>The characteristics of politicians</u></p> <p>We have argued for the inclusion of the following set of characteristics in personalization studies: competence, leadership, credibility, morality, rhetorical skills, and candidates’ appearance. Each characteristic has two coding categories: one allows coding the unit of analysis as presenting the characteristic as political (the characteristic is presented in a political context or not); and a second category allows coding it as presenting the characteristic as personal (the characteristic is presented in a personal context or not). The political context refers to all statements and actions made in the political arena (e.g. in parliament, on campaign, during EU-summit) or explicitly related to the public role of the politician. The personal context refers to all statements and actions made outside the political arena (e.g. on vacation, at a family gathering) or experiences before going into politics.</p> <p>1 Is the characteristic of ‘competence’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a political context? For example: the leader does not understand the office he or she is responsible for. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>2 Is the characteristic of ‘competence’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a personal context? For example: the leader is a poor mother or father. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>3 Is the characteristic of ‘leadership’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a political context? For example: the leader failed to rally his or her party behind him or her. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>4 Is the characteristic of ‘leadership’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a personal context? For example: was the leader seen as a natural person in command in his/her youth by classmates. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>5 Is the characteristic of ‘credibility’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a political context? For example: a broken promise by the candidate in the previous elections, say on lower taxes. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>6 Is the characteristic of ‘credibility’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a personal context? For example: the leader is criticized by a family member for not keeping his or her promises to spend more time with his/her family. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>7 Is the characteristic of ‘morality’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a political context? For example: an investigation against the leader for accepting bribes or undermining the career of a rival. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>8 Is the characteristic of ‘morality’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a personal context? For example: the leader was caught cheating on his or her spouse. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>9 Is the characteristic of ‘rhetorical skills’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a political context? For example: a reference to a great speech by the leader in parliament. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>10 Is the characteristic of ‘rhetorical skills’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a personal context? For example: a reference to a great speech by the leader in a private ceremony or to one made before he or she entered politics. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>11 Is the characteristic of ‘appearance’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a political context? For example: a reference to the ‘presidential appearance’ of the candidate. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>12 Is the characteristic of ‘appearance’ mentioned within the unit of analysis in a personal context? For example: a reference to the past of the leader as a winner of a beauty pageant. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>Categories can be repeated for specific parties, institutions and politicians.</p> <p><u>Personal life of politicians</u></p> <p>Does the unit of analysis contain references to one of these indicators:</p> <p><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">1 Family life. This includes family relationships and all aspects of domestic life. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</span></p> <p><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">2 Past life or upbringing. This includes all biographical information. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</span></p> <p>3 Leisure time. This includes all information on hobbies, vacations, and recreational activities. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>4 Love life. This includes all information on sexual relationships, marriage and divorce. (1 = no; 2 = yes)</p> <p>This list can of course vary according to indicators selected. It is possible to code these indicators at the level of a specific politician (e.g. for the two main candidates).</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Adam, S. &amp; Maier, M. (2010). Personalization of politics: A critical review and agenda for research. <em>Communication Yearbook</em>, 34(1), 213-257. DOI: 10.1080/23808985.2010.11679101</p> <p>Blöbaum, B. (2013). Personalisierung. In G. Bentele, H.-B. Brosius, &amp; O. Jarren (Eds.), <em>Lexikon Kommunikations- und Medienwissenschaft</em> (2., überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage) (p. 367). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.</p> <p>Galtung, J., &amp; Ruge, M.H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64-91.</p> <p>Handstein, H. (2016). Personalisierung. <em>Journalistikon. Das Wörterbuch der Journalistik</em>. Retrieved March 27, 2020, from http://journalistikon.de/personalisierung/</p> <p>Kriesi, H. (2012). Personalization of national election campaigns. <em>Party Politics</em>, <em>18</em>(6), 825-844.</p> <p>Rahat, G., &amp; Sheafer, T. (2007). The personalization(s) of politics: Israel, 1949-2003. <em>Political Communication</em>, 24, 65-80.</p> <p>Van Aelst, P., Sheafer, T., &amp; Stanyer, J. (2012). The personalization of mediated political communication: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. <em>Journalism</em>, 13(2), 203-220.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2e Horse-race coverage (Election Campaign Coverage) 2020-10-19T17:55:29+02:00 Melanie Leidecker-Sandmann leidecker-sandmann@kit.edu <p>The term horse-race coverage refers to one of the most prominent types of election coverage (e.g., Schmuck et al., 2017) that strongly focuses on winners and losers (who is ahead?). Typically, it is related to opinion polls and/or election outcomes. Quite often also “a language of war or games to describe the campaign” (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 167) is involved in this kind of news stories, although – in a narrow sense – this aspect does not seem to be an essential part of the concept of horse-race coverage (e.g., Banducci &amp; Hanretty, 2014). Regarding the conceptual definitions, a development in the terminology may be noticed: “The original horse race news became part of the game frame which was later discussed as part of the strategy frame.” (Aalberg et al., 2012, p. 166) In other words, the term ‘game frame’ is sometimes used synonymously with ‘horse-race’ coverage (although some scholars discuss whether these concepts can actually be used synonymously; e.g., Banducci &amp; Hanretty, 2014; de Vreese 2005; Valentino et al., 2001).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Horse-race coverage is a very popular concept that is analyzed in research on the media coverage of politics, especially in times of elections and election campaigns.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection</strong></em></p> <p>The analysis of horse-race coverage may be combined or compared with opinion polls and election outcomes. Furthermore, experimental studies that analyze potential effects of the horse-race coverage on recipients (e.g., political cynicism) exist (e.g., Lavrakas et al., 1991; Valentino et al., 2001).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Example</strong></em></p> <p>Although often analyzed, the operationalization of horse-race coverage in quantitative content analyses differs. Aalberg et al. (2012) review existing concepts and operationalizations and provide a set of coding instructions, which are cited below.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Coding instructions (direct quotation) by Aalberg et al. (2012, p. 177):</em></p> <p><u>Game frame [respectively horse-race coverage]</u></p> <p><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">1 Does the story deal with opinion polls and politicians’ or parties’ standing in the polls?</span></p> <p>This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes.</p> <p>Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once mentions opinion polls and the standing of political parties or individual candidates in these. Coders should also type 1 if the news story includes references to generic ‘polls’ or ‘the opinion’ and the standing of political parties or candidates according to ‘polls’ or ‘the opinion’. Otherwise coders should type 0.</p> <p><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">2 Does the story deal with politicians, parties or other actors in relation to potential election outcomes and/or coalitions/government formation?</span></p> <p>This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes.</p> <p>Coders should type 1 if the news story reports or speculates about election results or government/coalition formations. Otherwise coders should type 0.</p> <p><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">3 Does the story deal with politicians, parties or other actors winning or losing (elections, debates or in general)?</span></p> <p>This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes.</p> <p>Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once refers to whether politicians, parties or other actors are winning or losing with respect to elections, debates or in general. Otherwise coders should type 0.</p> <p><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">4 Does the story make use of a language of sports or war?</span></p> <p>This variable has two codes: 0 = no, 1 = yes.</p> <p>Coders should type 1 if the news story at least once makes use of a language of sports and war, such as battle, competition, winning, or fight. Only exempted expression is ‘campaign’. Otherwise coders should type 0.</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Aalberg, T., Strömbäck, J., &amp; de Vreese, C.H. (2012). The framing of politics as strategy and game: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. <em>Journalism</em>, 13(2), 162-178.</p> <p>Banducci, S., &amp; Hanretty, C. (2014). Comparative determinants of horse-race coverage. <em>European Political Science Review</em>, 6(4), 621-640.</p> <p>de Vreese C.H. (2005). The Spiral of Cynicism reconsidered. <em>European Journal of Communication</em>, 20(3), 283–301.</p> <p>Lavrakas, P.J., Holley, J.K., &amp; Miller, P.V. (1991). Public reactions to polling news during the 1988 presidential election campaign. In P.J. Lavrakas, &amp; J.K. Holley (Eds.). <em>Polling and presidential election coverage</em> (pp. 151-183). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.</p> <p>Schmuck, D., Heiss, R., Matthes, J., Engesser, S., &amp; Esser, F. (2017). Antecedents of strategic game framing in political news coverage. <em>Journalism</em>, 18(8), 937-955.</p> <p>Valentino, N.A., Beckmann, M.N., &amp; Buhr, T.A. (2001). A spiral of cynicism for some: The contingent effects of campaign news frames on participation and confidence in government. <em>Political Communication</em>, 18(4), 347–367.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2f Negativity (Election Campaign Coverage) 2020-07-20T20:53:08+02:00 Melanie Leidecker-Sandmann leidecker-sandmann@kit.edu <p>The term negativity in communication science refers to a news factor and to a tendency of media coverage. To put it simply, negativity as a news factor means that negative events (like controversies, conflicts, aggression, damage and so on) or so-called ‘bad news’ is more newsworthy than good ones (e.g., Galtung &amp; Ruge, 1965). However, negativity is quite a complex concept and it is defined differently in research depending on the focus of the study. Lengauer et al. (2011) differentiate between actor-related and frame-related dimensions of negativity. At the ‘actor level’, negativity describes the tonality directed towards individual actors (for example political representatives or their organizations) in media coverage. At the ‘frame-related level’, negativity describes, for example, the overall tonality of the news story (predominantly negative), a pessimistic outlook in the story and/or a story focus on conflict or incapability and misconduct (Lengauer et al., 2011, pp. 183-185).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Negativity is widely analyzed in communication studies. The focus of this article lies on negativity in election (campaign) coverage. Furthermore, negativity (as a news factor) is often analyzed in news value studies respectively studies that analyze journalistic news selection criteria, in news bias studies as well as in video/media malaise or framing research (and others).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>The analysis of negativity in media coverage may be combined or compared with journalist and population surveys (for example in news value studies or in framing research) as well as with so called “extra media data” (Rosengren, 1970, p. 96) (for example in news bias research). Furthermore, experimental studies that analyze the potential effects of a negative tonality of news coverage on recipients are possible.</p> <p><em><strong>Example:</strong></em></p> <p>The concept of negativity lacks an agreed-upon operationalization. Lengauer et al. (2011) review and systematize existing concepts and provide a set of coding instructions, which are cited below. Regarding the coding unit, Lengauer et al. (2011) suggest that coding should focus on the story level (instead of statement or paragraph level).</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Coding instructions (direct quotation) by Lengauer et al. (2011, pp. 195-197):</em></p> <p><u>Level of negative tone towards political actors (persons or institutions)</u></p> <p>Does the report convey primarily a positive/affirmative, negative/critical or balanced/neutral impression of a specific political actor or are no clear indications referring to the positive or negative tone towards political actors identifiable?</p> <p>Indications of a prevalent negative tone toward a specific political actor are depictions of individual failure, fiasco, disaster, crisis, frustration, miscarriage, collapse, flop, rejection, neglect, default, defeat, deterioration, resignation, disdain, received critique, criticism, attacks, scandal, moralizing accusation, allegations of misconduct, charge of wrongdoing, mistrust, accusation of incompetence or negative traits. Indications of a prevalent positive tone toward a political actor are depictions of individual victory, win, triumph, success, achievement, accomplishment, problem solutions, improvement, advance, prosperity, laudation, asset, sustainability, commendation, accordance of competence, compliment, portrayals of merit, esteem, trust or positive traits. If a report does not reflect indications of negative tonality or of positive tonality towards the specific actor, then it has to be coded as ‘neutral’.</p> <p>The variable has three codes:</p> <p>-1 = predominantly negative tone towards the actor</p> <p>0 = balanced/ambivalent/neutral tone towards the actor</p> <p>+1 = predominantly positive tone towards the actor</p> <p><u>Level of negative tonality</u></p> <p>What is the overall tone of the story? Does the report convey primarily a positive, negative, balanced or neutral impression of politics, political records, conditions or views?</p> <p>Indications of negative tonality are the framing of the story as political failure, fiasco, disaster, crisis, frustration, collapse, flop, denial, rejection, neglect, default, deterioration, resignation, skepticism, threats, cynicism, defeatism or disappointment. Indications of positive tonality are depictions of political success, problem solutions, achievement, improvement, advance, prosperity, accomplishment, enthusiasm, hope, benefit, gain, sustainability, gratification or accomplishment. If a report does not reflect indications of negative tonality or of positive tonality, then it has to be coded as ‘neutral’.</p> <p>The variable has three codes:</p> <p>-1 = predominantly negative tonality</p> <p>0 = balanced/ambivalent/neutral</p> <p>+1 = predominantly positive tonality</p> <p><u>Level of pessimistic outlook</u></p> <p>Does the story convey primarily optimistic, pessimistic or balanced outlooks on politics or are no indications referring to political outlooks identifiable?</p> <p>An optimistic depiction is given when the framing of the report generates the intersubjective impression that positive developments in politics are realistic, possible, or at hand (depictions of optimism, positive outlooks and scenarios, hopeful views, prosperous developments, potential gains, potential solutions or promising expectations). In contrast, pessimistic depictions are given when the framing of the report generates the impression that negative developments in politics are realistic, possible, likely or at hand (depictions of pessimism, negative outlooks and scenarios, hopeless views, critical developments, negative expectations or potential threats). If a report does not reflect indications of pessimistic or of optimistic outlooks, then it has to be coded as ‘not applicable’.</p> <p>The variable has three codes:</p> <p>-1 = predominantly pessimistic outlook</p> <p>0 = balanced/ambivalent/not applicable</p> <p>+1 = predominantly optimistic outlook</p> <p><u>Level of conflict-centeredness</u></p> <p>Does the report convey primarily conflictual, consensus-centered or balanced impressions of politics, political records, conditions and views or are no indications referring to political conflict and consensus identifiable?</p> <p>The conflict dimension refers to at least two-sided depictions of (attempts, initiation, completion of) dispute, disagreement, discordance, confrontation, clashing positions and views or controversy. The consensus dimension refers to at least two-sided depictions of (attempts, initiation, completion of) consensus, accordance, consonance, conformities, dispute settlements, agreement, willingness of cooperation, willingness to compromise, approval or reconciliation. If a report does not reflect indications of conflict-centered or of consensus-centered depictions, then it has to be coded as ‘not applicable’.</p> <p>The variable has three codes:</p> <p>-1 = predominantly conflict centered</p> <p>0 = balanced/ambivalent/not applicable</p> <p>+1 = predominantly consensus centered</p> <p><u>Level of incapability and misconduct</u></p> <p>Does the report convey primarily indications of incapability, capability or balanced impressions of politics or are no elements referring to political incapability and capability identifiable?</p> <p>The misconduct dimension refers to unidirectional and unilateral depictions of critique, criticism, attacks, allegations of misconduct, moralizing accusations, charge of wrongdoing, accusation of incapability or incompetence, affronts and insults. The competence dimension comprises unilateral depictions of commendation, accordance of capability or competence, compliment, acclaim, portrayals of merit or effectiveness. If a report does not reflect indications of incapability or of capability, then it has to be coded as ‘not applicable’.</p> <p>The variable has three codes:</p> <p>-1 = predominantly incapability centered</p> <p>0 = balanced/ambivalent/not applicable</p> <p>+1 = predominantly capability centered</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Galtung, J., &amp; Ruge, M.H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 64-91.</p> <p>Lengauer, G., Esser, F., &amp; Berganza, R. (2011). Negativity in political news: A review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. <em>Journalism</em>, 13(2), 179-202.</p> <p>Rosengren, K. E. (1970). International News: Intra and Extra Media Data. <em>Acta Sociologica</em>, <em>13</em>(2), 96-109.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2n Visual deductive conflict frame (War Coverage) 2020-07-21T16:29:54+02:00 Marc Jungblut marc.jungblut@ifkw.lmu.de <p>This variable describes how a war is depicted in the photos published by a news organization. It thereby suggests what interpretation or perspective on a war is promoted through the visual layer of news discourse. Visual frame analyses of war coverage have largely relied on deductive analyses. As such, studies measure frames that have been derived from the existing literature or small pilot studies (cf. Jungblut &amp; Zakareviciute, 2019). Some of these deductive frames have been applied in multiple studies that are focused on a variety of conflict cases (e.g. Schwalbe, 2013; Schwalbe &amp; Dougherty, 2015).</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Visual frame analysis is grounded in the framing approach that describes a media frame as the result of a journalistic process of selecting some aspects of a given social reality and making them more salient than others (Entman, 1993). As such, visual framing is often measured to analyze how a war is depicted in the news. Research thus aims to unravel what image of a war is transported to the audience and thereby seeks to understand if there is a bias towards one of the involved conflict parties. As a result, visual frames usually tend to be conceptualized as the dependent variable within a research design (cf. Jungblut &amp; Zakareviciute, 2019; Schwalbe, 2013).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Experimental research designs have been used to analyze the effect of different visual frames. In this, research examines whether visual framing can affect recipients’ attitude towards conflict parties and whether frames can evoke an emotional response in the audience (Brantner, Lobinger &amp; Wetzstein, 2011).</p> <p><em><strong>Sample operationalization:</strong></em></p> <p>Please indicate which of these frames is present in the photo. In each photo, multiple frames can be present at the same time.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Description</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Measurement</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Conflict Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Depiction of the combatants, including weapons, troops, POWs, and combat</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Human Interest Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Depiction of noncombatants, such as civilians and humanitarian relief workers</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Violence of War Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Depiction of the results of conflict, such as injury, death, and destruction</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Anti-War Protest Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Depiction of anti-war demonstrations and protests</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Media Self-Reference Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Depiction of journalists at home and in the conflict zone</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Politicians Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Depiction of politicians and negotiations</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Looting Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Depiction of looting</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Oil Resources Frame</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Depiction of oil fields and refineries</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Schwalbe, 2013</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Carol B. Schwalbe</p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Visually Framing of the Iraq War in TIME, Newsweek, and U.S. News &amp; World Report</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Three News Magazines (TIME, Newsweek and U.S. News &amp; World Report)</p> <p><strong>timeframe of analysis: </strong>Time frame starts with the opening day of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq (March 19, 2003) and ended with the transfer of limited sovereignty to the provisional Iraqi government (June 28, 2004).</p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Deductive visual conflict frame</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Image</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>0 = absent, 1= present (for each of the described frames)</p> <p><strong>Scale: </strong>binary (nominal)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Brantner, C., Lobinger, K., &amp; Wetzstein, I. (2011). Effects of visual framing and evaluations of news stories on emotional responses about the Gaza conflict 2009. <em>Journalism &amp; Mass Communication Quarterly, 88</em>(3), 523-540. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769901108800304</p> <p>Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. <em>Journal of Communication, 43</em>(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x</p> <p>Jungblut, M., &amp; Zakareviciute, I. (2019). Do Pictures Tell a Different Story? A multimodal frame analysis of the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict<em>. Journalism Practice, 13</em>(2), 206-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2017.1412804</p> <p>Schwalbe, C. B. (2013). Visually framing the invasion and occupation of Iraq in Time, Newsweek, and US News &amp; World Report. <em>International Journal of Communication, 7</em>, 239-262. Doi: 1932–8036/20130005</p> <p>Schwalbe, C. B., &amp; Dougherty, S. M. (2015). Visual coverage of the 2006 Lebanon War: Framing conflict in three US news magazines. <em>Media, War &amp; Conflict, 8</em>(1), 141-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750635215571204</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2m Deductive conflict frame (War Coverage) 2020-07-21T16:29:18+02:00 Marc Jungblut marc.jungblut@ifkw.lmu.de <p>This variable describes how a war is framed in a news article. It suggests what interpretation or perspective on a war is promoted through a news item (Dimitrova &amp; Strömbäck, 2008; Entman, 1993). In general, there are two approaches to framing: Deductive frame analyses measure the presence of frames that were derived from prior research or small pilot studies, whereas inductive frame analyses derive the frames from the actual material itself. As such, the frames measured in inductive analyses tend to be case-specific and can rarely be used for other conflict cases and material (cf. Matthes &amp; Kohring, 2008). In deductive frame analyses, however, a set re-occurring frames has been identified and operationalized. They have been measured in the coverage of a variety of wars and in news items that were published in different media organizations (e.g. Carpenter, 2007; Dimitrova &amp; Strömbäck, 2005, 2008). These frames and their operationalizations will be described in the following example.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Frame analyses is grounded in the framing approach that describes a media frame as the result of a journalistic process of selecting some aspects of a given social reality and making them more salient in a given text (Entman, 1993). As such, framing is often measured to analyze how a war is portrayed in the news. In doing so, scholars mainly aim to identify media bias that for example can be the result of ethnocentrism, the editorial line, political influences or the predominant journalism culture (Baden, 2014; Jungblut, 2020; Shoemaker &amp; Reese, 2014). Consequentially, media frames are often regarded as the result of a specific working environment and are thus often conceptualized as a dependent variable (e.g. Carpenter, 2007; Dimitrova, 2006; Dimitrova &amp; Strömbäck, 2005, 2008). Alternatively, media frames can be understood as the independent variable if a study seeks to unravel whether the media holds an impact on the public opinion on a given war (e.g. Edy &amp; Meirick, 2007).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Frames that have repeatedly been identified in content analytical research have also been used in experimental research designs to unravel if the media portrayal of a war shapes how the audience thinks about this particular war (e.g. Iyengar &amp; Simon, 1993). Similarly, scholars have also combined content analyses with multiple waves of surveys to analyze whether the media, for example, influences the public support for conflict interventions (e.g. Edy &amp; Meirick, 2007).</p> <p><em><strong>Sample operationalization:</strong></em></p> <p>Please indicate which of these frames is present in the text. In each article, multiple frames can be present at the same time (Dimitrova &amp; Strömbäck, 2005).</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Description</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Measurement</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Military Conflict Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>There is an emphasis on the military conflict/action among individuals, groups, or institutions</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Human Interest Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>There is an emphasis on the human participants in the event</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Violence of War Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>There is an emphasis on injuries/causalities and the destruction or aftermath caused by war</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Anti-War Protest Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>There is an emphasis on the opposition to war</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Media Self-Reference Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>There is an emphasis on the news media and their reporting of war</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Responsibility Frame</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>There is an emphasis on the party/person responsible for the event, issue, or problem</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Diagnostic Frame</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>There is an emphasis on what caused the event or problem</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Prognostic Frame</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>There is an emphasis on the possible consequences of the event</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>0 = frame is absent</p> <p>1 = frame is present</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Carpenter, 2007</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Serena Carpenter</p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Portrayal of the Iraq War in Elite and Non-Elite newspapers</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Two elite newspapers (New York Times &amp; Washington Post) and four non-elite newspapers (San Antonio Express News, Roanoke Times, News Tribune and Columbus Dispatch)</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis: </strong>The study analyzes the framing in three phases: Invasion Phase (March 20, 2003, to May 1, 2003), final two months of the presidential campaign (September 1, 2004, to November 2,2004) &amp; period from the first Iraqi election to the Iraqi National Assembly's vote to approve a cabinet (January 30, 2005, to April 28, 2005)</p> <p><strong>Information on Dimitrova &amp; Strömbäck, 2005</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Daniela V. Dimitrova, Jesper Strömbäck</p> <p><strong>Research question/research interest: </strong>Framing of the Iraq War in the Elite Newspapers in Sweden and the United States</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Dagens Nyheter (Sweden) and The New York Times (United States)</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis: </strong>The study analyzes the framing during the invasion of Iraq (March 20, 2003, to May 1, 2003)</p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>Deductive conflict frame</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Article</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>0 = absent, 1= present (for each of the described frames)</p> <p><strong>Scale: </strong>binary (nominal)</p> <p><strong>Reliability:</strong> Holsti &gt; .88 (Dimitrova &amp; Strömbäck, 2005) - Scott's pi &gt; 0.86 (Carpenter, 2007)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Baden, C. (2014). Constructions of violent conflict in public discourse. Conceptual framework for the content &amp; discourse analytic perspective (within WP5, WP6, WP7, &amp; WP8). <em>INFOCORE Working Paper 2014/10.</em> <a href="http://www.infocore.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Conceptual-Paper-MWG-CA_final.pdf">http://www.infocore.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Conceptual-Paper-MWG-CA_final.pdf</a></p> <p>Carpenter, S. (2007). US elite and non-elite newspapers' portrayal of the Iraq War: A comparison of frames and source use. <em>Journalism &amp; Mass Communication Quarterly, 84</em>(4), 761-776. doi:10.1177/107769900708400407</p> <p>Dimitrova, D. V. (2006). Episodic frames dominate early coverage of Iraq War in the NYTimes.com. <em>Newspaper Research Journal, 27</em>(4), 79-83. https://doi.org/10.1177/073953290602700406</p> <p>Dimitrova, D. V., &amp; Strömbäck, J. (2005). Mission accomplished? Framing of the Iraq War in the elite newspapers in Sweden and the United States. <em>International Communication Gazette, 67</em>(5), 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016549205056050</p> <p>Dimitrova, D. V., &amp; Strömbäck, J. (2008). Foreign policy and the framing of the 2003 Iraq War in elite Swedish and US newspapers. <em>Media, War &amp; Conflict, 1</em>(2), 203-220. doi:10.1177/1750635208090957</p> <p>Edy, J. A., &amp; Meirick, P. C. (2007). Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 119-141. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00332_4.x</p> <p>Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. <em>Journal of Communication, 43</em>(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x</p> <p>Iyengar, S., &amp; Simon, A. (1993). News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. Communication research, 20(3), 365-383. doi:10.1177/009365093020003002</p> <p>Jungblut, M. (2020). <em>Strategic Communication and its Role in Conflict News: A Computational Analysis of the International News Coverage on Four Conflicts. </em>Springer Nature.</p> <p>Matthes, J., &amp; Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. <em>Journal of Communication, 58</em>(2), 258-279. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00384.x</p> <p>Shoemaker, P. J., &amp; Reese, S. D. (2014). <em>Mediating the message in the 21st century: a media sociology perspective </em>(Third edition. ed.). Routledge.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2u Key issue (Terrorism Coverage) 2020-08-06T16:35:14+02:00 Liane Rothenberger liane.rothenberger@ku.de Valerie Hase v.hase@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>“Key issue” describes the main issue or perspective an article focuses on when reporting on a news topic. There might be different key issues for the same topic: When reporting on terrorism, articles can for example concentrate on the incident itself, the perpetrator behind it, victims and/or political reactions to terrorism.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Key issues share similarities with other variables such as news “<u>frames</u>”, “issue salience” or “issue ownership” that also try to identify different perspectives for the same or different news topics. Therefore, studies based on “<u>Framing</u>” (Entman, 1993) work with similar variables to analyze what issues journalists focus on and many studies cited here use the concept of framing to identify key issues, for example Li (2007) or Zhang &amp; Hellmüller (2016).</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Studies for example combine content analysis and interviews with journalists to shed more light on dynamics and structures of terrorism coverage, including key issues (Larsen, 2019).</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Li (2007); Matthews (2016)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Li, 2007</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Li (2007)</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>How did television outlets frame 9/11 during the first 24 hours of coverage and how did this framing change over time?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>News coverage by five TV outlets (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX news)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>24 hours after attacks on September 9 2001 occurred</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition</strong>: Coverage frame: “The coverage frame is defined as the aspects of a perceived reality identified through a story that makes these aspects more salient in the news coverage” (Li, 2007, p. 676).</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: News story (TV)</p> <p><strong>Variables and values:</strong> Political coverage frame, economic coverage frame, criminal coverage frame, environment coverage frame, safety coverage frame, human interest coverage frame, religion coverage frame, disaster coverage frame, other coverage frame</p> <p><strong>Reliability: Scott’s pi:</strong> .8</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Matthews, 2016</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Matthews (2016)</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>How did newspapers react in the immediate aftermath of the London bombings 2005?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>News coverage by nine UK newspapers and their Sunday equivalents (The Star, The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, Daily Express, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian and The Independent)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>July 8 2005 to July 15 2005</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition</strong>: Story themes</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: News article</p> <p><strong>Variables and values:</strong> Reconstruction and reaction, bombers’ identities, police investigation, victims/the missing, heroism and survivors, London’s reaction</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Measurement of “Key Issue” in terrorism coverage.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table width="101%"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Manifestations</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Codebook</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>An et al. (2018)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Articles from terrorist websites</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>31 different key issues, ranging from terrorist attacks to their political consequences</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Average Holsti value for all pairwise comparisons: .66</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Du &amp; Li (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Online news articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>6 different key issues, including “description and updates of the incident itself”, “causes of the incident”, “consequences of the incident”, “conflicting viewpoint related to the incident”, “condemn the terrorist behavior and discuss the punishment/reprisal”, and “background/history knowledge of the incident areas”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Scott’s pi for all variables in study: between .798 and 1</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Haußecker &amp; Jirschitzka, 2010; Jirschitzka et al., 2010</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Broadcasting programs</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>11 different key issues, ranging from war against terror to communication of terrorists</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Average Holsti value for all pairwise comparisons with five coders and one main coder: .66</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Larsen (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Broadcasting programs and online news articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>3 different key issues, including “threat of terrorism”, “countering and prevention”, and ”terrorism as phenomenon”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Cohen’s kappa: .782</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Li (2007)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Broadcasting programs</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>9 different key issues, including “political”, “economic”, “criminal”, “environment”, “safety”, “human interest”, “religion”, “disaster”, and “other” coverage frame</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Scott’s pi: .8</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Li &amp; Izard (2003)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Broadcasting programs and news articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>10 different key issues, including “business”, “World Trade Center”, “Pentagon”, “safety (concerning future attacks)”, “government and U.S. president, “criminal activity and terrorism,” “personal story”, “American public”, “U.S. Arab community”, and “past events”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Scott’s pi for all nominal variables in study: between .78 and .96</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Matthews (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>6 different key issues, including “reconstruction and reaction”, “bombers’ identities”, “police investigation”, “victims/the missing”, “heroism and survivors”, and “London’s reaction”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Zhang &amp; Hellmüller (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Online news articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>8 key issues, sorted in the overarching categories “geopolitics” (consisting of “failing state”, “political opportunism”, “strategic game”, “geopolitical alignment”) and “existential threat” (consisting of “ISIS prowess”, “human rights crisis”, “economic consequences”, and “ISIS propaganda”)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Krippendorf’s alpha: .73</p> </td> <td width="14%"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>An, Y., Mejía, N. A., Arizi, A., Villalobos, M. M, &amp; Rothenberger, L. (2018). Perpetrators’ strategic communication: Framing and identity building on ethno-nationalist terrorists’ websites. <em>Communications</em>, <em>43</em>(2), 133–171. doi:10.1515/commun-2017-0057</p> <p>Du, Y. R., &amp; Li, L. (2017). When press freedom meets national interest: How terrorist attacks are framed in the news in China and the US. <em>Global Media and China</em>, <em>2</em>(3–4), 284–302. doi:10.1177/2059436418755761</p> <p>Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, <em>43</em>(4), 51-58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x</p> <p>Haußecker, N., &amp; Jirschitzka, J. (2010). Mediale Konstruktion I: Methodisches Vorgehen—Inhaltsanalyse der Terrorberichterstattung in deutschen Fernsehnachrichten [Media construction I: Methods – content analysis of terrorism coverage in German TV news]. In W. Frindte &amp; N. Haußecker (Eds.), <em>Inszenierter Terrorismus</em> [Staged terrorism] (pp. 67–89). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.</p> <p>Jirschitzka, J., Haußecker, N., &amp; Frindte, W. (2010). Mediale Konstruktion II: Die Konstruktion des Terrorismus im deutschen Fernsehen <em>–</em> Ergebnisdarstellung und Interpretation. [Media construction II: the construction of terrorism in German TV - results and interpretation]. In W. Frindte &amp; N. Haußecker (Eds.), <em>Inszenierter Terrorismus </em>[Staged terrorism] (pp. 81–119). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.</p> <p>Larsen, A. G. (2019). Threatening criminals and marginalized individuals: Frames and news conventions in reporting of radicalization and violent extremism. <em>Media, War &amp; Conflict</em>, <em>12</em>(3), 299–316. doi:10.1177/1750635218769331</p> <p>Li, X. (2007). Stages of a crisis and media frames and functions: U.S. television coverage of the 9/11 incident during the first 24 hours. <em>Journal of Broadcasting &amp; Electronic Media</em>, <em>51</em>(4), 670–687. doi:10.1080/08838150701626578</p> <p>Li, X., &amp; Izard, R. (2003). 9/11 Attack coverage reveals similarities, differences. <em>Newspaper Research Journal</em>, <em>24</em>(1), 204–219. oi:10.1177/073953290302400123</p> <p>Matthews, J. (2016). Media performance in the aftermath of terror: Reporting templates, political ritual and the UK press coverage of the London Bombings, 2005. <em>Journalism, 17</em>(2), 173–189. doi:10.1177/1464884914554175</p> <p>Zhang, X., &amp; Hellmüller, L. (2016). Transnational media coverage of the ISIS threat: A global perspective? <em>International Journal of Communication</em>, <em>10</em>, 766–785.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2w Sources (Terrorism Coverage) 2020-10-19T17:37:25+02:00 Liane Rothenberger liane.rothenberger@ku.de Valerie Hase v.hase@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>Sources describe the actors quoted by journalists to support or refute their argumentation or to introduce new aspects into a discussion. Sources might be used for direct or indirect quotes and can be attributed to a variety of actors, such as government officials, witnesses or PR sources. In terrorism coverage, the media tends to mostly rely on official sources such as the government or police officials.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Content analyses focus on journalistic sources beyond terrorism coverage. Such analyses are often based on “<u>Agenda-Setting</u>” theories (McCombs &amp; Shaw, 1972), models conceptualizing the relationship between journalists and PR, power hierarchies, or studies on working routines of journalists.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>Similar analyses in the context of “<u>Automated Content Analysis</u>” try to grasp news “<u>Actors</u>”, of which news sources might be one, automatically (for example Burggraaf &amp; Trilling, 2020). In addition, interviews with journalists can shed light on their sourcing routines (Larsen, 2018).</p> <p>Two studies are of particular value when analyzing sources used in terrorism coverage since they analyze a large variety of different sources and will hence be discussed in the following section.</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Larsen (2019); Venger (2019)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Larsen, 2019</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Larsen (2019)</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>How are radicalization and violent extremism framed in the news, including the sources used in these articles?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Online news from four Norwegian news outlets (Aftenposten, NRK, TV2, and VG)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis:</strong> 2014–2015<strong><em> </em></strong></p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition</strong>: Sources</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: News stories</p> <p><strong>Variables and values:</strong> 27 different values, namely (1) no source, (2) police, (3) security services, (4) national politician in position, (5) national politician in opposition, (6) local politician, (7) bureaucracy/administration, (8) lawyer, (9) military/intelligence, (10) expert/researcher, (11) journalist/editor, (12) “extreme Islamist”, (13) “right-wing extremist”, (14) acquaintances, (15) NGOs, (16) international organizations, (17) religious leaders/spokespersons, (18) members of the public, (19) health, (20) education/school, (21) private sector/business, (22) prison administration, (23) affiliation not mentioned (i.e. anonymous), (24) think tank, (25) public prosecutors, (26) judge/court of Justice, (27) other</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Cohen’s kappa: .895</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Venger, 2019</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Venger (2019)</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>How did the use of sources in news on the London bombings differ across newspapers published in countries with different media systems?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Newspaper coverage in the UK (The Guardian, The Times), the US (The Washington Post, The New York Times), and Russia (Izvestiya)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>July–August 2005</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition</strong>8 different values, including (1) local government officials of the newspaper’s country, (2) foreign government officials, including officials of international agencies, (3) local experts, (4) international experts, (5) foreigners not associated with any government, (6) private citizens (of the newspaper’s country), (7) citations for local newspapers, (8) citations for international newspapers.</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Rust and Cohen’s PRL reliability index, minimal value of any variable in study: .85</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Measurement of “Sources” in terrorism coverage.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Manifestations</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Codebook</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Bennett (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Online news articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>12 different sources, ranging from “domestic media” to “eyewitnesses”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Douai &amp; Lauricella (2014)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>5 different sources, ranging from “Western media sources” to “official/government Muslim sources”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Percent agreement across all variables: 94.25</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Du &amp; Li (2017)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Online news articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>7 different sources, ranging from “NGOs” to “laws, orders, and documents”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Scott’s pi for all variables in study: between .798 and 1</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Fahmy &amp; Al Emad (2011)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Online news articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>5 different sources, ranging from “US sources” to “Al Qaeda sources”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Scott’s pi: .92</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Gardner (2007)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>7 different sources, ranging from “analyst/academic” to “friends and family of the terrorist”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Holsti across all variables: .87</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Larsen (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Broadcasting programs and online news articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>27 different sources, ranging from “security/intelligence” to “religious spokespersons”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Cohen’s kappa: .895</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Li (2007)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Broadcasting programs</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>10 different sources, ranging from “airlines officials” to “witnesses”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Scott’s pi: .84</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Matthews (2013)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>16 different sources, ranging from “police sources” to “experts”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Minimal value for all variables in study: .8</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Matthews (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>7 different sources, ranging from “friends” to “survivors and witnesses”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Venger (2019)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>8 different sources, ranging from “local experts” to “citations for international newspapers”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Rust and Cohen’s PRL reliability index, minimal value of any variable in study: 85</p> </td> <td width="14%"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Zhang &amp; Hellmüller (2016)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Online news articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>10 different sources, ranging from “ISIS/insurgent groups” to “ordinary people”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Krippendorf’s alpha: .8</p> <p> </p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Bennett, D. (2016). Sourcing the BBC’s live online coverage of terror attacks. <em>Digital Journalism</em>, <em>4</em>(7), 861–874. doi:10.1080/21670811.2016.1163233</p> <p>Burggraaff, C., &amp; Trilling, D. (2020). Through a different gate: An automated content analysis of how online news and print news differ. <em>Journalism</em>, <em>21</em>(1), 112–129. doi:10.1177/1464884917716699</p> <p>Douai, A., &amp; Lauricella, S. (2014). The ‘terrorism’ frame in ‘neo-Orientalism’: Western news and the Sunni–Shia Muslim sectarian relations after 9/11. <em>International Journal of Media &amp; Cultural Politics</em>, <em>10</em>(1), 7–24. doi:10.1386/macp.10.1.7_1</p> <p>Du, Y. R., &amp; Li, L. (2017). When press freedom meets national interest: How terrorist attacks are framed in the news in China and the US. <em>Global Media and China</em>, <em>2</em>(3–4), 284–302. doi:10.1177/2059436418755761</p> <p>Fahmy, S. S., &amp; Al Emad, M. (2011). Al-Jazeera vs Al-Jazeera: A comparison of the network’s English and Arabic online coverage of the US/Al Qaeda conflict. <em>International Communication Gazette</em>, <em>73</em>(3), 216–232. doi:10.1177/1748048510393656</p> <p>Gardner, E. (2007). Is there method to the madness?: Worldwide press coverage of female terrorists and journalistic attempts to rationalize their involvement. <em>Journalism Studies</em>, <em>8</em>(6), 909–929. doi:10.1080/14616700701556799</p> <p>Larsen, A. H. (2018). Newsworthy actors, illegitimate voices: Journalistic strategies in dealing with voices deemed anti-democratic and violent. <em>Journalism</em>. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/1464884918760865</p> <p>Larsen, A. G. (2019). Threatening criminals and marginalized individuals: Frames and news conventions in reporting of radicalization and violent extremism. <em>Media, War &amp; Conflict</em>, <em>12</em>(3), 299–316. doi:10.1177/1750635218769331</p> <p>Li, X. (2007). Stages of a crisis and media frames and functions: U.S. television coverage of the 9/11 incident during the first 24 hours. <em>Journal of Broadcasting &amp; Electronic Media</em>, <em>51</em>(4), 670–687. doi:10.1080/08838150701626578</p> <p>Matthews, J. (2013). News narratives of terrorism: Assessing source diversity and source use in UK news coverage of alleged Islamist plots. <em>Media, War &amp; Conflict</em>, <em>6</em>(3), 295–310. doi:10.1177/1750635213505189</p> <p>Matthews, J. (2016). Media performance in the aftermath of terror: Reporting templates, political ritual and the UK press coverage of the London Bombings, 2005. <em>Journalism</em>, <em>17</em>(2), 173–189. doi:10.1177/1464884914554175</p> <p>McCombs, M.E., &amp; Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. <em>Public Opinion Quarterly</em>, <em>36</em>(2), 176–187. doi:10.1086/267990</p> <p>Venger, O. (2019). The use of experts in journalistic accounts of media events: A comparative study of the 2005 London Bombings in British, American, and Russian newspapers. <em>Journalism</em>, <em>20</em>(10), 1343–1359. doi:10.1177/1464884919830479</p> <p>Zhang, X., &amp; Hellmüller, L. (2016). Transnational Media Coverage of the ISIS Threat: A Global Perspective? <em>International Journal of Communication</em>, <em>10</em>, 766–785.</p> </div> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2v Labeling of groups and events (Terrorism Coverage) 2020-08-06T16:36:03+02:00 Liane Rothenberger liane.rothenberger@ku.de Valerie Hase v.hase@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>Labeling of groups and events describes how groups connected to religious, political or other forms of violence as well as their acts are labeled or evaluated. These labels might vary from more nominal descriptions (e.g., “gunmen”) to more judgmental descriptions (e.g., “terrorist”), leading to different perceptions of these groups and acts by the public.</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>Labels for groups and events are of interest in journalism research, political communication, research on terrorism and violence as well as stereotyping. These measurements are often based on “<u>Social Identity Theory</u>” (Brown, 2000) as a theoretical foundation for why some groups and events connected to violence are described in a negative way – i.e., as an out-group –, whilst others are described in a neutral way or even positively, i.e., as an in-group.</p> <p><em><strong>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</strong></em></p> <p>A study by Huff and Kertzer (2017) for example combines a conjoint experiment with an “<u>Automated Content Analysis</u>” of media coverage to understand how the public would label different acts of violence in comparison to the media.</p> <p>Two studies that have been particularly influential in studying the labeling of violent acts and perpetrators will be discussed in more detail in the following sections.</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Nagar (2010); Weimann (1985)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Nagar, 2010</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Nagar</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>How did American news media cover politically violent organizations that are not linked to Al Qaeda or the events of 9/11?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>News coverage by two American newspapers (The New York Times, The Washington Post)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>1998–2004</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition</strong>: Media frame: “First, the labels that describe political violence were coded separately for each segment. Second, the article frame was determined based on the most frequent label.” (Nagar, 2010, p. 537)</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: Headline, lead paragraph, text</p> <p><strong>Variables and values:</strong> four different label categories for labels in text: neutral (“rebel”, “rebellion”, “insurgent”, “insurgency”, “guerrilla”, “militant”, “combatants”, “revolt”, “uprising”, “revolutionary”, “paramilitaries”, “insurrection”, “separatist”), negative (“terror”, “terrorize”, “terrorist”, “terrorism”), positive (“freedom fighter”, “liberation movement”, “independence movement”), no label mentioned</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>Krippendorff’s alpha: .82</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Weimann, 1985</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Weimann</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which labels did the press use in referring to terrorists when covering terrorist attacks?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Israel’s major newspapers</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>1979–1981</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition</strong>: Label</p> <p><strong>Variables and values:</strong> three different labels categories for labels in text: negative (“murderers”, “saboteurs”, “assassins”, “separatists”), neutral (“guerillas”, “army”, “front”, “nationalists”, “underground”, “separatists”) and positive (“patriots”, “freedom fighters”, “liberation movement”, “liberation organization”)</p> <p><strong>Reliability: </strong>not applicable</p> <p> </p> <p>Table 1. Measurement of “Labeling of Groups and Events” in terrorism coverage.</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Sample</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Manifestations</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Reliability</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Codebook</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Boyle &amp; Mower (2018)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Computer-assisted key-word search, looking up labels such as “terror”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not applicable</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>De Veen &amp; Thomas (2020)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>3 different label categories: negative (“terrorist”, “racist”, “extremist”, “fundamentalist” and clear links to terrorist organizations such as ISIS), neutral (“perpetrator”, “shooter”, “attacker” or other labels emphasizing race and ethnicity, for example “Muslim” or “American”), or positive (family- or work-related labels such as “father” or “colleagues”)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Nagar (2010)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>4 different label categories: neutral (“rebel”, “rebellion”, “insurgent”, “insurgency”, “guerrilla”, “militant”, “combatants”, “revolt”, “uprising”, “revolutionary”, “paramilitaries”, “insurrection”, “separatist”), negative (“terror”, “terrorize”, “terrorist”, “terrorism”), positive (“freedom fighter”, “liberation movement”, “independence movement”), or no label mentioned</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Krippendorf’s alpha: .82</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Picard &amp; Adams (1987)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>2 different label categories: nominal (e.g., “attacker”) or descriptive (e.g., “radical”)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Holsti: .98</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Samuel-Azran et al. (2015)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>7 different labels for perpetrators: “terrorist/Jewish terrorist”, “the Jewish terrorist”, “terror-accused”, “killer”, “mass murderer”, “serial stabber/criminal”, “other”;</p> <p>9 different labels for act: “terror”, “massacre/mass murders”, “bombing/shooting”, “right wing crime”, “description assault (stabbing etc.)”, “criminal”, “attack”, “insanity”, “other”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Scott’s pi indicating lowest value for any variable in the study: .86</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Simmons &amp; Lowry (1990)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Magazine articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>13 different labels for perpetrators: “terrorist”, “gunman”, “guerilla”, “attacker”, “extremist”, “radical”, “hijacker”, “revolutionary”, “nationalist”, “armed man/men”, “leftist”, “rightist”, “militiaman/militiamen”</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not reported</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Available</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Weimann (1985)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Newspaper articles</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>3 different labels categories for perpetrators: negative (“murderers”, “saboteurs”, “assassins”, “separatists”), neutral (“guerillas”, “army”, “front”, “nationalists”, “underground”, “separatists”), or positive (“patriots”, “freedom fighters”, “liberation movement”, “liberation organization”)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not applicable</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Not available</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Boyle, K., &amp; Mower, J. (2018). Framing terror: A content analysis of media frames used in covering ISIS. <em>Newspaper Research Journal</em>, <em>39</em>(2), 205–219. doi:10.1177/0739532918775667</p> <p>Brown, R. (2000). Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges. <em>European Journal of Social Psychology</em>, <em>30</em>(6), 745–778.</p> <p>De Veen, L., &amp; Thomas, R. (2020). Shooting for neutrality? Analysing bias in terrorism reports in Dutch newspapers. <em>Media, War &amp; Conflict</em>. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1177/1750635220909407</p> <p>Huff, C., &amp; Kertzer, J.D. (2017). How the public defines terrorism. <em>American Journal of Political Science, 62</em>(1), 55-71. doi:10.1111/ajps.12329</p> <p>Nagar, N. (2010). Who is afraid of the t-word? Labeling terror in the media coverage of political violence before and after 9/11. <em>Studies in Conflict &amp; Terrorism</em>, <em>33</em>(6), 533–547. doi:10.1080/10576101003752655</p> <p>Picard, R. G., &amp; Adams, P. D. (1987). Characterizations of acts and perpetrators of political violence in three elite U.S. daily newspapers. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>4</em>(1), 1–9. doi:10.1080/10584609.1987.9962803</p> <p>Samuel-Azran, T., Lavie-Dinur, A., &amp; Karniel, Y. (2015). Narratives used to portray in-group terrorists: A comparative analysis of the Israeli and Norwegian press. <em>Media, War &amp; Conflict</em>, <em>8</em>(1), 3–19. doi:10.1177/1750635214531106</p> <p>Simmons, B. K., &amp; Lowry, D. N. (1990). Terrorists in the news, as reflected in three news magazines, 1980–1988. <em>Journalism Quarterly</em>, <em>67</em>(4), 692–696. doi:10.1177/107769909006700423</p> <p>Weimann, G. (1985). Terrorists or freedom fighters? Labeling terrorism in the Israeli press. <em>Political Communication</em>, <em>2</em>(4), 433–445. doi:10.1080/10584609.1985.9962776</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2828 Sources & actors (Justice and Crime Coverage) 2021-06-20T14:50:22+02:00 Franziska Oehmer franziska.oehmer@fhgr.ch <p>These variables are used to determine whose views and activities are covered in the reporting on justice. A distinction is made between the variable "actors", which is used to measure the description of acting persons, and the variable "source", that captures which persons have a direct or indirect quote.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>The variable serves - among other variables – as an indicator of the representativeness of judicial reporting.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Haney &amp; Greene (2004); Oehmer (work in progress)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Haney &amp; Greene (2004)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Craig Haney, Susan Greene</p> <p><strong>Research interest</strong>: The study evaluates aspects of newspaper reporting about death penalty cases and capital defendants<em>. </em></p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: “representative sample of local, mainstream (i.e., non-“tabloid”) newspaper coverage” (134)</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> not available</p> <p><strong>Information on </strong><strong>Oehmer (work in progress)</strong></p> <p><strong>Research interest</strong>: The research interest of the study focuses on three sets of questions concerning 1) the selection and representativeness of court reporting, 2) the information function of court reporting and 3) the presentation of court reporting.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: court coverage in Swiss newspapers (Tagesanzeiger, NZZ, Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Südostschweiz, Blick, Gratiszeitung, 20Minuten)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis</strong>: January 2007 – December 2017</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> available (see attachment)</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Author(s)</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong></p> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Operationalization/coding instructions</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Values</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Intercoder reliability</strong></p> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Haney &amp; Greene (2004)</p> <p><strong> </strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>article</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Sources</strong></p> <p>“We coded source attributions for information contained in the articles. Specifically, we examined whether the prosecution, defense, judges, or law enforcement (e.g., police), or the suspect/defendant or laypersons purporting to be knowledgeable about him or his crime(s) were specifically quoted or cited. For example:</p> <p>After allegedly stealing Schockley’s 1990 Buick station wagon and items from Schockley’s Lodi home, Hensley went to the Oasis bar on the outskirts of Stockton and picked up a 32-year-old prostitute, police said. (“Killing Suspect Caught,” 1992)“ (136)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>- Police/law enforcement</p> <p>- Prosecutors</p> <p>- Judges</p> <p>- Defense attorneys</p> <p>- Defendants</p> <p>- Lay witnesses</p> <p>- Prosecution Defense</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Cronbach’s alpha of .73 across categories (5 Coder), not mentioned for individual category</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Oehmer (work in progress)</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Actors in most covered court case in article</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p><strong>Actors of the trial</strong></p> <p>Only actors of the (dominant) trial described in the article are coded - i.e. actors involved in other processes are not considered here.</p> <p> </p> <p>Only those actors are coded who are described as actively acting. Simple statements such as "the verdict of the court" or "in the motion of the lawyers can be read that" does not qualify as actors.</p> <p> </p> <p>Decisive for the assignment to an actor is the role in the respective process: If, for example, a police officer is accused of abuse of authority, he is coded as the accused, not as an actor of the police.</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>- Opfer</p> <p>- Angehörige der Opfer</p> <p>- Angeklagte(r)</p> <p>- Angehörige des/r Angeklagten</p> <p>- Akteure der Staatsanwaltschaft</p> <p>- Anwälte/ Verteidiger</p> <p>- Richter/ Spruchkörper</p> <p>- Gericht allgemein</p> <p>- Akteure der Polizei</p> <p>- Zeugen</p> <p>- Gutachter</p> <p>- Sonstiges</p> </td> <td class="t b l r"> <p>Holsti .84; Krippendorff’s Alpha: .83 (2 Coder)</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Haney, C. &amp; Greene, S. (2004). Capital constructions: Newspaper reporting in death penalty cases. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4(1), 129–150.</p> <p>Oehmer, Franziska. Die dritte Gewalt in den Medien. Eine repräsentative quantitative Inhaltsanalyse der Gerichtsberichterstattung Schweizer Medien (work in progress). [Justice in the media. A representative quantitative content analysis of court reporting in the Swiss media].</p> 2021-06-20T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2829 Legal area (Justice and Crime Coverage) 2021-06-20T15:00:08+02:00 Franziska Oehmer franziska.oehmer@fhgr.ch <p>It is often assumed that judicial reporting is biased in favor of criminal offences and violent crimes and at the expense of administrative, civil or labor court cases (e.g., Delitz, 1989; Eberle 1996; Machill, Beiler &amp; Hellmann, 2007). In order to be able to test this assumption, the variable “legal fields“ is used to categorize the judicial trial or case reported in the media.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>The legal field serves - among other variables – as an indicator of the representativeness of judicial reporting. Thus, the results of the content analysis are often compared with extra-media data on the distribution of trials in different fields of law (Strother, 2017).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Example study:</strong></em></p> <p>Oehmer (work in progress)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Oehmer (work in progress)</strong></p> <p><strong>Research interest</strong>: The study focuses on three sets of questions concerning 1) the selection and representativeness of court reporting, 2) the information function of court reporting and 3) the presentation of court reporting.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: court coverage in Swiss newspapers (Tagesanzeiger, NZZ, Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Südostschweiz, Blick, Gratiszeitung, 20Minuten)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis</strong>: January 2007 – December 2017</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> available (see attachment)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Info about variable:</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> legal fields [Rechtsgebiete der berichteten Justizfälle]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: most covered court case in article</p> <p>General coding instruction: The legal system is mostly characterized by a division of the legal fields into private law (or civil law) and public law. The following basic rule applies for the assignment to the legal areas: if only private individuals are involved, then it is private law (Code 10 ff.), if a public organization or a state is involved, then it usually refers to public law (Code 20 ff.). Unless otherwise stated, the following definitions are based on corresponding entries from the Gabler Wirtschaftslexikon. Springer, available at: <a href="https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/">https://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/</a> (16.09.20)</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t b l r" style="width: 90px;"> <p><strong>Variable name</strong></p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="width: 564px;"> <p><strong>Values &amp; coding instructions</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b l r" style="width: 90px;"> <p>Rechtsgebiet des Prozesses</p> </td> <td class="t b l r" style="width: 564px;"> <p><strong>10 Privatrecht:</strong> Privatrecht umfasst alle Rechtssätze, die die rechtlichen Beziehungen der einzelnen zueinander nach dem Grundsatz der Gleichordnung regeln. Der Staat oder ein anderer hoheitlicher Träger sind hier nicht beteiligt.</p> <p><em>Codierhinweis: </em>Dieser Code wird gewählt, wenn keine Spezialform (Code 11f) vorliegt.</p> <p>Dazu zählen folgende Rechtsgebiete:</p> <p>- Familienrecht</p> <p>- Erbrecht</p> <p>- Sachenrecht</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>11 </strong><strong>Handelsrecht:</strong> Teilgebiet des Privatrechts. Handelsrecht ist das Sonderrecht des Kaufmanns. Die Vorschriften des Handelsrechts betreffen im Wesentlichen die Rechtsbeziehungen des Kaufmanns zu seinen Geschäftspartnern, die wettbewerbsrechtlichen und gesellschaftsrechtlichen Beziehungen zu anderen Unternehmern.</p> <p>Dazu zählen folgende Rechtsgebiete:</p> <p>- Kapitalmarktrecht,</p> <p>- Wettbewerbsrecht,</p> <p>- Versicherungsrecht</p> <p>- Patentrecht</p> <p>- Urheberrecht</p> <p>- Markenrecht</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>12 </strong><strong>Arbeitsrecht:</strong> zählt überwiegend zum Privatrecht. Gesamtheit aller Rechtsregeln, die sich mit der unselbstständigen, abhängigen Arbeit befassen, d.h. der Arbeit, die von Personen geleistet wird, die in einem Betrieb eingegliedert fremdbestimmte Arbeit leisten und dabei an Weisungen hinsichtlich Art, Ausführung, Ort und Zeit der Arbeit gebunden sind.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>13 </strong><strong>Mietrecht</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>20 Öffentliches Recht:</strong> regelt, im Gegensatz zum Privatrecht, die Beziehungen des Einzelnen zum Staat und den Körperschaften des öffentlichen Rechts sowie der Träger öffentlicher Gewalt zueinander. Im öffentlichen Recht ist der Einzelne (anders als im Privatrecht) dem Staat untergeordnet. Der Staat oder ein Träger hoheitlicher Gewalt tritt mit Hoheitsgewalt auf (Forstmoser/Vogt 2012, S.118)</p> <p><em>Codierhinweis: </em>Dieser Code wird gewählt, wenn keine Spezialform (Code 21f) vorliegt.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>21 Verwaltungsrecht</strong>: Mit Verwaltungstätigkeit ist die Tätigkeit der <em>öffentlichen Verwaltung</em> gemeint. <em>Die</em> „öffentliche Verwaltung“ wird von den Einrichtungen der unmittelbaren und mittelbaren Staatsverwaltung (Bund, Ländern, Gemeinden, Gemeindeverbänden und sonstigen Körperschaften, Anstalten und Stiftungen des öffentlichen Rechts) gebildet (<em>institutioneller Begriff</em>). Quelle: Bader, Ronellenfitsch, 2016, § 1 Rn. 8-10.1).</p> <p>Dazu zählen u.a. folgende Rechstgebiete:</p> <p>- Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit</p> <p>- Bauplanung, Naturschutz</p> <p>- Ausländer, Staatsbürgerrecht</p> <p>- Beamten/Soldatenrecht</p> <p>- Schul/Hochschulrecht</p> <p>- Verkehrs/Wegerecht</p> <p>- Leistungs/Sozialrecht</p> <p>- Rundfunkrecht</p> <p>- Gewerbe/Lebensmittel</p> <p>- Waffenrecht</p> <p>- Kommunalrecht</p> <p>- Veranstaltungs-/Demonstrationsrecht</p> <p>- Wohnungsrecht</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>22 </strong><strong>Verfassungsrecht:</strong> Rechtliche Grundordnung eines Staates, Gesamtheit der geschriebenen und ungeschriebenen Rechtssätze über die Bildung, den Aufgabenkreis und die Organisation der obersten Staatsorgane, das Verhältnis der einzelnen Staatsorgane zueinander, die staatlichen Aufgaben, den staatsrechtlichen Aufbau des Staates und die Rechte des Bürgers gegen den Staat (Grundrechte) (Quelle: <a href="http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Archiv/4350/oeffentliches-recht-v5.html">http://wirtschaftslexikon.gabler.de/Archiv/4350/oeffentliches-recht-v5.html</a><u>)</u></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>23 </strong><strong>Steuerrecht:</strong> Gesamtheit der Rechtsnormen unserer Rechtsordnung, die sich - im weitesten Sinn - auf Steuern beziehen. Diese schaffen und regeln die Rechtsbeziehungen (Rechte und Pflichten) zwischen den Trägern der Steuerhoheit und den ihnen unterworfenen natürlichen und juristischen Personen.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>24 </strong><strong>Sozialrecht:</strong> Teilgebiet des öffentlichen Verwaltungsrechts. Das Sozialrecht soll zur Verwirklichung sozialer Gerechtigkeit und sozialer Sicherheit dienen.</p> <p>Dazu zählen folgende Rechtsgebiete:</p> <p>- Sozialgerichtsbarkeit</p> <p>- Unfallversicherung</p> <p>- Rentenversicherung</p> <p>- Krankenversicherung</p> <p>- Kriegsopferversorgung</p> <p>- Arbeitslosenversicherung</p> <p>- Kassenarztrecht</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>25 </strong><strong>Internationales Recht</strong></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>26 </strong><strong>Strafrecht (hier auch Jugendstrafrecht</strong>): Inbegriff der Rechtsnormen, in denen die Voraussetzungen für die Straftat und ihre Rechtsfolgen festgelegt sind; umfasst i.w.S. auch das Strafverfahrensrecht, das der Durchsetzung des staatlichen Strafanspruchs dient. Strafrecht ist Teil des öffentlichen Rechts, was nach allen gängigen Differenzierungstheorien (Subordinationstheorie, Interessentheorie, neuere Subjektstheorie) deutlich nachweisbar ist.</p> <p> </p> <p><em>Codierhinweis:</em></p> <p>a) Beim Strafrecht sind aufgrund seiner zu erwartenden Sonderstellung in der Berichterstattung möglichst detaillierte Codes zu vergeben.</p> <p>b) Werden im Rahmen einer Verhandlung mehrere Delikte verhandelt, so wird das Delikt codiert, dem in der Berichterstattung der meiste Raum beigemessen wird. Werden sämtliche Delikte im gleichen Ausmass behandelt, so wird das Erstgenannte codiert.</p> <p><strong>27 </strong>Tötung</p> <p><strong>28 </strong>Körperverletzung</p> <p><strong>29 </strong>Raub</p> <p><strong>30 </strong>Sexualdelikte</p> <p><strong>31 </strong>Eigentumsdelikte</p> <p><strong>32 </strong>Gemeingefährliche Delikte</p> <p><strong>33 </strong>Rauschgiftdelikte</p> <p><strong>34 </strong>Delikte gegen die öffentliche Ordnung</p> <p><strong>35 </strong>Beleidigung</p> <p><strong>36 </strong>Amtsdelikte</p> <p><strong>37 </strong>Ordnungswidrigkeit</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>99) </strong><strong>Sonstiges</strong></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Intercoder reliability: </strong>Holsti .81; Krippendorff’s Alpha: .68 (2 Coder)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Delitz, J. (1989). <em>Tagespresse und Justiz. Gerichtsberichterstattung als Vermittlung institutioneller Wirklichkeit</em>. Hamburg. [Daily press and justice. Court reporting as a mediator of institutional reality.]</p> <p>Eberle, R. G. (1996). Verwaltungsgerichte in der Medienberichterstattung am Beispiel von Tageszeitungen in Hessen. <em>Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 17</em>(2), S. 300-309. [Administrative courts in media coverage using the example of daily newspapers in the federal state of Hesse.]</p> <p>Bader, J. &amp; Ronellenfitsch, M. (2016). Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz: VwVfG. Beck. [Administrative Procedure Act]</p> <p>Forstmoser. P.&amp; Vogt, H-U. (2012). <em>Einführung in das Recht.</em> 5. Vollständig überarbeitete Auflage. Stämpfli. [Introduction to law.]</p> <p>Machill, M., Beiler, M. &amp; Hellmann, I. (2007). The selection process in local court reporting. <em>Journalism Practice,</em> 1(1), S. 62-81.</p> <p>Oehmer, Franziska. Die dritte Gewalt in den Medien. Eine repräsentative quantitative Inhaltsanalyse der Gerichtsberichterstattung Schweizer Medien (work in progress). [Justice in the media. A representative quantitative content analysis of court reporting in the Swiss media].</p> <p>Strother, L. (2017). How expected political and legal impact drive media coverage of Supreme Court cases, <em>Political Communication, 34</em>(4), S. 571-589.</p> 2021-06-20T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2824 Phase of the trial (Justice and Crime Coverage) 2021-06-20T14:30:18+02:00 Franziska Oehmer franziska.oehmer@fhgr.ch <p>The variable “phase of a trial” records whether the phase before, during or after the trial is mainly covered in the reporting (vgl. Haney &amp; Greene, 2004; Glark, 2015; Strother, 2017). Studies show that the media’s focus is mainly on the beginning (when the new information about the case has been introduced) and on the end of the trial and the possible emotional reactions to it, while the main trial is usually not or little covered (Vinson &amp; Ertter, 2002; Haney &amp; Greene, 2004).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>The variable serves - among other variables – as an indicator of the representativeness of judicial reporting.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Example study:</strong></em></p> <p>Haney &amp; Greene (2004)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Haney &amp; Greene (2004)</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Craig Haney, Susan Greene</p> <p><strong>Research interest</strong>: The study evaluates aspects of newspaper reporting about death penalty cases and capital defendants<em>. </em></p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: “representative sample of local, mainstream (i.e., non-“tabloid”) newspaper coverage” (134)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis</strong>: not mentioned</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> not available</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> phase of the trial [Phase des Gerichtsprozesses]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> article</p> <p><strong>Operationalization/coding instructions: </strong>“Generally, the stage of the trial process at which the article was written was stated explicitly. Otherwise, it was inferred from the content of the article or by comparing the date of the article to others written about the same case.” (p.136)</p> <p><strong>Values:</strong></p> <ul> <li>pretrial</li> <li>guilt-phase</li> <li>penalty</li> <li>sentencing-phase</li> <li>post trial</li> </ul> <p><strong>Intercoder reliability: </strong>Cronbach’s alpha of .73 across categories (5 Coder), not mentioned for individual category</p> <p><strong>Reference</strong></p> <p>Clark, T. S., Lax, J. R., &amp; Rice, D. (2015). Measuring the political salience of Supreme Court cases. <em>Journal of Law and Courts, 3</em>(1), 37–65.</p> <p>Haney, C. &amp; Greene, S. (2004). Capital constructions: Newspaper reporting in death penalty cases. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4(1), 129–150.</p> <p>Strother, L. (2017). How expected political and legal impact drive media coverage of Supreme Court cases, <em>Political Communication, 34</em>(4), S. 571-589.</p> <p>Vinson, C. D., &amp; Ertter, J. S. (2002). Entertainment or Education: How Do Media Cover the Courts? Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(4), S. 80–97.</p> 2021-06-20T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2827 Identifying news coverage (Justice and Crime Coverage) 2021-06-20T14:44:01+02:00 Franziska Oehmer franziska.oehmer@fhgr.ch <p>Content analysis is often used to examine the extent to which the individual actors involved in the trial (especially the defendant) can be identified through the reporting, for example through full attribution of names, a detailed description of the person, his or her living circumstances and photos.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>The variable “identifying new coverage” is of particular relevance in the context of debates on media ethics and legal philosophy. This variable is used to examine the extent to which personal rights provisions are respected in media coverage.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>Example study:</strong></em></p> <p>Oehmer (work in progress)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Information on Oehmer (work in progress)</strong></p> <p><strong>Author:</strong> Franziska Oehmer</p> <p><strong>Research interest: </strong>The research interest of the study focuses on three sets of questions concerning 1) the selection and representativeness of court reporting, 2) the information function of court reporting and 3) the presentation of court reporting.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>court coverage in Swiss newspapers (Tagesanzeiger, NZZ, Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Südostschweiz, Blick, Gratiszeitung, 20Minuten)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis</strong>: January 2007 – December 2017</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition:</strong> identifying news coverage [Identifizierende Berichterstattung über Opfer und Angeklagten]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Actors in most covered court case in article</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong></p> <ul> <li>Keine identifizierende Berichterstattung. Indikator: alleinige Verwendung der Bezeichnungen Opfer, Angeklagter, ...</li> <li>Mittlere identifizierende Berichterstattung: Aussage ist dazu geeignet, dass das unmittelbare Umfeld die Person identifizieren kann, Indikator: Nennung des Vornamens und des Anfangsbuchstabens.</li> <li>Große identifizierende Berichterstattung: Aussage ist dazu geeignet, das Dritte die Person identifizieren können. Indikator: Nennung des vollen Namens, Nennung des Vornamens in Verbindung mit Nennung des Berufs, Wohnsitzes und Arbeitsplatzes, ...<strong>&nbsp;</strong></li> </ul> <p><strong>Intercoder reliability: </strong>Holsti .73; Krippendorff’s Alpha: .57 (2 Coder)</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> available (see attachment)</p> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Oehmer, Franziska. Die dritte Gewalt in den Medien. Eine repräsentative quantitative Inhaltsanalyse der Gerichtsberichterstattung Schweizer Medien (work in progress). [Justice in the media. A representative quantitative content analysis of court reporting in the Swiss media].</p> 2021-06-20T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2826 Prejudgment of the accused (Justice and Crime Coverage) 2021-06-20T14:35:44+02:00 Franziska Oehmer franziska.oehmer@fhgr.ch <p>In some legal systems, strong prejudicial reporting can be recognized as a reason for reduced sentences in trials (e.g. in Switzerland: BGer 6B_45/2014). It is argued that the accused has already been punished by the public pillory. This variable serves to capture the extent of the implicit or explicit references to the guilt of the accused before the end of the trial (Schulz 2002).</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>The variable “prejudgment of the accused” is of particular relevance in the context of debates on media ethics and legal philosophy. With the use of this variable, the extent to which personal rights provisions of the defendant are respected in media coverage is discussed.</p> <p> </p> <p><em><strong>Example study:</strong></em></p> <p>Oehmer (work in progress)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Oehmer (work in progress)</strong></p> <p><strong>Author:</strong> Franziska Oehmer</p> <p><strong>Research interest</strong>: The study focuses on three sets of questions concerning 1) the selection and representativeness of court reporting, 2) the information function of court reporting and 3) the presentation of court reporting.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: court coverage in Swiss newspapers (Tagesanzeiger, NZZ, Neue Luzerner Zeitung, Südostschweiz, Blick, Gratiszeitung, 20Minuten)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis</strong>: January 2007 – December 2017</p> <p><strong>Codebook:</strong> available (see attachment)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p><strong>Variable name/definition: </strong>prejudgment of the accused [Vorverurteilung des Angeklagten]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>Actors in most covered court case in article</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong></p> <ul> <li>Keine Vorverurteilung: Über den Angeklagten wird nicht wertend berichtet. Indikatoren: Mutmasslicher Täter</li> <li>Implizite Vorverurteilung: Die Tatschuld wird implizit durch Begriffe, Wertungen oder Deutungen nahegelegt.</li> <li>Explizite Vorverurteilung: Die Tatschuld wird als erwiesen betrachtet. Der Angeklagt wird klar als Täter identifiziert. Indikatoren: Mörder, Täter</li> </ul> <p><strong>Intercoder reliability: </strong>Holsti .88; Krippendorff’s Alpha: .56 (2 Coder)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Oehmer, Franziska. Die dritte Gewalt in den Medien. Eine repräsentative quantitative Inhaltsanalyse der Gerichtsberichterstattung Schweizer Medien (work in progress). [Justice in the media. A representative quantitative content analysis of court reporting in the Swiss media].</p> <p>Schulz, U. (2002): Die rechtlichen Auswirkungen von Medienberichterstattung auf Strafverfahren. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. [The legal effects of media coverage on criminal proceedings].</p> 2021-06-20T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2823 Nationality (Justice and Crime Coverage) 2021-06-20T14:23:55+02:00 Franziska Oehmer franziska.oehmer@fhgr.ch <p>The variable provides information on whether the nationality of the (alleged) victims and/or perpetrator is mentioned in connection with crimes and offences. Research shows that minorities are disproportionately more often depicted as perpetrators than as victims (Hestermann, 2010; Vinson &amp; Ertter, 2002).</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</strong></em></p> <p>The variable “nationality of the (alleged) victim or perpetrator” is of particular relevance in the context of debates on media ethics and legal philosophy. It is mainly used in the field of media effects research (stereotype and cultivation research, see Arendt, 2010).</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><em><strong>Example study:</strong></em></p> <p>Hestermann (2010)</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong>Info about variable</strong></p> <p>Variable name/definition: nationality [Nationalität]</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>mentioned (alleged) victim and perpetrator in the report</p> <p><strong>Values: </strong>Nationality of the victim &amp; perpetrator</p> <ul> <li>Nicht genannt</li> <li>Deutsch</li> <li>Ausländisch</li> <li>Ausdrücklich unbekannt</li> <li>Trifft nicht zu</li> </ul> <p><strong>Intercoder reliability: </strong>Nationality of the victim 0.94; Nationality of the perpetrator 0.98 (2 Coder). What exact coefficient has been calculated has not been reported.</p> <p><strong>Codebook</strong>: available at <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv941tf9.12">https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv941tf9.12</a></p> <p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Arendt, F. (2010). Cultivation effects of a newspaper on reality estimates, explicit and implicit attitudes. Journal of Media Psychology, 22, 147–159.</p> <p>Hestermann, T. (2010). Fernsehgewalt und die Einschaltquote: Welches Publikumsbild Fernsehschaffende leitet, wenn sie über Gewaltkriminalität berichten. Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH. [Television violence and ratings: Which picture of the audience leads television makers when they report on violent crime].</p> <p>Vinson, C. D., &amp; Ertter, J. S. (2002). Entertainment or Education: How Do Media Cover the Courts? Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(4), S. 80–97.</p> 2021-06-20T00:00:00+02:00 Copyright (c) 2021 DOCA - Database of Variables for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2h Scientific evidence/uncertainty (Science and Health Communication) 2020-10-19T17:45:16+02:00 Sabrina H. Kessler s.kessler@ikmz.uzh.ch <p>The presented scientific evidence and uncertainty in science communication can be achieved by either different variables (e.g., Brechman, Lee, &amp; Cappella, 2009, 2011; Guenther, Bischoff, Löwe, Marzinkowski, &amp; Voigt, 2019; Kessler, 2016) or identifying frames (for thematic frames, see Ruhrmann, Guenther, Kessler, &amp; Milde, 2015; for formal-abstract frames, see Kessler, 2016).</p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation:</em></strong></p> <p>Evidence and (un)certainty are integral components of scientific findings and science in general. Scientific evidence can be defined as a continuum, ranging from scientific uncertainty to certainty and from weak to strong evidence. Media content analyses are investigating the extent to which information is given in media articles that provide indications of the evidence or uncertainty of scientific findings. Content Analyses also measure how evident scientific findings are presented in the media.</p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods of data collection:</em></strong></p> <p>In some cases, the effects of different uncertainty depiction styles (Retzbach &amp; Maier, 2015) and frames of the depicted evidence (Kessler, 2016) are examined after the content-analytical identification in experiments.</p> <p><em><strong>Example studies:</strong></em></p> <p>Brechman, et al. (2009); Brechman et al. (2011); <span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">Guenther et al. (2019); </span>Kessler (2016); Retzbach &amp; Maier (2015); Ruhrmann et al. (2015)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Guenther et al., 2019</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Lars Guenther, Jenny Bischoff, Anna Löwe, Hanna Marzinkowski, &amp; Marcus Voigt</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>When they represent research results, how do German print and online media report on (a) relevant criteria to assess scientific evidence and (b) scientific (un)certainty?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>The study was based on a randomly selected artificial week to obtain a representative sample of German print and online media reports on science (<em>N</em> = 128 articles).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>July 6, 2015 to August 23, 2015</p> <p><strong>Info</strong><strong> about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables: “</strong>For each represented research result, a variable collected the main (hypo-)thesis of the research study, the direction of the result (for or against the thesis), as well as the relevant criteria to assess evidence. […] For each result, it was also relevant to collect to which extent scientific certainty or scientific uncertainty was discussed. In the current study, an explicit statement referring to (un)certainty was differentiated from an implicit statement (subjunctive, speculative language as an indicator of uncertainty versus imperative as an indicator for certainty). This was supplemented by collecting the justifications for (un)certainty that were given for the scientific results.” (p. 10)</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>news article</p> <p><strong>Variables and values: </strong></p> <ul> <li>reported relevant criteria to assess scientific evidence: theoretical assumptions/(hypo-)theses; pilot study/a study never done before; research design: experiment, case study, etc.; research and measurement instruments; quality criteria, such as reliability; quality criteria, such as validity; references to significance (statistic values); objectivity; information about sample (size); time of study; explicit depiction of the research setting; number of studies done; information about how results were obtained; limitations, such as knowledge gaps; comparisons to other studies; funding source(s); reference to the investigating researcher(s); reference to the publication/ journal/ conference; future scenarios, specific applications</li> <li>reported explicit justifications for scientific (un)certainty: preliminary data, knowledge gap(s); (poor) methodological quality; contrasting findings of research; contrasting interpretation of same dataset; conflicting viewpoints of researchers; doubt whether data can be applied to humans; effect on humans not clear; effect on nature not clear; lack of technical/scientific opportunities; justifications for certainty; certain single result(s); sufficient data; (strong) methodological quality; results pointing in the same direction; successfully replicated findings; application for humans clear; effect on humans clear; effect on nature clear; highly experienced researcher(s)</li> <li>implicit statement referring to (un)certainty: no implicit representation vs. implicit representation</li> </ul> <p><strong>Reliability: “</strong>Four experienced coders coded the articles of the sample after several intensive training sessions. Intercoder reliability was calculated according to Holsti for 26 articles (20 percent of the sample) and the following satisfactory results were obtained: formal variables: 0.97; criteria relevant to assess evidence: 0.92; uncertainty (explicit and implicit): 0.95; certainty (explicit and implicit): 0.92.” (p. 10)</p> <p><strong>Codebook: </strong>in the appendix (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Kessler, 2016</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Sabrina Heike Kessler </p> <p><strong>Research questions: </strong>How evident are medical issues presented in science TV programs? Are there any relationship between the individual types of evidence sources and the way they are presented? Can constant formal-abstract patterns/frames of presented evidence be identified? </p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>There was a full-sample content analysis of science TV programs about scientific and medical issues (<em>N</em> = 321, with <em>N</em> = 851 evidence source argumentations).</p> <p>Three frames of evidence identified via a cluster analysis. The frames differed significantly in their degree of depicting belief, doubt, and uncertainty, which were defined as the core elements of a frame of evidence.</p> <p><strong>Timeframe of analysis: </strong>August 1, 2011 to July 31, 2012 </p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables: </strong>variables that measure the represented uncertainty in the argumentations of evidence sources and variables that determine the formal-abstract evidence frames.</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis:</strong> Science TV programs and evidence source arguments</p> <p><strong>Variables, values and reliability: <a name="_Toc406587068"></a></strong></p> <p>Intercoder reliability values of the coding separated by variables</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Variable</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Number of Possible Values</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Number of Codings</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Holsti Reliability Coefficient</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Cohen's Kappa</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V5 (specific topic)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>1 to x</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>30</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.93</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.92 </p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V6 (general topic)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>1 to x</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>30</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.91</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.90</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V7b (main thesis)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>x</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>30</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.93</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.92</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V9 (number of evidence sources)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>1 to x</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>30</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.98</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.82</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V10 (type of evidence source)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>6</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>57</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.93</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.91</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V11 (validity of the evidence source)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>4</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.90</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.85</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V12 (arguments for)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>3</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.81</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.63</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V13 (arguments against)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>3</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.92</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.73</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V14 (polarity)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>3</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.99</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.92</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V15 (weighting)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>2</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.96</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.58</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V16 (actuality)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>2</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.95</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.54</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V17 (uncertainty explicit)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>3</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.86</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.39</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V18 (implicit uncertainty)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>3</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.79</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.45</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V19 (homogeneity)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>2</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.95</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.51</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V20 (detailing)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>2</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.92</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.41</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>V21 (constancy)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>3</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.93</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>.71</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>V22 (secondary evaluation)</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>3</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>52</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.67</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>.42</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong>Codebook: </strong>in the appendix (in German)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Brechman, J. M., Lee, C., &amp; Cappella, J. N. (2009), Lost in translation?: A comparison of cancer-genetics reporting in the press release and its subsequent coverage in the press. <em>Science Communication, 30</em>(4), 453-474. DOI: 10.1177/1075547009332649</p> <p>Brechman, J. M., Lee, C., &amp; Cappella, J. N. (2011), Distorting genetic research about cancer: from bench science to press release to published news. <em>Journal of Communication, 61</em>(3), 496-513. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01550.x</p> <p>Guenther, L., Bischoff, J., Löwe, A., Marzinkowski, H., &amp; Voigt, M. (2019). Scientific evidence and science journalism: Analysing the representation of (un)certainty in German print and online media. <em>Journalism Studies, 20</em>(1), 40-59.</p> <p>Kessler, S. H. (2016). <em>Das ist doch evident! Eine Analyse dargestellter Evidenzframes und deren Wirkung am Beispiel von TV-Wissenschaftsbeiträgen </em>(Reihe Medien + Gesundheit, Band 12). Baden-Baden: Nomos. DOI: 10.5771/9783845275468</p> <p>Retzbach, A., &amp; Maier, M. (2015), Communicating scientific uncertainty: Media effects on public engagement with science. <em>Communication Research, 42</em>(3), 429-456. DOI: 10.1177/0093650214534967</p> <p>Ruhrmann, G., Guenther, L., Kessler, S. H. &amp; Milde, J. (2015). Frames of scientific evidence: How journalists represent the (un)certainty of molecular medicine in science television programs. <em>Public Understanding of Science, 24</em>(6), 681-696. DOI: 10.1177/096366251351064</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2a Quality (Health Coverage) 2020-10-19T17:53:16+02:00 Doreen Reifegerste doreen.reifegerste@uni-bielefeld.de Annemarie Wiedicke annemarie.wiedicke@ifkw.lmu.de <p>To judge the quality of the media coverage of health information<em>, </em><em>research mostly focuses on ten criteria: </em>adequately discussion of costs, quantification of benefits, adequately explanation and quantification of potential harms, comparison of the new idea with existing alternatives, independence of sources and discussion of potential conflicts of interests, avoidance of disease mongering, review of methodology or the quality of the evidence, discussion of the true novelty and availability of the idea, approach or product as well as giving information that go beyond a news release (Schwitzer, 2008, 2014; Smith et al., 2005). Other quality dimensions applied in content analyses of health news coverage are diversity, completeness, relevance, understandability and objectiveness (Reineck, 2014; Reineck &amp; Hölig, 2013).</p> <p>These criteria are increasingly relevant as people use online health information more frequently and in addition to the information from their physician for medical decision making (Wang, Xiu, &amp; Shahzad, 2019). Thus, analyzing the quality of health content in the media coverage becomes even more relevant. As Schwitzer (2017) points out, there is a variety of quality problems due to hurried, incomplete, poorly researched news.</p> <p>To measure quality, the content of health news coverage can be compared to content of the original research paper (e.g., Ashorkhani et al., 2012) or the quality of media content is continuously judged by journalist, medical experts or independent organizations such as <em>HealthNewsReview</em> with respect to different criteria (e.g., Schwitzer, 2008; Selvaraj et al., 2014).</p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation: </em></strong></p> <p>Online health information, medical decision making, journalism studies</p> <p><strong><em>References/combination with other methods:</em></strong></p> <p>Focus group discussions with journalists, editors-in-chief and news gatekeepers (Ashorkhani et al., 2012), focus group discussions with consumers of health information (Marshall &amp; Williams, 2006)</p> <p><strong><em>Example studies:</em></strong></p> <p>Anhäuser &amp; Wormer (2012); <span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">Schwitzer (2008); </span>Wormer (2014); <span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">Reineck &amp; Hölig (2013); </span>Reineck (2014)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Reineck &amp; Hölig, 2013</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Dennis Reineck, Sascha Hölig</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Which factors contribute to the quality of health journalism?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Sample of all health-related articles in four German newspapers: <em>Süddeutsche Zeitung</em> (<em>n </em>= 167), <em>Die Welt</em> (n = 426), <em>Frankfurter Rundschau</em> (<em>n </em>= 219) and <em>die tageszeitung</em> (<em>n </em>= 84)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>March, 1, 2010 to February, 28, 2011</p> <p><strong>Info</strong><strong> about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables</strong>: Variables defining five dimensions of quality for health-related newspaper articles, deduction of a quality index: coding of 0 to 100 points for each indicator of the different variables, deduction of a quality index for each article based on these points</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: news article</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Quality dimension</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Variable</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Indicator(s)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="3"> <p>Diversity (<em>rH</em>= 0.78)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Quantitative diversity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Length of the article</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Source diversity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Number of sources</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Opinion diversity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Discussion of contrary opinions</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="3"> <p>Completeness (<em>rH</em>= 0.86)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Journalistic completeness and scientific completeness, risks</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>For diseases: information about prevention, symptoms and remedies</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Scientific completeness</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>For research studies: information about method, sample and results</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Risks</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>For treatment options: addressing of risks and side effects</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="3"> <p>Relevance (<em>rH</em>= 0.85)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Source credibility</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Sources with the highest reputation</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Usefulness</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Take-home-messages, references to additional information</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Newsworthiness</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>News factors (e.g., topicality)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t" rowspan="4"> <p>Understandability (<em>rH</em>= 0.86)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Simplicity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Simplicity vs. complexity of language</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Structure</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Well-structured vs. inadequately structured presentation</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Conciseness</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Concise vs. circuitous presentation</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t"> <p>Storytelling</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Storytelling vs. matter-of-fact presentation</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b" rowspan="2"> <p>Objectiveness (<em>rH</em>= 0.95)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Emotionalization</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Emotional language</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b"> <p>Dramatization</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p>Dramatization of information</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Anhäuser, M., &amp; Wormer, H. (2012). A question of quality: Criteria for the evaluation of science and medical reporting and testing their applicability. <em>PCST 2012 Book of Papers: Quality, Honesty and Beauty in Science and Technology Communication</em>. http://www.medien-doktor.de/medizin/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/downloads/2014/04/Paper-Florenz.pdf</p> <p>Ashorkhani, M., Gholami, J., Maleki, K., Nedjat, S., Mortazavi, J., &amp; Majdzadeh, R. (2012). Quality of health news disseminated in the print media in developing countries: A case study in Iran. <em>BMC Public Health</em>, <em>12</em>, 627. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-627</p> <p>Marshall, L. A., &amp; Williams, D. (2006). Health information: does quality count for the consumer? <em>Journal of Librarianship and Information Science</em>, <em>38</em>(3), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000606066575</p> <p>Reineck, D. (2014). Placebo oder Aufklärung mit Wirkpotenzial? Eine Diagnose der Qualität der Gesundheitsberichterstattung in überregionalen Tageszeitungen. In V. Lilienthal (Ed.), <em>Qualität im Gesundheitsjournalismus: Perspektiven aus Wissenschaft und Praxis </em>(Vol. 325, pp. 39–60). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02427-7_3</p> <p>Reineck, D., &amp; Hölig, S. (2013). Patient Gesundheitsjournalismus: Eine inhaltsanalytische Untersuchung der Qualität in überregionalen Tageszeitungen. In C. Rossmann &amp; M. R. Hastall (Eds.), <em>Medien + Gesundheit: Band 6. Medien und Gesundheitskommunikation: Befunde, Entwicklungen, Herausforderungen </em>(1st ed., pp. 19–31). Nomos.</p> <p>Schwitzer, G. (2008). How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. <em>PLoS Medicine</em>, <em>5</em>(5), e95.</p> <p>Schwitzer, G. (2014). A guide to reading health care news stories. <em>JAMA Internal Medicine</em>, <em>174</em>(7), 1183–1186. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1359</p> <p>Schwitzer, G. (2017). Pollution of health news. <em>BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)</em>, <em>356</em>, j1262. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1262</p> <p>Selvaraj, S., Borkar, D. S., &amp; Prasad, V. (2014). Media coverage of medical journals: Do the best articles make the news? <em>PloS One</em>, <em>9</em>(1), e85355. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085355</p> <p>Smith, D. E., Wilson, A. J., &amp; Henry, D. A. (2005). Monitoring the quality of medical news reporting: Early experience with media doctor. <em>The Medical Journal of Australia</em>, <em>183</em>(4), 190–193.</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2b Inaccuracies and exaggerations (Health Coverage) 2020-10-19T17:57:06+02:00 Doreen Reifegerste doreen.reifegerste@uni-bielefeld.de Annemarie Wiedicke annemarie.wiedicke@ifkw.lmu.de <p>Exaggerated or simplistic media coverage on health issues is often blamed for affecting public health (Sumner et al., 2016). For example, MacDonald and Hoffman-Goetz (2002) have shown that cancer information in newspapers frequently contained inaccuracies in the past. However, more recent findings suggest that inaccuracies, like an oversimplified language, and exaggerations are already present in health news press releases (Brechman et al., 2009; Sumner et al., 2016). </p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical founation: </em></strong></p> <p>Health communication, science communication</p> <p><strong><em>Example studies:</em></strong></p> <p>Brechman et al. (2009); <span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">MacDonald &amp; Hoffman-Goetz (2002); </span>Sumner et al. (2014); Sumner et al. (2016)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on </strong><strong>Brechman et al.</strong><strong>, 2009</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Jean M- Brechman, Chul-joo Lee, Joseph N. Cappella</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The study explores the communication of genetic science to the lay public. To address this issue, this study compares the presentation of genetic research relating to cancer outcomes and behaviors (i.e., prostate cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, smoking and obesity) in the press release (<em>N </em>= 23) to the presentation in the subsequent news coverage (<em>N</em> = 71).</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: The total sample included <em>N </em>= 71 articles on gene/cancer-outcome discoveries from major U.S. newspapers (no further information) as well as all corresponding press releases (<em>N</em> = 23) from institution web sites and EurekAlert! or PRNewswire (electronic archives of releases for science writers).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis:</strong> July 2004 to June 2007</p> <p><strong style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">Variables:</strong><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;"> Coding schema to capture conceptual and contextual differences between information presented in the press release and information presented in related news coverage; codes used to make these distinctions included </span><em style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">overgeneralization/ simplification</em><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">, </span><em style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">assimilation of speculation into fact</em><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">, </span><em style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">contradiction</em><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">, and </span><em style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">level of specificity/qualifying information</em><span style="font-family: 'Noto Sans', 'Noto Kufi Arabic', -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', Roboto, Oxygen-Sans, Ubuntu, Cantarell, 'Helvetica Neue', sans-serif;">.</span></p> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: In order to assess reliability, five cases containing 109 claims were coded by two independent coders. Overall agreement was 79.8%.</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: Central claims on genetic research relating to cancer outcomes and behaviors in press release and media articles</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on MacDonald &amp; Hoffman-Goetz, 2009 </strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Megan M. MacDonald, Laurie Hoffman-Goetz</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The purpose of this study was to determine whether cancer articles in Canadian newspapers provide accurate cancer information relative to the original scientific sources of the information and the extent of mobilizing information about cancer prevention and treatment. A second objective was to determine whether newspaper circulation size influenced the accuracy of reporting of cancer information.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: From a total of 38 newspapers serving Ontario, the top 5 and bottom 5 newspapers in terms of circulation were identified for extreme group comparisons. All articles including the term “cancer” in the headline were extracted and a random sampling led to a total sample of N = 306 articles, including <em>The Toronto Star </em>(<em>n </em>= 63)<em>, The Ottawa Citizen </em>(<em>n </em>= 49)<em>, The Hamilton Spectator </em>(<em>n </em>= 53)<em>, The London Free Press </em>(<em>n </em>= 42) and <em>The Windsor Star </em>(<em>n </em>= 30) as top 5 newspapers as well as. <em>the Pembroke Daily Observer </em>(<em>n </em>= 12)<em>, Lindsay Daily Post </em>(<em>n </em>= 20)<em>, Northern Daily News (Kirkland Lake) </em>(<em>n </em>= 12)<em>, Cobourg Daily Star </em>(<em>n </em>= 10) and <em>The Daily Miner &amp; News (Kenora) </em>(<em>n </em>= 15) as bottom 5.</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis:</strong> 1991</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables:</strong> The accuracy of each article was assessed using the following criteria: <em>misleading title, treating speculation as fact</em>, <em>erroneous information</em>, <em>omitting important results</em> and <em>omitting qualifications or caveats to findings</em>.</p> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: The articles were coded separately by the researchers using the identified criteria. Where discrepancies occurred in coding results, these were discussed until a consensus was met. Consensus discussions occurred early in data collection to allow this process to inform and direct future coding (no further information provided).</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Sumner et al., 2014 </strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Petroc Sumner, Solveiga Vivian-Griffiths, Jacky Boivin, Andy Williams, Christos A Venetis, Aimée Davis, Jack Ogden, Leanne Whelan, Bethan Hughes, Bethan Dalton, Fred Boy, Christopher D Chambers</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>The study examines whether the press release or the news article are the source of distortions, exaggerations, or changes to the main conclusions drawn from research that could potentially influence a reader’s health related behaviour.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: Press releases (<em>n </em>= 462) on biomedical and health related science issued by 20 leading UK universities, alongside their associated peer reviewed research papers and news stories (<em>n</em> = 668).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis:</strong> 2011</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables: </strong>Taking the peer reviewed paper as a baseline, the authors sought cases where news stories offered advice to readers, made causal claims, or inferred relevance to humans beyond (or different to) that stated in the associated peer reviewed paper. Given the likelihood that some statements in journal articles themselves would be considered exaggerated by other scientists in the specialty, the overall levels of measured exaggeration are likely to be underestimates. The authors then asked whether such discrepancies were already present in the corresponding press release. For example, if a study reported a correlation between stress and wine consumption and the news story claimed that wine causes stress, what did the press release say? Similarly, if a news story claimed a new treatment for humans but the study was on rodents, what did the press release say?</p> <p><strong>Full coding guidelines</strong>: <a href="https://figshare.com/articles/InSciOut/903704">https://figshare.com/articles/InSciOut/903704</a></p> <p><em>“Is there a generalisation?”</em>: these variables provide information on whether exaggerations have occurred between the journal article and abstract, press release, or news report(s)</p> <ul> <li>No generalisation – <em>yes/ no </em></li> <li>minor generalisation - <em>yes/ no </em></li> <li>major generalisation <em>- yes/ no </em></li> <li>Justification offered for generalisation between actual study and abstract / press release /news report - <em>yes/ no</em></li> </ul> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: no information provided</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis</strong>: article</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on </strong><strong>Sumner et al., 2016 </strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Petroc Sumner, Solveiga Vivian-Griffiths, Jacky Boivin, Andrew Williams, Lewis Bott, Racel Adams, Christos A Venetis, Aimée Davis, Leanne Whelan, Bethan Hughes, Christopher D Chambers</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Recent findings suggested many exaggerations in the portrayal of health information were already present in university press releases, which scientists approve. Surprisingly, these exaggerations were not associated with more news coverage. This study examines whether these two controversial results also arise in press releases from prominent science and medical journals.</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis</strong>: press releases (<em>n</em> = 534) on biomedical and health-related science issued by leading peer-reviewed journals. The authors similarly analysed the associated peer-reviewed papers (<em>n</em> = 534) and news stories (<em>n</em> = 582).</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis:</strong> 2011</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables: </strong>The process of data extraction and analysis was identical to that in Sumner et al. (2014).</p> <p><strong>Full coding guidelines</strong>: <a href="https://figshare.com/articles/InSciOut/903704">https://figshare.com/articles/InSciOut/903704</a></p> <p> </p> <p><strong>References</strong></p> <p>Brechman, J. M., Lee, C.?J., &amp; Cappella, J. N. (2009). Lost in Translation? A Comparison of Cancer-Genetics Reporting in the Press Release and its Subsequent Coverage in Lay Press. <em>Science Communication</em>, <em>30</em>(4), 453–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009332649</p> <p>MacDonald, M. M., &amp; Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2002). A Retrospective Study of the Accuracy of Cancer Information in Ontario Daily Newspapers. <em>Canadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne De Sante'e Publique</em>, <em>93</em>(2), 142–145. www.jstor.org/stable/41993460</p> <p>Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Venetis, C. A., Davies, A., Ogden, J., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., Dalton, B., Boy, F., &amp; Chambers, C. D. (2014). The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: Retrospective observational study. <em>BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.)</em>, <em>349</em>, g7015. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7015</p> <p>Sumner, P., Vivian-Griffiths, S., Boivin, J., Williams, A., Bott, L., Adams, R., Venetis, C. A., Whelan, L., Hughes, B., &amp; Chambers, C. D. (2016). Exaggerations and Caveats in Press Releases and Health-Related Science News. <em>PloS One</em>, <em>11</em>(12), e0168217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168217</p> 2021-03-26T00:00:00+01:00 Copyright (c) 2020 DOCA - Database of Categories for Content Analysis https://www.hope.uzh.ch/doca/article/view/2d Framing responsibility (Health Coverage) 2020-07-10T14:54:44+02:00 Doreen Reifegerste doreen.reifegerste@uni-bielefeld.de Annemarie Wiedicke annemarie.wiedicke@ifkw.lmu.de <p>Responsibility frames in media coverage describe the mediated attribution of responsibility for causes and remedies (treatments, solutions) for health issues, mostly differentiating between individual and societal responsibility.</p> <p><strong><em>Field of application/theoretical foundation: </em></strong></p> <p>Media coverage of health topics, public opinion formation, attribution of responsibility, framing studies, social media on health issues</p> <p><strong><em>Example studies:</em></strong></p> <p>Gollust &amp; Lantz (2009); Kim &amp; Willis (2007); O’Hara &amp; Smith (2007); Stefanik-Sidener (2013); Yoo &amp; Kim (2012); Zhang &amp; Jin (2015)</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Kim &amp; Willis, 2007</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Sei-Hill Kim, Leigh Anne Willis</p> <p><strong>Health topic:</strong> Obesity</p> <p><strong>Research questions: </strong>How have the media presented the causes and solutions for obesity? Have certain causes and solutions appeared more often than others? How has media coverage of causal and solution responsibility changed over the years? Have mentions of certain causes and solutions increased or decreased?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Newspaper and television news data containing “obesity” or “obese” appearing in the headline, lead paragraphs, or index terms; articles published in <em>The New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, The San Francisco Chronicle, The Houston Chronicle</em>, and <em>USA Today</em>; news transcripts on obesity from three television networks (<em>ABC, CBS, NBC</em>); after conducting a systematic sampling, <em>n </em>= 300 articles and <em>n </em>= 200 transcripts were analyzed</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>January 1995 to August 2004</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables: </strong>Variables included attributions of causal and treatment responsibility, cause or treatment option was coded as ‘‘not present’’ (0) or ‘‘present’’ (1).</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>News article respectively tv transcript</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t r"> <p>Causal responsibility</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Solution responsibility</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t r"> <p><strong>Personal causes (Scott’s pi= .81) </strong></p> <p><em>Unhealthy diet</em>: Consuming too much food, consuming too much unhealthy food, addictive or emotional eating.</p> <p><em>Sedentary lifestyle</em>: Lack of exercise, Lack of physical activities.</p> <p><em>Genetic conditions</em>: Genetic=biological factors that may produce obesity (e.g., imbalance of hunger hormones that may stimulate appetite).</p> <p><em>Others</em>: E.g., poor adult role models.</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Personal solutions (Scott’s pi= .74)</strong></p> <p><em>Healthy diet</em>: Consuming less food, consuming healthy food.</p> <p><em>Physically activities</em>: More exercise and physical activities.</p> <p><em>Medical treatments</em>: Medications (e.g., diet pills), surgical treatments of obesity (e.g., gastric bypass, gastric stapling).</p> <p><em>Others</em>: E.g., working with a support group, talking to a counselor, parents as role models.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b r"> <p><strong>Societal causes (Scott’s pi= .86) </strong></p> <p><em>The food industry</em>: Obesity-promoting foods (fast=junk food), super-sizing, large increase in fast=junk food restaurants, other aggressive marketing promotions.</p> <p><em>Schools &amp; education</em>: Unhealthy foods in school cafeterias, lack of physical activity programs at schools, lack of public education about healthy eating and lifestyle.</p> <p><em>Socioeconomic factors</em>: Low-income families may not be able to afford healthy food, exercise equipment, or a gym membership. They may be too busy to prepare their own healthy food.</p> <p><em>Others</em>: E.g., automobile-oriented society (e.g., drive-thru stores and restaurants, big-box stores), unsafe community (crime, traffic, accident), and limited opportunities for outdoor activities.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Societal solutions (Scott’s pi= .81)</strong></p> <p><em>Regulations of the food industry</em>: Regulating obesity-promoting foods, super-sizing, vending machines, and other aggressive marketing promotions, taxing unhealthy food.</p> <p><em>Changes in schools &amp; education</em>: Healthier food in school cafeteria, more physical activity programs at schools, more public education.</p> <p><em>Socioeconomic changes</em>: Narrowing income gap, healthy food should be more affordable and available, more affordable exercise.</p> <p><em>Others</em>: E.g., less automobile-oriented and more walking-oriented society (less drive-thru stores and restaurants, less big-box stores), safer community, and more opportunities for outdoor activities.</p> <p> </p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Stefanik-Sidener, 2013</strong></p> <p><strong>Author: </strong>Kelsey Stefanik-Sidener</p> <p><strong>Health topic: </strong>Diabetes</p> <p><strong>Research questions: </strong>What was the dominant frame used in news stories about diabetes? What were the most common cause and solution frames used for each type of diabetes?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>Diabetes coverage in the<em> New York Times </em>(<em>N </em>= 239)</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>2000 to 2010</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables: </strong>The articles were coded for the presence of three types of frames for both causes of and solutions to diabetes, respectively: behavioral, societal, or medical, frames were not mutually exclusive</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>News article</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t r"> <p>General cause frame (Krippendorff’s Alpha= .96)</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>General solution frame (Krippendorff’s Alpha= .64)</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t r"> <p><strong>Behavioral causal frame </strong></p> <p>Poor diet, lack of physical activity, or other individual-level issues</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Personal solutions</strong></p> <p>Improving one’s diet or increasing activity levels</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t r"> <p><strong>Societal cause frames </strong></p> <p>Poor food environments, car-centered culture, poor nutrition in schools, or other broad problems</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Societal solution frames</strong></p> <p>Improving access to healthy foods, increasing nutrition education, or other public policy/societal-level solutions</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b r"> <p><strong>Medical cause frames</strong></p> <p>Family history, genetics, age</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Medical solution frames</strong></p> <p>Blood sugar control, medication, or surgery</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p><strong> </strong></p> <p><strong>Information on Yoo &amp; Kim, 2012</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Jina H. Yoo, Junghyun Kim</p> <p><strong>Health topic: </strong>obesity</p> <p><strong>Research questions: </strong>What typifications (i.e., causal claims and solution claims) have been made in videos on YouTube with regard to the obesity issue? How do these typifications vary among different types of media formats on YouTube?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong><em>YouTube</em> was searched with the keywords “obesity” and “obese” on 5 March 2010 and owing to capacity limits, the number of available videos was limited to 1,000 per each keyword; after a systematic random sampling and excluding irrelevant videos, total sample of <em>N </em>= 417 YouTube videos was analyzed</p> <p><strong>Time frame of analysis: </strong>2000 to 2010</p> <p><strong>Info about variables</strong></p> <p><strong>Variables: </strong>articles were coded for the presence of causal claims and solution typifications, behavioral, biological, and systematic causal factors on obesity being causal claims and behavioral solution, medical or pharmacological solution and systematic solution</p> <p><strong>Reliability</strong>: Intercoder reliability was calculated for each category, and average intercoder reliability coefficient was .89. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient for each variable ranged between .77 and 1.00</p> <p><strong>Level of analysis: </strong>each whole video, including all of the video’s visual, audio, and text presentation</p> <div style="overflow-x: auto;"> <table> <tbody> <tr> <td class="t r"> <p>Causal claims for obesity</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p>Solution typifications for obesity</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t r"> <p><strong>Behavioral causal claim</strong></p> <p>Obesity is due to the individual’s lifestyle choices, including lack of exercise, wrong diet, lack of willpower and self-control, etc.</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Behavioral solution</strong></p> <p>Improving one’s diet or increasing activity levels</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t r"> <p><strong>Biological causal claim</strong></p> <p>Obesity is due to genetic or hormonal problems</p> </td> <td class="t"> <p><strong>Medical or pharmacological solution</strong></p> <p>To use diet pills or have a gastric bypass surgery as a means of treating obesity.</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="t b r"> <p><strong>Systematic causal claim</strong></p> <p>Obesity is based on environmental influences and policy choices, including detrimental practices of corporations and government, such as the fast food industry’s marketing practices, school cafeterias’ unhealthy foods, inadequate or inaccurate information about food and nutrition, etc.</p> </td> <td class="t b"> <p><strong>Systematic solution</strong></p> <p>A societal level of obesity treatment, such as implementing obesity-related policies, banning fast food marketing, removing vending machines from school, etc.</p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div> <p> </p> <p><strong>Information on Zhang &amp; Jin, 2015</strong></p> <p><strong>Authors: </strong>Yuan Zhang, Yan Jin</p> <p><strong>Health topic: </strong>Depression</p> <p><strong>Research question: </strong>Do cultural values and organizational restraints shape the responsibility frames for health issues?</p> <p><strong>Object of analysis: </strong>US (<em>n </em>= 228) and Chinese (<em>n </em>= 224) newspaper coverage on depression, including <em>New York Times</em> and <em>USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer, Houston Chronicle, Star Tribune</em> and <em>Denver Post</em>; Chinese newspapers w