3%

 

 

a?

.. .Mmfi V ‘ .
, _ {$6.6 .,

 

.
4:. ..

3.
\. SEA}. l
c 3.31.14.

1 it. I
. . .1:
Lu-VJLU.

a.

31.:

2...?

be???“

124.3. ‘4 d
r 2”

 

..
.. $31.... :. .2. ,
.3 74a... ,
g . ...........:.....x...‘ «.....1.y.2..§ a
- z .4: z .. .
,a 2.39.}
f... ....

 

if.
.9...)
¢
”1.? .3
.: “my 4.....F92n
3...?” ,
E... .
1... .. nus-w. ‘
5...? 3:32...- .. .t.
wiskfi 3g
:5 .h and?

 

. 4
21...! 5’... I...
2131‘! 5.3.5:]:
:: if. VV £931.»!
3;. | .3. 7 ;
}

 

, c. 3.
31.22.1151} v H.- I}...
5.51.3533 .. ‘41P
‘ . .353}?
. 7 i311...

3.1.041. .,

 

. 3min .
.3hw la. no.

fiflmfiggigmafié 1 . iii“

.1. z 7?.

 

 

  

 

magmmfifie

1.5 ....
.

 

any». ....,..,x.

n»---l

   
 

  

I),

 

III

 

 

 

I, | ‘

 

Jooé

 

LIBRARY
Michinan State

Umversity

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

REFRAMING RURAL AMERICA

presented by
AILEEN WEBB

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D degree in Mass Media

5; a

Major Professor's Signature

g/gy/gosr

Date

 

 

 

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

Wan?
.. WI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m

REFRAMING RURAL AMERICA
By

Aileen Webb

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to:
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Mass Media

2005

ABSTRACT
REFRAMING RURAL AMERICA
By
Aileen Webb

This dissertation examines the way frames about rural America might be changed
to increase support for a new policy agenda. The current frames around rural America,
tend to portray it as place of simple, hard-working, virtuous people in a bucolic natural
setting (Aubrun & Grady, 2004). Frame analysis helps us to understand the array of
arguments and counter arguments that surround complex topics like rural America
(Gamson, 1992, 1995, 2000; Schon and Rein, 1994). Once we understand the dominant
frame, it is possible to test alternative frames and to engage in refrarning to change the
existing pattern of discourse.

The research was designed to test how support for a new rural policy agenda
varies when different elements of the frame are introduced. A within-subjects
experiment, using a 3,105-subject telephone survey, was designed. Support for a new
rural agenda was measured after the introduction of three new frame value, fairness,
cooperation and interdependence. Another frame element, a new rural metaphor called a
simplifying model, was also tested. Additionally, the research also explored how
geographic location and media use might vary levels of support for a new rural agenda.

One key finding was that when individuals were exposed to the fairness and
interdependence values within the frame, their support for a new rural policy agenda was
greater than the control group. The introduction of the new rural metaphor, however, did

not change the level of support for the new rural agenda.

In the cooperation and fairness reframes, rural and urban respondents did not
differ significantly in their support for rural policy. Urban people, exposed to the
interdependence reframe, demonstrated significantly less support for the rural policy
agenda than did rural people. Comparing rural and suburban groups in the fairness and
cooperation frames, significant differences appeared in support for the rural agenda but
not in the interdependence treatment condition.

This research provides guidance for rural advocates seeking to change the current
policy discussion. Successful rural frames will illuminate fairness in addressing rural
concerns, and will build on geographic interdependence to connect all people to these

issues, wherever they live.

Copyright by

AILEEN WEBB

AND THE W.K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION
2005

DEDICATION

This dissertation would not have been possible without the loving support of my family.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

No project of this size could be undertaken without the support of many people. I
had the support of my colleagues, my professors and staff at Michigan State University.
Special thanks must go to my committee, who always urged me to do my very best
including Dr. Frank Fear, Dr. Hee Sun Park and Dr. Charles Atkin. The chair of my
committee, Dr. Charles Salmon, admitted me to the Mass Media program and stayed with
me through the entire process. I would not have made it through without his support.

It is also important for me to acknowledge the unfailing support I have received
from the WK. Kellogg Foundation. Not only did they financially support my entire PhD
program, they allowed me the flexibility of work schedule and the research funds
necessary to complete this dissertation. I only hope that my work will advance many of
the issues both my colleagues and I care about in rural America.

Finally, thanks must go to my family. Alfred De Leo, my mother’s husband,
never let me give on the statistics. My mother, Virginia, gave me continual moral
support. My father, Richard, helped in every way he could, including editing. My deepest
and abiding gratitude goes to my husband, Keith and my daughter, Emma. Without their

love and devotion, none of this would be possible.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
Issue Background ........................................................................... 1
Application ofFraming Theory3
Rural Frames ............................................................................... 5
Statement ofthe Problem6
Organization of the Dissertation .......................................................... 7
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 9
How Framing Works ....................................................................... 9
Frame Production ............................................................................ 13
Examination ofthe TextlS
Interaction and Negotiation Between Text and Audience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0
The Dominant Rural Frames ............................................................. 22
Consequences ofthe Rural Utopia/Dystopia Frames. . . . 26
Reframing Rural Amenca ....29
Research Questions and Hypotheses .................................................................. 32
CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 36
Overview of Strategic Frame Analysis ............................................... 36
Research design ........................................................................ 38
Measurement Units” . 39
New Rural Agenda Variable ................................................. 39
Independent Variables42
Value Reframes ........................................................ 42
Simplifying Model ..................................................... 44
Pilot Survey... 49
Selection of Subjects .................................................................... 53

vii

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ...................................................................... 55
Results ....................................................................................... 55
Hypothesis 1 .............................................................................. 55
Hypothesis 2 ............................................................................... 57
Hypothesis 3 ............................................................................... 58
Hypothesis 4 ............................................................................... 63
Hypothesis 5 ............................................................................... 64

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION .......................... 67

Summary of the Framing Effects Literature ........................................... 66
Maj or Findings ............................................................................ 69
Methodological Considerations .......................................................... 73
Limitations ................................................................................. 74
Recommendations ......................................................................... 75
Conclusion .................................................................................. 80
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 84
APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 104
Pilot Survey ............................................................................... 104
Survey Instrument ........................................................................ 121

viii

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table 8

Table 9

Table 10

Table 1 1

Table 12

LIST OF TABLES

Test Language for Fairness Reframe ............................... 46
Test Language for Interdependence Reframe ...................... 47
Test Language for Cooperation Reframe ............................ 48
Pilot Survey: Means and Standard Deviations for Semantic
Differential Questions ................................................ 50
Number of Subjects in Each Condition ............................. 54
Means of Support of Rural Agenda 1 Across Treatment
Conditions by Geographic Location ................................. 57
Means and Standard Deviation by Gender

in Support for Rural Policy .......................................... 61
Means and Standard Deviation by Race

in Support for Rural Policy .......................................... 61
Means of Geographic Place Within Framing Condition. . . . . ....63
Means of Support for Rural Agenda 1 and 2 by Variables

by Condition and Experiment ....................................... 64
Correlation between Media Use and Rural Agenda 1 ............ 65
Summary of Hypotheses Results .................................... 66

ix

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

Figure 7

LIST OF FIGURES

Model of Public Policy Change ................................. 3

Model of Framing ................................................ 11
Cascading Network Activation ................................. 15
Levels of Understanding ......................................... 18
Strategic Frame Analysis Model ................................ 37
The Reframing Process ........................................... 69
The Framing Puzzle .............................................. 80

CHAPTER ONE
REFRAMING RURAL AMERICA is a research project exploring how new and
alternative frames around rural America might expand policy support for a different rural

policy agenda (Rochefort & Cobb, 1994).
Issue Background

On a wide variety of indicators, life in the rural United States lags behind the rest
of America (Hamrick, 2003). Most of the studies about rural decline make roughly the
same point: that the legislative authority exists, but public will to implement necessary

new policies does not (Browne et. al., 1992; Flora, Flora & Fey, 2003).

While many people have a positive image of rural life, according to previous
research, the reality of living in rural America does not always match the perception
(Greenberg, 2000). Rural areas in the United States have a disproportionate share of
poverty. They are socially and spatially isolated and lack stable employment,
opportunities for mobility, and diversity in their institutions (Tickamyer & Duncan, 1990;
Davidson, 1996; Cloke, 1996; Filkins, Allen, & Cordes, 2000; Hamrick, 2003; Chambers,
1996; Flora, Flora, & Fey, 2003; Flora et al, 1992; Slack. & Jensen, 2002; Smith, 1996;
Smith &. Krannich, 2000; Skees, & Swanson, 1994). Rural towns are places where
poverty, overcrowded schoolrooms, substandard housing and social upheaval prevail
(Dalla & Baugher, 2001). How then might a new rural policy agenda be implemented to
improve the conditions in rural America?

Political scientist Kingdon proposes a model of public policy change in which
three streams—problems, policies and politics—exist side by side (1995). Each of these

streams has a life of its own and runs along without connection to the other streams.

Through a process similar to agenda setting, certain problems become a focus within the
first stream. In the second stream, solutions are created, and policy solutions are
generated. In the third stream, political opportunity comes and goes, much like the
change in a national administration.

“The proposals are generated whether or not they are solving a given problem, the
problems are recognized whether or not there is a solution, and political events have their
own dynamics” (Kingdon, 1995, 227). The greatest policy change occurs when the three
streams join, as shown in the model (See Figure 1).

In looking at the challenges facing rural America, rural community development
advocates continue to propose a range of solutions for the problems of rural communities.
These solutions fill the policy stream. In the political stream, the dynamics of recent
national elections (with its focus on rural voters) reflect the ebb and flow of politics
within this model (Greenberg & Greener, 2003; Greenberg, Walker & Greenberg, 2005).
In the stream of problem definition, however, the challenges of rural America seem
invisible. One factor restricting change in policy systems is the power of the underlying
ideas to limit creative thinking (Baumgartner & Jones, 2002, 302). In this way, the
strength and appealing nature of the current frames around rural America tend to prevent
critical analysis. This sets up a reinforcing loop, leading back to the same policies that

have disadvantaged rural populations in the past.

Figure 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model of Policy Change
Problem . Political Stream
. Policy Stream 0 . d? l" l
. Semi?“ . - Technical Feasibility . Fgffcnsue o med
- rises ocusmg <-——> . . . . a—r
Events ValueAceeptitzihty - Perceived Public
0 Feedback of Current . FStfltenggts‘troaints Opinion
Performance - Politician Appeal
Window of Opportunity

- Coupling of Streams

 

 

- By Policy Entrepreneurs

1

Policy Outcomes I

 

 

 

Note: From “Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies” by J .W. Kingdon, 1995. Copyright held by

Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc. Reprint permission requested.

Application of Framing Theory

If the ability to make different policy choices rests on “structures of belief,
perception and appreciation, which we call frames,” then changing policy outcomes
requires new frames for the rural United States (Schon & Rein, 1994, 23). As linguist
George Lakoff states, “One of the fundamental findings of cognitive science is that
people think in terms of frames and metaphors—conceptual structures. . .The frames are
in the synapses of our brains—physically present in the form of a neural
circuitry. . .Frames, once entrenched, are hard to dispel” (2003, 117).

As Terkildsen and Schnell (1997) suggest, based on their analysis of the frames

used to advance public thinking about the women’s movement, “Interest groups that seek

 

to mobilize broad support should package their issues to appeal to the most commonly
held societal values and avoid appeals to economic rights or group specific legislation”
(1997, 893). This research tests an idea put forward by Terkildsen, Schnell and many
others that the actual effect of framing is due to the specific language of the unique frame
and that change in the frame may cause a shift in policy outcomes. This research builds
on their work by specifically changing the value and the metaphor embedded in the
frame. Another way to think of the process of policy change through frame manipulation
is to paraphrase an old saying: “To the winner goes the frame.” The frames of effective
social movements ofien become the foundations of new public policy and thereby enter
into the cultural discourse (Zald,l996).

While some social scientists assert that framing may be “one of the most powerful
forces to determine public and private policy,” very little research has focused on
understanding how alternative frames might be developed and tested (Hertog & McLeod,
2003, 160). Dominant frames of understanding are the result of a lifetime of conditioning
by culture. Individuals tend to argue from their tacit frames to produce explicit policy
solutions. This research tests alternative frames to better understand what happens to
support levels for a new rural agenda (Schon & Rein, 1994). Changing an ingrained way
of thinking, however, is far beyond the scope of one research project. This research A
merely provides a sense of direction about what might happen when frames elements are
altered through the introduction of new values and metaphors (Shah, Domke &

Wackman, 2003; Nelson and Wiley, 2003; Gandy, 2003; Hertog & McLeod, 2003).

Rural Frames

“Family farms and small farming communities dominate our images of rural
America in part because politicians, lobbyists, and the media cultivate those rural icons,
supporting the myth that agricultural policy is rural policy” (Flora, Flora & Fey, 2001,
23). This iconic view of rural America has not led to the kind of policy outcomes desired
by rural advocates (Aubrun & Grady, 2003). Frames are grounded in the institutions that
sponsor them; in the case of rural America, the most visible institutions come from our
agricultural past and present.

Advocates have tried emphasizing rural assets that other Americans may not
appreciate sufficiently, for example, the work ethic and ingenuity of rural residents. They
also cite rural problems, such as poverty and unemployment, of which most Americans
may also be unaware. If actual conditions of rural America are an indicator, however,
representatives of rural interests have supplied analogies and imagery that effectively
reinforce the current frames. The dominant frame reinforces the status quo and
advocating a different frame is a political act, according to Gamson (2000). The pre-
conceived images, narratives and understandings (which are typically reinforced through
public discourse of all types) are often too powerful to be displaced even by well-chosen

facts.

Rural groups may not be aware that they are battling frames that work against
their cause. “Like a team playing on a steep slope, regardless of their effort or abilities,
the outcome is preordained, the odds too long, the competition weighted too heavily

against them” (Hertog & McLeod, 2003, 147).

Researchers have concluded that among the biggest communications challenges
facing rural advocates are entrenched and invisible patterns of thought which are
extremely difficult to bypass or to displace (Bales, 2003; Aubrun & Grady, 2004;
Bostrom, 2004). These deeply held patterns of reasoning undermine support for new rural
policies. As Susan Bales from the Frameworks Institute explains, “When the facts don’t
fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts ignored” (2004, 6). The frames that guide
most Americans’ thinking about the rural United States equate small towns and the
countryside with the natural order of things, creating an enduring metaphor with roots in
the earliest American philosophers (Hofstadter, 1955, Aubrun & Grady, 2003, 2004;
Bostrom, 2003, 2004; Bales, 2003; Greenberg, 2001).

Statement of the Problem

Through this brief discussion of conditions in rural America, frame theory and
current dominant rural frames, evidence can be marshaled to support the hypothesis that
altering the frame around rural America will lead to new policy solutions. The challenge,
then, is what might a new, more successfill frame look like? This research attempts to
answer that question.

An underlying assumption of this project is that to develop a new rural agenda,
rural advocates first must understand how their current messages cue a reasoning process
that runs counter to their desired policy solutions. Rather than activate the existing
frames, rural advocates need training to use alternative frames leading to a different type
of reasoning and to more successful policy interventions. This research project treads the

narrow path between theory and practice. At the broadest level, it is a marriage of basic

and applied research. The study draws from multiple applications of framing theory that
exist across disciplines.

The research serves two masters: to extend and increase knowledge about framing
effects theory, and to assist rural advocates in understanding how a new set of more
effective rural messages might be constructed, using a different set of values and
metaphors within the frames. The ultimate goal is to demonstrate that effective
communications tools can be developed with the potential to change the dynamics of the
public debate—if adopted and disseminated by rural advocates. By using alternative
frames (and subsequent training in how to deploy those frames in their communications),
advocates may be able to effectively define their problem and communicate their
solutions to the political stream, thereby converging the three streams and initiating
meaningful rural policy change (Kingdon, 1995; Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988).

The key hypothesis posits that changing an element of the frame alters support
levels for policy. The research design experiments with changing frame elements, such as
values and metaphors, and measures empirically the degree of change in policy support.
Support for a new rural agenda is the dependent variable. While many studies use frames
as the independent variables (as is the case in this project), few, if any, studies could be
found using support for policy as a measurement of the effect of a new frame.

Organization of the Dissertation

The dissertation is organized in four chapters following the introduction: the

literature review; the methodology; the data analysis; and the discussion of results,

conclusion and recommendations. The literature review focuses on the overall theory of

framing as well as its specific application to rural message development; this confluence
of framing theory and its issue-specific application guides the research.

The literature review examines the current dominant frames associated in the
public mind with rural America. The review also explores qualitative research that
contrasts the effectiveness of alternative frames in advancing public understanding of
public policies with responses to the current dominant frame. A brief discussion of the
role of models and metaphors in frame analysis is included. The five hypotheses guiding
the research conclude the chapter.

The next section describes the methodology of the study. The project uses an
experimental methodology called Strategic Frame Analysis (SF A), which compares and
contrasts different hypothetical presentations of an issue, in order to isolate what
decreases or increases public support for specific policies (Bales & Gilliam, 2004,
Gilliam & Bales, 2001).

The data analysis chapter compares the results of research against the five main
hypotheses and six sub-hypotheses. The final chapter discusses the relevance of the
research to the fields of framing literature and to rural development and provides

recommendations to each area.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Given the large amount of framing research and literature available across
multiple disciplines, the first section highlights, in broad strokes, framing effects theory.
Gamson’s (2003, ii) three-component model of framing analysis is used as a simple
heuristic to organize the most relevant research. The three components that serve as an
organizing framework for the chapter are frame production, examination of the text, and
the interaction between the text and the audience (Gamson, 2003). The next section
examines research that directly informs this study, beginning with the analysis of existing
rural frames. It also explores various frame elements such as values and metaphors. The
final section lays out the general research questions and describes the hypotheses.
How Framing Works

The word “frame,” as both a noun and a verb, suggests both an active process and a
result (Gamson, 2000; Reese, 2003; Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997). The framing
literature spans multiple disciples and has been aptly called a “fractured paradigm”
(Entrnan, 1993). Scholars argue about whether framing represents a paradigm at all, or is,
instead, strengthened by its very flexible application across disciplines and situations.
Overall, the evidence for one unified theory of framing is elusive (Entman, 1993; Reese,
2003; Gandy, 2003; Lee & Aaker, 2004). As researchers suggest, the conceptual grasp of
framing seems to differ from researcher to researcher and discipline by discipline
(Entrnan, 1993, 2004; D’Angelo, 2002).

Researchers from anthropology, psychology and sociology were among the first to
examine communications using a framing lens. Framing is how these scholars describe

the act of constructing social reality by individuals, groups or society as a whole. The

word, frame, as used by anthropologist and psychologist Gregory Bateson (1972), refers
to cognitive models that allow an audience to understand and evaluate messages.
Embedded in frames are the cultural metaphors that offer shared understanding between
people (Bateson, 1972;Lakoff & Johnson, 1980).

Sociologist Erving Goffman was one of the first to elaborate on the frame process in
Frame Analysis (1974). In this work, he describes frames as enabling an individual to
“locate, perceive, identify and label” events in some way (1974, 21). Goffinan also offers
another important concept to this study—his definition of ‘reframing’ as a process that
can occur any time a situation presents incongruent information and a more plausible
explanation emerges (1974). Reframing, as defined in this study, is the systematic
variation of framing elements.

How do citizens make sense of “the swarming confusion of problems?”
(Lipmann, 1925, 24). Frames may be one way that individuals make sense of their world
by helping them judge which issues are central and which are peripheral, using cues
contained within the frame. The capacity to frame issues, or in other words, to define the
way an issue comes to be understood, is one of the most important and powerful
communications strategies available to political elites, social movement activists and the
media (Rochefort and Cobb, 1994; Stone, 1989). Schattschneider agrees that frames are
important because “the definition of alternatives is the supreme instrument of power”
(1960, 68).

Scheufele captures the dynamic course of framing in his model (See Figure 2). He
conceptualizes framing as a continuous process, where the outcomes of one process serve

as input for the subsequent process (1999). The four different, but connected activities, of

10

flaming include flame building, flame setting, establishing individual level effects of
flaming, and providing a link between individual flames and media flames (1999, 115).
While these processes are called different things by other researchers, they all describe

the same basic activity of framing at a societal level.

 

 
       

 

of flaming - ctc

Figure 2
Model of Framing
Inputs I Processes I Outcomes

I I
1 1
1 1
I . ' I

- Organizational pressures : Frame bUIIdlflg : .

- Ideologies, attitudes. ctc. . 1 > Media

-Other elites 1 1 Frames
1 1

- ClC. ' |

Media
. Audience
1
1
1
1 1
. ' ' - Attributions of responsibility
Aggie J 1 d' 'd 1 1 1 if 'L ' Animdcs
1
I

Note. From “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects” by D. A. Scheufele, 1999, Journal of
Communications, p. 115. Copyright 2000 held by International Communications Association. Reprint

permission requested.

Many definitions of flaming have been offered: “Frames are organizing principles
that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully

structure the social world” (Reese, 2003, 11). Another often-quoted definition comes

ll

flom Gitlin, who views frames as “persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation and
presentation of selection, emphasis and exclusion, by which symbol handlers routinely
organize discourse” (1980, 7). The flame “determines whether most people notice or how
they understand and remember a problem, as well as how they evaluate and choose to act
upon it” (Entrnan, 1993, 54). Any or all of these definitions describe the core process.
The conceptual definition of flaming in this study is "the way a story is told — the
selective use of particular symbols, metaphors, and messengers and the way these cues, in
turn, trigger the shared and durable cultural models that people use to make sense of their
world” (Bales and Gilliam, 2004, 15).

“Swarming confusion” may also characterize how various researchers have
categorized frames into typologies, seeking to bring an unruly expanse of literature into
some semblance of order. While almost every researcher seems to have a different way to
label flames, most usefiil to this research is Hallahan’s typology of the flaming literature.
He places framing into seven categories as they relate to public relations: the flaming of
situations, attributes, choices, actions, issues, responsibility and news (1999). Each
category attempts to pull together a certain characterization of flaming and demonstrates
the richness of the literature across disciplines. For example, the flaming of situations
involves relationships between people and draws on research from sociologists and
anthropologists like Goffinan and Bateson. Attributes flames accentuate the
characteristics of objects and people and can be seen in much of the commercial
application of flaming used with products. The flaming of risky choices is primarily
based on work by Tversky and Kahenman and comes out of the prospect theory of

decision-making ( 1981).

12

Of central interest to this research is the concept of issue frames or the
explanations offered by groups about their preferred definitions. “Framing decisions are
perhaps the most important strategic choices made in a public relations effort," Hallahan
asserts (1999, 24), echoing many social movement, communications and political science
scholars. Some flames are relatively stable cultural structures, while others are created
and prompted by individuals or groups with the desire to influence public discourse
(Hertog & McLeod, 2003). By deliberately flaming an issue, advocates attempt to
strategically participate and eventually win the contest over whose flame will prevail
(Gamson, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2000; Pan & Kosicki, 2003; Snow & Benford, 1992; Zald,
1996)

Frame Production

According to Gamson (2003), flame production is the way in which people;
groups and institutions create, promote and reproduce flames. Also called “flame
building” (Scheufele, 1999), this is a process similar to agenda building (Cobb & Elder,
1972). The fields of sociology, political science and psychology offer abundant research
in this area, while communications scholars seem to have been less focused on the
relationships of power and the role of special interest groups and elites in the construction
and promotion of flames.

Frame production research, mostly based on a content analysis of print and
television coverage of the specific issues, shows the flaming process in action on a
specific issue or topic and demonstrates how issue flames enter and leave public
discourse over time (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). In their study of nuclear energy,

9, “

Gamson and Modigliani track specific issue flames such as “progress , public

13

accountability” and the “energy independence” over time. An individual might begin to
understand an issue like nuclear power within a certain issue flame, such as progress,
because it was the dominant flame available in the 19503. After an event like the nuclear
accident at Three Mile Island in the 19703, however, a person’s flame would likely
change (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Frame production provides a way to think about
flames as evolving and contested battles over issue meaning.

Taking an individual level perspective into a systems view, Entman offers a
model explaining how flames build on each other in what he calls “cascading network
activation” (2004, 9). This model explains why the participation of issue advocates in the
flaming production process is a critical part of social change work. The research
discussed in this paper provides a foundation for rural advocates to reflame their

messages and increase their policy success.

14

Figure 3

Cascading Network Activation

 

Administration
White House
State

Defense

A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\ Other Elites
\ Congress members
‘ a & staffers
Ex-oficials
Experts
Foreign leaders
I
‘ L
1 Media
\ Journalists
\ News organizations
\
\ l
\ I
\ i
\ ‘ ”
\ \ ‘ New Frames
~ ~ Framing words
A" - Framing images
\
\
\
\
‘ x Public
~ ~ Polls

Other Indicators

 

Note. From Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion and US. Foreign Policy (p.10) by RM.

Entman, 2004, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Copyright 2004 by the University of Chicago.

Reprint permission requested.

Examination of Text

How the text of a frame actually changes attitudes, belief importance, and

attribution of responsibility has been a key question for many scholars. Gamson (2003, ii)

suggests that a simple agreement between disciplines could be that flames act as central

15

organizing principles holding together, and giving coherence to a diverse array of
symbols or idea elements.

The flactured nature of the framing effects literature is readily apparent when
surveying the literature. Within the text of a flame, many researchers have examined
flaming effects using the decision-making framework established by Tversky and
Kahenman (1981). Their work falls within the psychological theory about the subjective
utility of gains and losses. Some communications scholars focus on how flame theory
expands our understanding of media effects. Three major media effects theories—
agenda-setting, priming and flaming—converge around the idea of knowledge activation
and use (Price & Tewksbury, 1997). Other researchers suggest that framing should be
understood as a second level process of agenda setting, while other scholars vehemently
disagree with this premise (McCombs & Ghanem,2003; Maher,2003).

Other research has explored connections between world events and their method
of priming and flaming public opinion (Kinder & Sanders, 1996; Mutz & 8083, 1997).
Priming refers to the level of attention drawn to a specific problem; flaming is the
method in which emphasis is placed on certain aspects while others are ignored (Cappella
& Jamison, 1997; Iyengar, 1992; Kinder & Sanders, 1996; Mendleberg,l996; Stoker,
1997). The body of priming research suggests that the presentation of a stimulus with a
certain meaning will prompt the recall of related concepts and ideas. The central idea
underlying priming is cognitive accessibility theory. Under this theory, rather than
inventorying every possible memory available, people look for mental shortcuts

(Valentino, 1999).

16

To test claims about differences between flaming and belief change, an
experiment was devised to understand opinions towards welfare policy, with the
hypothesis that sophistication about the welfare debate would moderate the impact of
framing (Nelson, Clawson & Oxley, 1997). The results of the experiment support the
proposed psychological model of flaming effects and reinforce the claim that flaming is a
process distinct flom traditional persuasion-via-belief change. The flaming effects in the
experiment were stronger, rather than weaker, among respondents already familiar with
the flame’s content.

Central to this research is the idea that different values are embedded in flames
and that variation in the frame value changes the meaning of the frame. Value hierarchies
are negotiable and subject to influence flom flaming. Nelson and Wiley suggest that
individuals often hold conflicting values on contentious political issues (2003). In their
research about flaming effects, they conclude that flames establish hierarchies among
competing values and are subject to contextual forces (2003). In a laboratory experiment,
a measure of value importance, added to the manipulation of flame elements, yielded
data suggesting that a single flame may enhance the perceived importance of a single
value. For example, a flame that labels a Ku Klux Klan controversy as a “flee speech
issue” was shown to move opinion in the Klan’s direction, while the label “public safety
issue” moved opinion in the opposite direction (Nelson, Clawson & Oxley, 1997).

This concept is also confirmed in the “Great American Values Test,” where a 30
minute television show significantly affected the beliefs and behaviors of large groups of
people for several weeks (Ball-Rokeach, Rokeach & Grube, 1982). Values, according to

Rokeach, are generally desirable personal and social conditions such as equality and

17

freedom (1960, 1973). Social psychologists and political scientists, among others, have

demonstrated in their research that some values enjoy privileged status in the flaming

process (Ball-Rokeach, Rokeach & Grube, 1984; Rokeah, 1960, 1973). Value hierarchies

are flexible and socially negotiated, and subject to influence flom forces such as flaming.

In this context, values are the shared set of beliefs about ideal modes of behavior.
Researchers have developed a hierarchy of values, issues and policies representing

three levels of thought within a flame (Morgan & Bales, 2004). Drawn flom the work of

Lakoff and Johnson ( 1980), the first, or highest, level of thought is the values level, for

example as the value of connection to others in the system. These values include ideas

such as fleedom, justice, and community. The second level of thought is the issue

category level, such as the environment or childcare. Finally, the third level of thought is

the policy level, such as schools.

Figure 4

Levels of Understanding Within Frames

Level One Values such as freedom, faimessjustice

Level Two Issue Type such as education, health, the environment

Level Three Specific Issues such as global warming, k-12 schools or health coverage

Note. From “A Five Minute Refresher Course in Framing ” Kids Count E-Zine, 8. Copyright held by

Frameworks Institute. Reprinted with permission.

The priming of a certain level-one value may create differential thinking in

respondents and may result in a different level of policy support. The idea of

18

manipulating the value in a flame comes from Rokeach’s work on belief systems (1960,
1973).

The political science literature provides the most comprehensive testing of values
within the flaming literature. Elites and advocates struggle over the values contained in
the issue flame; in what the social movement literature calls flame contests. It is in the
political science literature that flame contests are shown to have an impact on public
policy. The fight over whose frame will prevail shapes political evaluations (Shah,
Domke & Wackman, 2003). The Shah, Domke and Wackman research created a
typology of value flames, ethical and material, and then tested how these value flames
shifi perceptions. Ethical values were tied to moral judgments while material value were
tied to economic self-interest and other non-morally related values.

One study tested the idea that values embedded in frames serve to establish
hierarchies among those values (Nelson & Wiley, 2003). Two frames were used: a crime
flame, including protection and security values, and a race frame, including fairness and
equity. The data supported the hypothesis that flaming has a statistically significant effect
on opinion towards redlining, with respondents in the race condition expressing
significantly greater opposition than did those in the crime condition.

A longitudinal content analysis of how the print media has covered the women’s
movement ascertained five unique flames (Terkildsen & Schnell, 1997). Using data from
the content analysis, the researchers undertook a quantitative study about framing and
political attitudes. The frames were built around unique core values drawn out of the

content analysis and then tested against dependent variables such as issue important

19

measures and tangible behavioral support, women’s roles and the feminist label, and
political knowledge and ideology.

Frames are comprised of many elements including values, visuals and metaphors
or simplifying models. “Metaphors allow us to understand abstract subject matter in
terms of more concrete, familiar terms. In a technical sense, metaphors are ‘mappings’
across conceptual domains" (Lakoff, 1995, 245). Studies in the cognitive science report
people are most likely to rely on analogies to learn complex, abstract concepts (Aubrun &
Grady, no date).

Interaction and Negotiation between Text and Audience

In the third area delineated by Gamson, researchers have examined how groups
contest and negotiate frames and the impact such contests have on the broader society.
The literature of social movements informs this part of the flaming effects theory and is
important to the overall research.

Communications theories of agenda setting and priming tend to view this
interaction as one where the audience is the passive receptor of messages flom
institutions such as the news media. Social movement theory looks at how various
interests negotiate the text itself, within power dynamics and other societal and cultural
conditions. Thinking about flaming as a set of discourses interacting in complicated ways
sets the stage for this research. This research focuses on one aspect of the discourse, the
challenger’s discourse or specifically the discourse about rural America flom the
perspective of challenging groups (Gamson & Modigliani, 1989).

The social movement literature demonstrates that flaming is a strategic process

that utilizes symbolic resources to create collective sense making (Gamson, 1996). In

20

current thinking about social movements, three broad factors have emerged: 1) the
structure of opportunities and constraints; 2) the forms of organization; and 3) the
collective process of interpretation, attribution and social construction of issues or the
process of framing (McAdam, Zald & McCarthy, 1996).

This third factor, flaming processes, can be understood as operating in five
distinct areas (McAdam, Zald & McCarthy, 1996). An active process of frame
construction happens both inside the social movement and outside, among the
contestants. Movements and counter movements engage in flaming contests to convince
both authorities and bystanders of their causes (Zald, 1996). Such contests happen in
face-to—face interaction and through the news media.

An essential task in a social movement is to flame social problems in a way that
convinces a wide and diverse audience of the need for change. Movement flames
generally have two components: the diagnosis of the problem and the strategy for its
solution (McCarthy, Smith & Zald, 1996). Movements that are likely to succeed offer one
or more collective action flames (Gamson, 1995). Snow and Benford (1992) define these
frames as sets of common beliefs and meaning that both keep movements unified and
inspire social change through action. Members of movements frame their issues in ways
they hope will mobilize supporters and deter opponents.

While the literature across a wide range of disciplines is replete with studies about
framing effects on a host of issues flom nuclear energy to women’s rights, the frames
around rural people and places had not merited any study until the research discussed in

the following section was undertaken. Understanding existing flames around rural

21

America is a necessary predicate to this research, and constructing and testing reflames
relies on the knowledge of what currently exists in people’s minds.

The Dominant Rural Frames

Hertog and McLeod (2003) outline a process for flaming analysis that includes
identifying preliminary models of as many flames and sub flames as possible. Dominant
flames are widely shared among individuals in society and support major institutions. No
research could be located that identified the existing flames around rural America.
However, to fill that gap, the WK. Kellogg Foundation sponsored a multi-year research
project, lasting flom 2001-2005, entitled “Perceptions of Rural America.” Interviews
with members of Congress, a survey of state legislators, and a content analysis of the
media coverage of rural issues at two different times, as well as in-depth interviews with
rural, urban and suburban citizens, comprised the first phase of the project (Greenberg,
2001, 2002; Lichter, Amundsen & Lichter, 2003, 2005; Greenberg & Greener 2002;

Greenberg & McCreesh, 2003; Greenberg, Walker & Greener, 2005).

In the second phase, the Foundation sponsored focus groups and in-depth
interviews to better understand the existing dominant rural flame and to identify possible
ways to reframe rural America. The second body of research will be discussed in detail,
because it provides an important foundation to the research of this dissertation (Aubrun &

Grady, 2003, 2004, Bostrom, 2003, 2004; Bales, 2003, 2004).

The Rural Perceptions research identified three general patterns of reasoning which
guide Americans’ thinking about rural issues at different moments, and in different

proportions for different individuals (Aubrun and Grady, 2003, 2004).

22

0 Rural utopia: The most often identified pattern of reasoning which associates
rural areas with bucolic beauty; rolling farmland; hard-working, self-
sufficient, happy people, and a very simple way of life, uncluttered by urban

vices.

0 Rural dystopia: Frequently used as a counterpoint to utopia, where rural areas
are associated with the stereotypical uneducated and small-minded “hicks,”

who lack the vision or ambition to transcend their marginal existences.

- Rural systems: A pattern of thinking where Americans see rural areas as more
like life in other areas, structured by economic and social relationships and
institutions, but also with their own unique shape, centering on small towns

and farms. (Aubrun & Grady, 2003, 2004).

Identified in the Rural Perception research, rural utopia is the most commonly
appearing frame and is based on the historical and enduring way that Americans view
themselves (Aubrun & Grady, 2003). While most Americans today would not identify
with ‘yeoman farmers,’ this flame draws its story flom the founding of the United States
as an agrarian collection of states. Thomas Jefferson’s view of a strong America was of a
nation of farmers, whose pastoral life produced the virtues of diligence, industriousness,
physical strength and honesty. While Jefferson’s vision of distributing flee land to small
farmers was thwarted by Alexander Hamilton, his rhetoric has become part of the

enduring American mythology upon which the rural flame is based.

The yeoman farmer mythology was later described by historian Richard

Hofstadter (1955). His description of the myth states:

23

Its hero was the yeoman farmer, its central conception the notion that he is the
ideal man and the ideal citizen. Unstinted praise of the special virtues of the
farmer and the special values of rural life was coupled with the assertion that
agriculture, as a calling uniquely productive and uniquely important to society,
had a special right to the concern and protection of government. The yeoman,
who owned a small farm and worked it with the aid of his family, was the
incarnation of the simple, honest, independent, healthy, happy human being.
Because he lived in close communion with beneficent nature, his life was
believed to have a wholesomeness and integrity impossible for the depraved
populations of cities. His well being was not merely physical, it was moral; it was
not merely personal, it was the central source of civic virtue; it was not merely
secular, but religious, for God had made the land and called man to cultivate it.
Since the yeoman was believed to be both happy and honest, and since he had a
secure prepertied stake in society in the form of his own land, he was held to be
the best and most reliable sort of citizen (1955, 24-25).

It is possible to trace the continuing power of the agrarian myth to present times.

Lippman characterized each citizen’s political world as a “pseudo environment” created

for the most part by the mass media that gathers, organizes and filters the events of the

day (1922). Lippman argued that the creation of pictures in our heads is the result of the

interaction of diverse “. .. habits, tastes, capacities, comforts and hopes of each private

citizen and the formal traditions of public and media discourse (1922, 14).”

Cultivation theory suggests a steady entrenchment of mainstream orientation for

television viewers. Since television viewing is ubiquitous in today’s world, various

24

flames are introduced and reinforced through this medium. The theory argues that
viewing television gradually leads to the adoption of beliefs about the nature of the social
world, conforming to the stereo-typical, distorted and very selective view of reality as
systematically portrayed in television, entertainment and news (Gerbner et al., 1994).

Popular culture today reinforces existing rural flames, and in what researchers
have identified as the rural utopia flame, continues to permeate American culture. In the
19605, The Andy Griflith Show, set in mythical rural Mayberry, never dropped below
seventh place in the seasonal Nielsen rankings during its seven years on the air. The Andy
Griffith Show was the inspiration for a series of shows such as The Beverly Hillbillies,
Green Acres, Petticoat Junction, and Hee Haw, in the 19703 and 808 (Haggins, 2005). A
host of popular and long running television shows like The Waltons, featuring a poor but
happy family living on Walton Mountain, are based in rural locations. Another TV show,
Little House on the Prairie, based on Laura Ingalls Wilder’s historical novels, first aired
in 1983 and is now scheduled for a mini-series reprise in 2005. Even in the newest
television genre, the reality show, the flames of utopia and dystopia around rural life are
reinforced. The Simple Life features two heiresses living and working on a farm in a rural
community. The story of their experiences reinforces both flames.

It may be also the absence of hard rural news coverage in elite publications and on
television news that contributes to the nostalgic view of rural America as a safer, simpler
place in contrast to the urban world we read about in The New York Times and watch
much more frequently on the nightly news (Lichter, Amundsen & Lichter, 2002). The
dominant flames about rural America may be reinforced as a reaction to what Gerbner et

a]. call the “mean world” syndrome, where long-term exposure to television tends to

25

cultivate the image of the world as a scary place (1994). The most commonly appearing

flame, rural utopia, paints the picture of a place apart flom the mean streets of the city.

In the rural utopia flame, rural people are hard working, virtuous, simple, and have
little money. Aubrun and Grady posit that intermittent and selective exposure of urban
and suburban people to rural areas may also reinforce the existing flames, since people
think nostalgically about growing up in rural areas but rarely visit there (2003). When
rural people speak in terms of the utopia model, it may be because it makes them special

and apart flom their city cousins (2003).

The dark side of the utopia flame is what the researchers label rural dystopia, a place
of “trailer trash,” poverty, hardship, and hopelessness. Aubrun and Grady conclude “just
as the Rural Utopia model reinforces the ‘all-American-ness’ of rural America, the Rural
Dystopia model tends to emphasize the ‘otherness’ of rural areas. “This countryside is
populated by African-Americans, Appalachian Whites, Native Americans and others”
(Aubrun & Grady, 2003, 10).

A third cognitive perspective, labeled rural systems, was discovered in the Rural
Perceptions research (Aubrun & Grady, 2003). When respondents, through the in-depth
interviews, shifted to this perspective, they found it easier to understand both the causes
of, and the solutions to problems facing rural America (Aubrun & Grady, 2003). The
rural systems flame was often replaced by one of the two better-developed flames

(Aubrun & Grady, 2003).
Consequences of the Rural Utopia/Dystopia Frames

One of the consequences of the Rural Utopia flame is that poverty becomes

invisible (Aubrun & Grady, 2003; Bales, 2003). Aubrun and Grady report “poverty did

26

not fit with rural people and is associated with urban areas” (2003, 14). Another effect of
the dominant flames relates to the values of freedom and choice. In effect, Americans
believe that rural people choose to live in rural places, yet could choose to live elsewhere.
With its glorification of the yeoman farmer, the rural utopia flame places virtue in living
a simple life with little money and few possessions. Peeple without much money in rural
areas are often thought of as happier than poor people in the city (Aubrun & Grady,

2003).

Urban and suburban people process new information almost completely within
the utopia flame (Aubrun & Grady, 2003). By contrast, rural people were able to move
beyond the rural utopia flame and to think in terms of systems. As another study in the
Rural Perceptions project concludes, “While respondents clearly recognize that many
family farmers are poor and losing their farms, most non-rural respondents have
difficulty explaining the underlying causes of the problems” (Greenberg, 2001 , 10).

By contrast, rural people do understand the employment picture in rural areas. To
the extent that rural economies are either misunderstood or viewed as somehow separate
flom the national economy as a whole, it is difficult for urban and suburban people to
imagine what kind of changes might be necessary to repair rural economies (Bostrom,
2003; Aubrun & Grady, 2003).

Much like the myth of the yeoman farmer, the rural utopia flame focuses on the
simple life. Respondents report that this simple world needs no government intervention.
Self-sufficiency is also a condition of life in this flame. Within this flame, rural self-

sufficieney is also a virtue. Aubrun and Grady assert a code of rural ethos:

0 Do whatever you can do for yourself.

27

0 When things are rough for you, sacrifice and make do with less.
0 When truly necessary, help your friends, family, and neighbors (2003, 22).

The consequences of the rural utopia frame do not allow rural people to be in need of
help flom outside of the rural community (Bales, 2003). In other words, respondents
don’t want to “spoil” rural America with outside help. The idea of flee choice is also
embedded in this flame. Rural people choose to live there and can choose to move. This
dimension of the frame minimizes rural problems and suggests that people should simply

vote with their feet.

The rural frame research identified four conditions in current thinking about rural
America (Aubrun & Grady, 2003, 2004). These conditions create barriers to new thinking
and new policy solutions and include:

0 People in rural areas are essentially different flom their urban and suburban
neighbors. Both the utopia and dystopia frames have as one of their central
premises that people in rural areas are different and special, either in positive
or negative ways.

0 Life in rural and urban/suburban areas is essentially different. Not only are the
kinds of people different in rural areas (according to the Utopia and DystOpia
models), but the nature of rural life, communities, economics, and so forth are
fundamentally different, and simpler.

0 Rural problems are the “price” of a lifestyle that is privileged in other ways.
Living in rural areas involves giving up opportunities for material wealth and
comfort that we associate with the American Dream, in exchange for a kind of

spiritual and physical health.

28

0 Life in rural America and the rest of the United States is essentially
disconnected. Rural life seems to take place in a different dimension. What
happens on one side of the divide seems to have no effect on the other.
(Aubrun & Grady, 2003, 2004)

The current dominant frames around rural America are bound up in the
metaphor of the natural order. Incumbent in the natural order is a strong sense of
individualism. In this powerful way of thinking, God or a divine being sets in
motion laws and principles which give order to the universe, and our job is to
discover and abide by this natural order. (Monarchia, III, xvi. as cited in
D'entreves, 1951). Historically enduring and tailored to the American landscape,
the natural order approach makes the task of constructing successful alternative
frames even more difficult.

Reframing Rural America

If the dominant flames yield current policy outcomes, what alternative values or
metaphors embedded in flames might change the message exchange to support new
policies? The Kellogg research project included two qualitative studies testing new flame
elements. One project included focus group testing of different rural flame value
elements (Bostrom, 2004). Each group was read three fictional editorials:

0 “Rural America Falling Behind” was developed to reflect the best of the rural
disparities flame that is dominant in the existing rural policy discourse.
0 “Planning for Future Prosperity” presents rural policies through the lens of the

national economy.

29

0 “Strengthening Communities” discusses rural policies through the lens of

community needs and the interconnectedness of communities.

One theme emerging flom the focus groups results was that a sense of
interdependence builds support for rural policies. Additionally, urban and rural
residents already believe that their tax dollars are benefiting those in other geographical
areas, a type of cooperation (Bostrom, 2004). The idea of rural disparities creates a
competitive ‘us versus them’ mindset, but when added to a fairness value, the result is a
better understanding of rural issues (Bostrom, 2003, 2004). When used in reflamed
messages about rural America, the values of interdependence, cooperation and
faimess/competition resulted in more positive discussions about rural solutions.

Another qualitative study in the Kellogg project found that people don’t see
themselves as actors in the type of large system where public problems exist (Aubrun &
Grady, 2003). While people assume responsibility for everyday events, such as fixing a
hole in the roof, the task of solving global warming, for example, does not fit into their
“every day action scenario” (Aubrun & Grady, 2003). Problems need to be translated into
concrete, human-scale and casual stories. This is best achieved by engaging what
researchers call “the Responsible Mind” (Aubrun & Grady, 2003, 2004). Engagement
with this way of thinking comes through the use of simplifying models or metaphors.
These models put the actor in the casual picture; they capture the essence of what experts
see as the solution to these problems; they offer compelling explanations, and make sense
on their face (Aubrun & Grady, 2004). This description of simplifying models fits in well
with the idea of human beings as ‘cognitive misers,’ always looking to expend the least

amount of energy to process information.

30

In this qualitative research (Aubrun & Grady, 2004), explanatory paragraphs were
developed and tested, each explaining some aspect of rural problems, using a different
simplifying model:

Stranded Regions: Experts feel that large areas of America are suffering from

what they call the "Stranded Regions" problem. Less populated counties and

smaller towns are being cut off flom the rest of the country as factory jobs and
small farms disappear. When the economic ties that link these regions to the rest
of the country are broken, the normal flow of money, people, and services that
keep these parts of the country alive is choked off, leaving these areas stranded

and withering.

T ourniquet Effect: Experts feel that large areas of America are suffering flom
what they call the "Toumiquet Effect." Less populated counties and smaller
towns are being cut off from the rest of the country, as factory jobs and small
farms disappear. When the economic ties that link these regions to the rest of the
country are choked off, the normal flow of money, people, and services that keep
these vital regions alive is interrupted. This Toumiquet Effect is turning healthy

areas into unhealthy ones.

Community Collapse: Experts feel that large regions of America are suffering
from what they call “Community Collapse.” In smaller towns and less populated
counties, the connections and institutions that link people together are breaking
down. The disappearance of factory jobs and small farms means that people are
forced to leave these areas — and as they go, the local economies, educational

systems, transportation systems, and social structures become weak and collapse.

31

This breakdown is self-perpetuating, because as community collapse continues,

more people leave.

Community Breakdown: Experts feel that large regions of America are suffering
flom symptoms of what they call “Community Breakdown.” In smaller towns and
less populated counties, the things that link people together are breaking down.
As the disappearance of factory jobs and small farms forces people to leave these
areas, a kind of sickness and breakdown sets in. The local economies, educational
systems, transportation systems, and social structures become weak and collapse.
Community Breakdown is self-perpetuating, because as communities collapse,

more people leave.

In addition, a fifth paragraph, designed to approximate advocates’ current approaches,

was included for comparative purposes:

Assets and Problems: America's rural communities possess many valuable assets.
Prominent among them are hard-working people who understand and value the
culture and environment of their native place. They combine America’s best
traditions with its most impressive ingenuity. At the same time, people in rural
areas face significant challenges that the rest of America often doesn’t recognize.
These problems include widespread job loss; decline in personal income; the loss

of young people moving out; and continuing persistent poverty.

The most general summary of the research results is that, while each of the tested
models proved understandable, the “ ‘folk models’ of rural life (i.e. the commonplace

understandings which structure everyday thought) are powerfully resistant to change,”

32

but that the “Toumiquet Problem” emerged as more memorable (Aubrun & Grady,
2004).
Research Questions and Hypotheses

The overarching research question this project seeks to inform is: How might the
elements of the rural flame be changed in order to evoke a different way of thinking, one
that increases support for a new rural policy agenda? Four of the hypotheses explore
whether changing elements of the flames, either with a new value or a different
metaphor, significantly changes levels of policy support between the treatment and
control groups. Another research question revolves around the idea that rural, urban and
suburban people will react differently to alternative flames and will consequently have
different levels of support for a new rural policy agenda. A third question seeks to
understand what role media use might play within various alternative flames in terms of
varying support for rural policy.

Demographic data allows us to see what impact geographic location has on
support for the new rural policy agenda. Rural respondents are expected to react
differently to the fairness reflame, because they see themselves as a disadvantaged group.
On the other hand, urban and suburban respondents may see the fairness reflame as an
attack on the status quo. The cooperation reflame is expected to move all groups, but may
establish a sense of “us versus them,” which might limit support for an expanded rural
agenda. The value of interdependence is expected to provide a way of reasoning that
allows all respondents to see themselves as part of a larger system and that will result in
greater support for new rural policy among urban and suburban respondents. Based on

these ideas, the first three hypotheses and sub-hypotheses are proposed:

33

H1: Respondents who are exposed to a reflame with the value of fairness will have
greater support for the new rural agenda than will members of the control group.
HlA: Rural people who are exposed to the fairness reflame will demonstrate
higher levels of support for new rural agenda than will urban people.
HlB: Rural respondents who are exposed to the fairness reflame will demonstrate
more support for the new rural agenda than will suburban respondents.
H2: Respondents who are exposed to the reflame that stresses cooperation as a value will
demonstrate greater support for the new rural policy agenda than will members of the
control group.
H2A: Urban respondents who are exposed to the cooperation reflame will
demonstrate more support for the new rural agenda than will rural respondents.
H2A: Suburban respondents who are exposed to the cooperation reflame will
demonstrate more support for new rural agenda than will rural respondents.
H3: Respondents who are exposed to the reframe that is built around the value of
interdependence will demonstrate greater support for new rural agenda than will
members of the control group.
H3A: Urban respondents who are exposed to the interdependence reframe will
demonstrate more support for the new rural agenda than rural respondents.
H3B: Suburban respondents who are exposed to the interdependence reflame will
demonstrate more support for the new rural agenda than rural respondents.
The fourth hypothesis adds the simplifying model as a new frame element in

addition to the three value flame conditions. The addition of the simplifying model

34

should one a different cognitive processing in the respondents, which causes them to see
rural issues as concrete, human and increasing their support for the new rural agenda.
H4: Subjects exposed to the simplifying model will demonstrate greater support for new
rural agenda than did the subjects not exposed to the model in any of the four conditions.
Since television is the predominant source of information for most Americans,
another avenue of exploration in the study is to assess the impact of media use on policy
support in different flaming conditions (Gerbner et al., 1994). It is possible to surmise that
heavy viewers of television will be the most invested in the dominant flame and less
subject to the reflaming process of any of the messages creating a differential level of
support for the new rural agenda. The final hypothesis predicts that lighter television
viewers will have a different level of support for the rural policy indicator than do heavy
viewers in the control group and all the reflaming conditions. The following hypothesis is
proposed:
H5: Lighter television viewers will differ in their level of support for the new rural

agenda flom heavy television viewers across all conditions.

35

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
A within-subjects experiment using a telephone survey was designed with a
control group and three treatment conditions. The study manipulates two different flame
elements, the value embedded in the flame and the metaphor. Three different flaming
statements are tested as is a secondary test of a “simplifying model,” or a new concrete
metaphor to help propel respondents’ support for a new rural policy agenda (Aubrun &
Grady, 2003, 2004).
Overview of Strategic Frame Analysis
An applied research methodology called Strategic Frame Analysis (SFA) has
previously been used to understand and test flames involving adolescents, global
warming, and foreign policy, as well as other issues (Gilliam & Bales, 2001; Bales &
Gilliam, 2004). SFA pulls together multi-disciplinary research strands, using multiple
research methodologies to uncover the public’s deeply held assumptions, which influence
specific issues using a kind of methodological pluralism. Strategic flame analysis relies
on methods adapted flom more traditional public opinion research, media studies,
cultural and cognitive fieldwork including survey research, semi-structured interviews,
focus groups, media content analysis, metaphor analysis and media effects tests. It looks
to expand the field of knowledge developed by previous research about framing and
social cognition theory (Rhee, 1997; Nelson, Oxley & Clauson, 1997). In the SFA
process, new flame elements are created using qualitative methods, message reflames
and the simplifying model, and then the elements are tested quantitatively to determine

how they work across the population as a whole. Reframing involves the identification of

36

alternative flames of interpretation that, although weaker and less common than the
dominant flame, can nevertheless promote support for different policies.

The following diagram lays out, in a simplified manner, the stages of the SFA
method. The dark box is the focus of this research paper. The complete methodology,
while part of a larger Kellogg Foundation project, is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

Figure 5
Strategic Frame Analysis Model

 

Interviews with policy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

experts
Elicitations/in-depth
interviews 7
l 1
Focus groups to refine Simplifying models
values reframes research and testing

 

 

 

 

 

 

Survey with two

experiments

 

 

Develop
communications toolkit

 

 

 

 

 

Hold training
workshops

 

 

 

Note. Reprinted with permission of The Frameworks Institute, Washington, DC.

37

Research Design

Through random dialing recruitment of subjects; random assignment of
participants to conditions; and systematic manipulation of the independent variables, the
experiment followed a completely randomized, between-subjects design with four
manipulations. The survey included two experiments, which manipulated different flame
elements.

The first experiment exposed three samples of adults to the first independent variables
-- three different reflamed statements -- and compared their level of support for the first
dependent variable, the rural policy agenda variable. Thinking about flames as layers or
levels helps understand the construction of reflames (Goffman, 1973).

Each reframe was constructed around a different fundamental American value;
examples include fleedom, social justice, and fairness, (Lakoff,l980, 1987;
Rokeah,]960). A fourth control group received no prime at all, presumably allowing this
group to “default” to the dominant frame available to them from media, personal
familiarity or other sources. All groups were then queried about their support for the first
battery of policies related to rural America, the new rural agenda 1 variable.

The second experiment added a new flame element to the value reframe
conditions. The second experiment exposed half of each of the three treatment groups and
the control group to the simplifying model, which was a new metaphor about rural
America. All groups were then asked a second set of rural policy questions comprising

the new rural agenda 2 dependent variable.

38

The survey concluded with a set of demographic questions including a question
about media use. The media use question was: On average, about how many hours of
television would you say you watch each day?

Measurement Units

New Rural Agenda Variables

Two related dependent variables were derived from reading rural development
literature and through discussions with rural advocates (Davidson, 1996; Cloke, 1996;
Filkins, Allen, & Cordes, 2000; Hamrick, 2003; Chambers, 1996; Flora, Flora, & Fey,
2003; Flora et al, 2002; Slack. & Jensen, 2002; Smith, 1996; Smith &. Krannich, 2000;
Skees, & Swanson, 1994). A group of twenty-six policy statements were compiled and
tested in the pilot study. Items were drawn from the original 26 to create two new rural
agenda variables, new rural agenda 1 and new rural agenda 2. A set of policy questions
was asked after the introduction of the first flame elements, the new values. A different
set was asked after the introduction of the second new flame element, the new metaphor
or simplifying model.

To shorten the length of the survey, 15 of the original policy questions from the
pilot were used in the final instrument. The dependent variable in both experiments is a
set of questions which asked respondents about their level of support for different rural
policies, which taken together, comprise a new rural policy agenda. The items used to
comprise new rural agenda I asked respondents to rank the importance of each of the
following policies:

0 Provide incentives for small businesses to start up or expand in rural areas

0 Expand high-speed Internet connections and cell phone coverage in rural areas

39

Offer college scholarships to those flom any region who agree to teach in rural
schools for at least five years

Increase the availability of health care in rural communities, particularly
preventive health care services

Develop educational programs in rural areas that provide the high quality
education that will be needed in the new economy

Institute regional smart-growth strategies that restrict major development to
those areas with existing infrastructure, and protect rural areas flom sprawl
Develop the biofuels industry which would provide a market for corn stalks and
other agricultural by-products

Target and develop a small number of rural areas with the potential to become

regional anchors for jobs and economic development

Factor analysis of the eight questions confirmed that they did comprise one factor,

the new rural agenda 1 variable. When using EQS, CFA results for unidimensionality

were acceptable (NFI = .96, CFI =.98, GFI = .98, AGFI = .96 and average absolute

standardized residuals = .019). These results were also consistent with Hunter’s

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CF A). The CFA method involves computing a predicted

correlation for each combination of items based on factor loadings, and then calculating

the differences between predicted and observed correlations. Tests for internal

consistency did not include any large deviation. Therefore, the eight items are internally

consistent and unidimensional and can be used as a single measure. Reliability

(Cronbach’s a) was .837. The response format for each item was an 11-point scale (0

=not a priority, 10 =an extremely important priority, 11 = don’t know or refiised).

40

The second battery of policy questions included seven policies drawn from the same
issue areas as the first battery, to create the new rural agenda 2 variable:
0 Expand high-speed Internet connections in rural schools
0 Invest in emerging industries in rural areas, such as agricultural biotechnology
or wind power
0 Locate more government contracts and government jobs in rural areas
0 Offer medical school scholarships to those flom any region who agree to
practice in rural areas for at least five years
0 Coordinate all national efforts for rural policy through one federal agency
0 Address continuing environmental problems, including groundwater pollution
from industrial farms and environmental degradation caused by mining and
forestry
0 Provide assistance for family farmers to transition to organic farming which is
more profitable for farmers
Through factor analysis, new rural agenda 2 was also confirmed as unidimensional
using EQS; CFA results were acceptable (NFI = .98, CFI =.99, GFI = .98, ADFI =. 98
and average absolute standardized residuals = .010). These results were also consistent
with Hunter’s Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Tests for internal consistency did not
include any large deviation. Reliability (Cronbach’s a) was .86. The response format for
the items was an ll-point scale (0 = not a priority, 10 = an extremely important priority,

11 = don’t know or refused).

41

Independent variables
Value Reframes

The first set of independent variables in the study is three message reflames that
vary the level one value for each treatment group. The three values selected for testing
were: competition/faimess; cooperation; and interdependence, and they derive flom the
analysis of previous research, as discussed in the literature review.

These values are drawn flom different metaphor families, and each expresses a
different worldview (Morgan & Bales, 2003). They are also understood to be part of
larger meta-cultural flames. When policies are proposed and enacted within the
cooperation reflame, for example, the core members of the cooperation metaphor are
family, fliends, partners and the community. In this metaphor family, different sides of an
issue choose to work together to attain a goal (Morgan & Bales, 2003). The outcome for
rural policy choices, however, may be that rural is still seen as “the other” group by urban
and suburban people. When reasoning within the flame of fairness, one thinks about
acting equally to benefit of others, impartially and by rule, or according to some notion of
rights (Lakoff,l995).

The issue areas identified in the message reflames are economy, education, and
healthcare, and these areas were held constant across the three reframing statements.
Operational definitions of the three alternatives flames were constructed using previous
research. The following statements were used in the survey as the reframing messages:

0 Competition/Faimess: In this country, we believe that all Americans
should have the same opportunities. But the reality is that people in small

towns and rural places are not enjoying the same benefits as the rest of the

42

nation. In fact, nearly all of the poorest counties in the nation are in rural
America, and the divide between urban and rural prosperity is becoming
greater. This happens because the efforts that enhance a community’s
well being, like economic development, availability of health care
programs, and opportunities for a good education, have disproportionately
benefited metropolitan areas. Pe0ple in rural areas have proven they have
ingenuity and a desire to work hard; they just need the same resources to
succeed. We need to level the playing field and make sure that those parts
of the country that are at a disadvantage get their fair share of
opportunities.

Cooperation: In this country, we believe that any challenge can be
overcome if we work together to solve it. Right now, there are a series of
problems that require urban and rural areas to work together to make
progress. The reality is that the nation’s economic, educational, health,
and community systems break down in inner cities as well as in small
towns and rural areas. The only way we can strengthen the economy,
improve education and healthcare, or enhance community well being, is to
set aside our divisions, work together, and invest wherever the need and
opportunity is most pressing. Each part of the country has different skills
and resources to bring to address these issues. To seize the opportunities
and surmount the challenges of the 21st century, we need unique

cooperation among all regions in the country.

43

o Interdependence: In this country, we believe that what affects Americans
in one part of the nation affects us all, and that we will only succeed when
all parts of the nation are in good shape. We have a unique opportunity to
move ahead as a country through creating good jobs and economic
opportunity, improving education, reforming health care, and
strengthening communities. Indicators of well being suggest that small
towns and rural places are breaking down and the effect is spreading to the
well being of the nation as a whole. This is happening because the efforts
that enhance a community’s well being, like economic development,
availability of health care programs, and opportunities for a good
education, have disproportionately benefited metropolitan areas, which
results in cutting rural places off from opportunities. We can prevent
further damage by working together to reconnect the skills and resources
that exist in the nation’s heartland, which will then reverberate throughout
the nation.

Simplifiring Model

The second independent variable, the simplifying model, was introduced in the
second experiment. Previous research found that certain ways of understanding rural
areas created barriers to policy support, for example the public’s belief that the decline of
rural areas is inevitable and is caused by progress, and that the concerns of rural areas are
separate and distinct flom the needs of urban and suburban areas (Bostrom, 2003, 2004,

Aubrun & Grady, 2003).

The language of simplifying model was:

44

Experts say that vast areas of America are suffering from what they call the
"Toumiquet Effect." The loss of factory jobs, small farms and small businesses in
rural areas has the effect of cutting off the normal circulation between those
regions and the rest of the country. When the normal flow of money, people, and
services that link urban and rural regions together is choked off, rural areas are
left stranded and withering, and the Toumiquet Effect makes the country as a
whole less healthy. When the tourniquet is loosened by the reestablishment of
economic and other ties, the critical flow of money, people and services is

restored and the whole country benefits.

45

Table 1

Test Language for Fairness Reframe

 

Question

Job Rating

Issue Concern

A gree/ Disagree

Satisfaction with
Nation’s Efforts

Test Language

Thinking about “the problems facing small
towns and rural places in America,” rate the job
we are doing in “addressing the economic and
social problems facing small towns and rural
places in America”

That small towns and rural places in America
are being left behind because they are not
getting the resources they need

In this country, we believe that all Americans
should have the same opportunities. But the
reality is that people in small towns and rural
places are not enjoying the same benefits as the
rest of the nation. In fact, nearly all of the
poorest counties in the nation are in rural
America, and the divide between urban and
rural prosperity is becoming greater. This
happens because the efforts that enhance a
community’s well being, like economic
development, availability of healthcare
programs, and opportunities for a good
education, have disproportionately benefited
metropolitan areas. People in rural areas have
proven they have ingenuity and a desire to
work hard; they just need the same resources to
succeed. We need to level the playing field and
make sure that those parts of the country that
are at a disadvantage get their fair share of
opportunities.

To make sure that rural people enjoy the same
benefits as people who live elsewhere

46

Table 2

Test Language for Interdependence Reframe

Question

Job Rating

Issue Concern

Agree/Disagree

Satisfaction with
Nation’s Efforts

Test Language

Thinking about “the well being of the nation as
a whole in terms of its education, healthcare
and economic systems,” rate the job we are
doing in “making sure that all regions of the
nation are functioning and contributing to the
vitality of the nation”

That unaddressed problems and untapped assets
that exist in some parts of the country are
holding back the nation’s progress

In this country, we believe that what affects
Americans in one part of the nation affects us
all and that we will only succeed when all parts
of the nation are in good shape. We have a
unique opportunity to move ahead as a country
through creating good jobs and economic
opportunity, improving education, reforming
healthcare, and strengthening communities.
Indicators of well being suggest that small
towns and rural places are breaking down and
the effect is spreading to the well being of the
nation as a whole. This is happening because
the efforts that enhance a community’s well
being, like economic development, availability
of health care programs, and opportunities for a
good education, have disproportionately
benefited metropolitan areas, which results in
cutting rural places off from opportunities. We
can prevent further damage by working
together to reconnect the skills and resources
that exist in the nation’s heartland, which will
then reverberate throughout the nation.

To make sure that all regions in the nation are
in good shape and contributing to the nation’s
progress

47

Table 3

Test Language for Cooperation Reframe

Question

Test Language

 

Job Rating

Issue Concern

Agree/ Disagree

Satisfaction with
Nation’s Efforts

Thinking about “national issues like the
economy, education, and healthcare that
affect both rural and urban areas,” rate the
job we are doing in “cooperating among
different regions of the nation to address
these kinds of major issues”

That infighting and selfishness between
regions is keeping us flom addressing
major national issues

In this country, we believe that any
challenge can be overcome if we work
together to solve it. Right now, there are a
series of problems that require urban and
rural areas to work together to make
progress. The reality is that the nation’s
economic, educational, health, and
community systems break down in inner
cities as well as in small towns and rural
areas. The only way we can strengthen the
economy, or improve education and
healthcare, or enhance community well
being, is to set aside our divisions, work
together, and invest wherever the need and
opportunity is most pressing. Each part of
the country has different skills and
resources to bring to address these issues.
To seize the opportunities and surmount the
challenges of the 21St century, we need
unique cooperation among all regions in
the country.

To cooperate to address major issues
shared by all parts of the nation

 

48

Pilot Survey

The pilot survey (Appendix A) included 150 randomly recruited subjects. It tested
the full survey including both the values and metaphor reflaming experiments. The
pilot survey was conducted July 6-8, 2004. The pilot also included nine semantic

differential questions designed to test the differences between the three reflames.

It was also hypothesized that certain word pairs would prime the selection of certain
words. The semantic differentials questions were placed following the second experiment
to determine whether each of the three flaming conditions would generate different word
associations among respondents. Using a seven-point scale, respondents were asked,
“which word comes closer to how you feel about more national investment in rural
areas?” It was posited that the reflames would show the following word choices:

I Fairness — increase in fair and equal with an increase in competitive.

. Cooperation — increase in cooperative and helpful.

' Interdependence — increase in connected and interdependent.

After splitting the sample into those who received the model and those who had not,
an independent samples test was conducted for each word set, comparing all pairs. The
results reported in Table 4. The semantic differential question yielded results that were

contrary to what had been imagined before the pilot.

49

Table 4

Pilot Survey: Means and Standard Deviations for Semantic Diflerential Questions

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
Control Model Control Model Control Model Control Model
Cooperative or
Competitive 3 .24 4.48M 4.00 3 .00b 4.06 4.13i 3 .44 2.6011
(1.92) (1.92) (1.71) (1.73) (2.02) (2.39) (2.34) (1.68)
Fair or Unfair ' 3.21a 4.12 4.29a 2.94g 3.80 4.41g 3.27 3.86
(1.67) (1.99) (1.58) (1.88) (1.78) (2.09) (2.05) (1.75)
Equal or
Unequal 3.76k 4.64cj 4.29k 3.06c 3.44 4.06 3.36 3.31j
(2. 10) (1.82) (2.14) (1. 75) (1. 79) (2.22) (2.02) (1.93)
Important or
Unimportant 2.54 3.00e 2.47 2.24 2.59 1.82e 1.75 2.38
(1.64) (1.92) (1.51) (1.44) (1.77) (1.02) (1.00) (1.63)
Necessary
or Unnecessary 2.92f 3.24 2.24 2.65 3.2% 3.35 1.88fh 3.00
(1.66) (2.01) (1.20) (1.70) (2.09) (2.06) (.96) (1.86)
Connected or
Disconnected 3.26 4.60d 4.06 2.94d 2.94 3.94 3.67 3.62
(1.79) (1.87) (1.95) (2.08) (1.57) (2.11) (2.13) (2.02)
Ineffective
or Effective 3.38 3.88 3.41 4.00 3.94 3.65 3.00 3.44
(1.93) (2.07) (1.84) (2.45) (1.89) (2.18) (1.65) (2.07)
Helpful
or Unhelpful 2.96 4.00 2.65 2.82 2.88 3.76 3.27 3.13
(1.58) (2.23) (1.62) (1.72) (1.54) (2.05) (1.98) (2.13)
lnterdependent
or Dependent 3.82 4.00 4.29 3.40 3.33 4.41 3.63 3.79
(1.87) (2.14) (2.11) (1.96) (1.88) (1.91) (2.16) (1.85)

 

Note. Letter indicates significance at .05 levels between pairs.

When comparing the treatment conditions against the control group and each

other, two statistically significant word pair’s differences emerge. With the word pair

fair/unfair, the control group (M = 3.21) chose fair more than the fairness treatment group

50

(M = 4.29) suggesting that the fairness value treatment was heightening a sense of
unfairness (t(39) = -l.25, p =.04). With word pair, necessary/unnecessary, the
cooperation treatment group (M = 3.29) was more likely to select unnecessary than the
interdependence group (M = 1.88), suggesting that the idea of national policy for rural
was less necessary under the cooperation flame than under the interdependence flame
(t(31) =2.49, p = .02). With the word pair, equal/unequal, the control group was more
likely to select equal (M = 3.76) than the fairness group (M = 4.29), meaning the flaming
treatment of fairness was cuing up a sense of inequality.

In comparing the groups that had received the model, more differences appear in
the data analysis. In the word pair cooperative/competitive, those in the control group
who had received the model (M = 4.48) picked competitive more than those in the
fairness group who had received the model (M = 3.00), suggesting that the model was
cueing up competitiveness (t (40) = 2.56, p = .02). In the word pair
important/unimportant, control group (M = 3.00) selected unimportant, than those in the
cooperation group (M = 1.82), meaning the model might be moving people towards
feeling that national rural policy was important (t (40) = 2.32, p = .03). In the word pair
necessary/unnecessary, the control group (M = 2.92) was more likely to select
unnecessary than the interdependence group (M = 1.88), indicating that the model might
be moving respondents in the interdependence groups towards a sense that national rural
policy was necessary (t (39) =2.29, p =.03).

With the word pair cooperative/competitive, the control group who received the
model (M = 4.48) was more likely to choose competitive than the interdependence group

who received the model (M = 2.60), (t (38) =3.14, p = .00.) In word pair equal/unequal,

51

the control group who had received the model (M = 4.64) was more likely to select
unequal than the group with the model in the interdependence treatment (M = 3.31), t
(36) = 2.10, p = .04. Those in the control group with the model were more likely to select
disconnected (M = 4.60), than those in the fairness group exposed to the model (M =
2.94).

The interaction between the values statements and the model demonstrates
interesting and distinctive patterns in reasoning. Those exposed to both the fairness value
and the model were more likely than those exposed to the model alone to say:
cooperative, equal, and connected. However, these respondents were also more likely
than those exposed to the fairness value and model to say “unfair” and more likely than
those exposed to the interdependence value and model to say “competitive.” The
associations are different between those exposed to cooperation and the other two values,
but the associations of those exposed to the cooperation value tip more negatively than
those exposed to fairness or interdependence. The combination of fairness and model
shifis respondents in a beneficial, positive direction, while the combination of
cooperation and model shifts respondents in an unhelpful, negative direction.

The interdependence value alone, compared to the model, increases the response
of the association with equal. When matched with the model, it increases associations
with cooperative. Since the interdependence flame incorporates very similar patterns of
reasoning as the model, it is not surprising that in this instance the values flame alone
was able to make significant inroads in shaping opinion.

Based on these comparisons, it appears that the values flames cue different

associations. Since the associations for each value were different, even though the model

52

stayed constant, it was posited that the distinctions in the word associations were due to
the lingering effects of the values flames.
Selection of Subjects

The full survey results were based on telephone interviews with 3,105 adults
nationwide, conducted July 20 — July 30, 2004. Each condition consisted of a national
sample of adults drawn proportionately to population. Demographic characteristics (age,
education, political party identification) were weighted, when necessary, to be consistent
across conditions. The sample was drawn using the following definitions: urban
residents will be defined as people living in the central city of a Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA); any portion of an MSA county that is not in a central city is considered
suburban; and all non-MSA counties are considered rural. Each cell in the design consists
of a national sample of adults drawn proportionately to the population, compiled using a
random digit dialing process. Random assignment of individuals to groups ensured at
some level of probability that the differences between groups is attributable to stimuli and

not exogenous factors.

53

Table 5

Number of Subjects in Each Condition

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence Total

Urban 317 220 220 230 977
Suburban 498 350 350 220 1548
Rural 190 130 130 130 580
Total 1005 700 700 700 3 105

The sample was drawn by Survey Sampling International (SSI). SSI analyzes
Census Tract records and assigns every tract to a single designation based on plurality
population. If the plurality of the population of a tract is in a Central City, that tract is
designated as Urban. If the plurality is in an MSA or NECMA, but not in a Central
City, it is designated as Suburban. If the plurality is not in an MSA or NECMA, it is
designated Rural. Directory-listed records are coded as Urban, Suburban, or Rural
based on the Census Tract of the address. In SSI’s random digit database, exchanges
are coded as Urban, Suburban, or Rural by converting tract-level codes to the
exchange level based on plurality of directory-listed households. In this way, it will be
possible to get a probabilistic sample that reflects the population distribution of the

United States, across rural, urban and suburban populations.

54

CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

In this chapter, the analysis of the data results will describe tests of the five main
and six secondary hypotheses. Data analysis includes an omnibus analysis to check for
interaction effects. The first four hypotheses and the six secondary hypotheses are
analyzed using independent samples t tests. Additional analysis was undertaken to
explore the impact of demographic variables on support for the rural agenda. The fifth
hypothesis regarding media use is analyzed using a correlations test.

Results

To test for significant main and interaction effects, a Univariate ANOVA test was
performed. Support for rural policy indicator was analyzed in a flaming (control vs.
faimess/competition vs. cooperation vs. interdependence) x geographic location (urban
vs. suburban vs. rural) x TV viewing (light vs. heavy) between subjects factorial analysis
of variance. Results showed a significant main effect of flaming, F (3, 3073) = 3.43, p <
.05, n2 = .003, a significant main effect of geographic location, F (2, 3073) = 8.27, p <
.05, n2 = .005, and a significant main effect of TV viewing, F (l, 3073) = 25.74, p < .05,
n2 = .008. However, there are no significant interaction effects among these factors.

The first three hypotheses were organized around the main reflaming test, i.e.
whether the application of the specific reflame, fairness, cooperation or interdependence,
resulted in a significantly different level of support for the new rural policy agenda than
evidenced in the control group. Each main hypothesis was followed by two secondary
hypotheses about the relationship between various geographies -- urban, suburban and

rural -- against each other under the experimental conditions.

55

Table 6 shows the means of the new rural agenda 1 variable across geographic

regions and by treatment condition.

56

Table 6

Means of Support for Rural Agenda 1 Across Treatment Conditions by Geographic

 

 

Location
Treatments Total Urban Suburban Rural N
(3 105)

Control 7.32ab 7.20 7.33 7.50

Standard deviation (1.59) (1.66) (1.54) (1.59)
Fairness 7.52a 7.57 7.37c 7.85c

Standard deviation (1.70) (1.61) (1.82) (1.46)
Cooperation 7.35 7.45 7.16 7.69

Standard Deviation (1.66) (1.69) ( 1.65) (1.54)
Interdependence 7.46b 7.29 7.49 7.67

Standard Deviation (1.66) (1.82) (1.52) (1.71)

 

Note. Letters indicate where significanees were found between pairs at the .05 level.

Hypothesis One

H1 predicted that respondents exposed to the fairness/competition reframe would

demonstrate greater support for rural policy than will members of the control group. The

data were analyzed using an independent sample T test comparing the means of the

fairness group to the control group. There was a significant difference between the

fairness reframe and the control group, t (1703) = 2.47, p < .05. People exposed to the

fairness/competition reflame (M = 7.52) demonstrated greater support for the rural

agenda than people in the control group (M = 7.32).

Hla predicted that rural respondents exposed to the faimess/competition reflame

would demonstrate more support for the rural policies indicator than will urban

respondents exposed to the fairness/competition reflame. The data were analyzed using

an independent sample T test. The expectation was that urban and suburban respondents

will focus on the competition aspect of the reflame and see rural areas as competing for
‘their’ resources, moderating their support. It was not supported, t (348) = 1.63, p = .11.
Rural respondents (M =7.85) did not demonstrate significantly a different level of support
for the new rural agenda than urban respondents (M = 7.57) in the treatment condition of
faimess/competition.

Hlb predicted that rural respondents exposed to the faimess/competition reframe
would demonstrate more support for the rural policies indicator than will suburban
respondents who are exposed to the faimess/competition reflame. It was supported, t
(478) = 2.73, p = .01. Rural respondents (M =7.85) did demonstrate a significantly
different level of support for the new rural agenda than suburban respondents (M =7.37)
in the treatment condition of fairness/competition.

Hypothesis Two

H2 predicted that respondents exposed to the cooperation reflame would
demonstrate greater support for the rural policies indicator than will members of the
control group. An independent sample t test was calculated, comparing the cooperation
group with the control group. It was not supported, I (3093) =.36, p = .72. Respondents in
the cooperation reflame (M = 7.35) did not demonstrate a significantly different level of
support for the rural agenda than did respondents in the control condition (M = 7.32).

H2a predicted that urban respondents exposed to the cooperation reflame would
demonstrate more support for the rural agenda than will rural respondents. The results of
the t test showed that the hypothesis was not supported, t (3093) =-1.35, p =. 18. Urban

respondents (M = 7.45) in the cooperation treatment did not demonstrate a significantly

58

different of level of support for the rural agenda than rural respondents (M = 7.69) in the
same treatment condition.

H2b predicted that suburban respondents exposed to the cooperation reflame
would demonstrate more support for the rural policies indicator than will rural
respondents. The same analysis was performed. Suburban respondents (M = 7.16) in the
cooperation reframe did show a significantly different level of support for the rural
agenda than rural respondents (M = 7.69) in the same condition but it was less support,
rather than more support, than predicted, (t (3093) =-3. 14, p = .01. The hypothesis was
not supported.

Hypothesis Three

H3 predicted respondents exposed to the interdependence reflame would
demonstrate more support for the rural policies indicator than will members of the control
group. The data were analyzed using an independent sample t test. t (1703) = 1.73, p =
.08. Since the hypothesis specified the direction of support, it is also possible to look at
the result of the t test with one tailed significance, p = .04, Respondents exposed to the
interdependence reflame (M = 7.46) did demonstrate more support for the rural agenda
than did members of the control group (M = 7.32) as the hypothesis suggested.

H3a predicted that urban respondents who are exposed to the interdependence
reframe would demonstrate more support for the rural agenda than rural respondents.
Urban respondents (M = 7.29) exposed to the interdependence reflame did demonstrate a
significantly different level support for the rural agenda than rural respondents (M = 7.67)
but it was less support rather than more support as predicted, (t (348) = -l .94, p = .05), so

the hypothesis failed to be supported.

59

H3b predicted that suburban respondents who are exposed to the interdependence
reflame would demonstrate more support for the rural agenda than those rural
respondents in the same condition. It was not supported (t (478) = -1.08, p = .28).
Suburban respondents (M = 7.49) exposed to the interdependence reframe did not
demonstrate more support for the rural agenda than those rural respondents (M = 7.67) in
the same condition.

It is also useful to understand how various demographic conditions contribute to
levels of support for the rural agenda, especially for the message targeting work planned
outside this dissertation. Exploratory analysis, using one-way analysis of variance
showed that support for the rural policy agenda did vary significantly in certain flaming
conditions when correlated with demographic characteristics such as age, gender,
education, and race.

The gender of the respondents was significant in predicting support for the rural
agenda across all conditions, with women more supportive than men ( F (1,3 104) = 01.19,
p = .00). The race of respondents was also significant at the .05 level in predicting levels

of support across all conditions (F (6,3 104) =14.49, p = .00).

60

Table 7

Means and Standard Deviations by Gender in Support for Rural Policy

 

 

 

 

 

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
Male 7.09(l.60) 7.20(1.84) 7.03(1.85) 7.15(l.76)
Female 7.54(1.55) 7.82(1.51) 7.65(1.39) 7.75(1.50)
Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations by Race in Support for Rural Policy

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
White 7.30(1.57) 7.45( 1.68) 7.27(1.64) 7.46(1 .60)
Black 8.00(1.31) 8.30(1.30) 8.20 (1.26) 7.89(1.66)
Hispanic 7.8l(l.56) 8.36(1.21) 7.97(1.45) 8.00(1.39)
Asian/Pacific 6.94(1.54) 6.38(0.88) 8.09(1.02) 7.61(1.28)
Islander
Mixed 7.30(l.85) 7.68(1.62) 6.83(2.35) 7.01(2.24)
Don't know 7.08Q46) 7.98(1.22) 7.49(1.61) 7.05(2.25)

 

Age, however, was not a significant predictor of support for the rural agenda,

across all flaming conditions (F (73, 3104) =1 . 12, p > .05). Educational attainment was

significant in the fairness condition (F (6,699) = 2.26, p < .05) and the interdependence

conditions (F (6, 699) = 3.24, p < .05).

An additional analysis was done to explore support for the rural agenda 1

variable by framing conditions within geographic place or urban, suburban and rural. A

61

contrast tests was undertaken (control group as 1, selected flaming condition as -l with
other conditions as 0), within each geographic group. Urban respondents were
significantly different in the control and fairness conditions, t (.973) = -2.53, p < .05.
Table 9 shows the means and standard deviations.

Table 9

Means of Geographic Place Within Framing Condition

Urban Suburban Rural

 

 

7.20a 7.33 7.50
Control
Standard Deviation (1.66) (1.54) (1.59)
Fairness 7.57a 7.37 7.85
Standard Deviation (1.61 ) (1.83) (1.46)
. 7.45 7.16 7.69
Cooperation
Standad Deviation (1.69) (1.65) (1.54)
Interdependence 7.29 7.34 7.67
Standard Deviation (1.82) (1.52) (1.58)
Total 977 1548 580

 

Note. “a” denotes a significant difference at the .05 level
between conditions within a geographic place.

Hypothesis Four
The second experiment concerned priming respondents with a new rural
metaphor, or what SFA calls a simplifying model, followed by a set of questions
comprising the rural agenda 2 variable. The simplifying model itself in the experiment
represented a new concept for survey respondents — only 22% say they had heard
anything about this before.
The data were analyzed using a contrast test with the second rural agenda variable

as the dependent variable and the new simplifying model as one independent variable.

62

The sample was split into two groups, one exposed to the simplifying model and another
that was not exposed to the model. The data were not consistent with the hypothesis that
those exposed to the model would show an increase in support for the rural policy
indicators in all four conditions. Exposure to the simplifying model did not result in any
significant difference of support for rural policy between those exposed to the new model
and those not exposed, F (3, 3100) = 5.01, p > .05.

The following table shows the means of both new rural agenda variables. In all
conditions, support for the rural agenda 2 variable (M = 7.29) is less than for the rural
agenda 1 variable (M =7.41). There was a significant difference between the two
variables when compared using a paired sample t-test, t (3093) = -5.18, p < .01, sd =
1.20. The addition of the simplifying model may have had a depressing effect on support
for the new rural agenda.

Table 10

Means of Support for Rural Agenda 1 and 2 Variables by Condition and Experiment

 

 

Experiment 1 Experiment 2

Types of flaming Rural Agenda 1 Rural Agenda 2
Control 7.32 7.22

Standard deviation (1.59) (1.78)
Fairness 7.52 7.44

Standard deviation (1.70) (1.83)
Cooperation 7.35 7.22

Standard deviation (1.66) (1.90)
Interdependence 7.46 7.33

Standard deviation (1.66) (1.86)

 

63

Hypothesis Five

The final hypothesis looked at the variable of media use and its impact on policy
support by flaming condition. H5 predicted that there would be a difference in support
between light and heavy television viewers on levels of support for the rural agenda. It
was expected that media use would be positively related to support for the first rural
policy agenda variable. When the relationship was examined, the correlation between
media use and support for the first rural agenda variable was significant across all
conditions, control and three flaming treatments. Lighter television viewers overall (M =
7.25) demonstrated less support for rural agenda 1 than did heavy television viewers (M =
7.59).
Table 11

Correlation between Media Use and Rural Agenda 1

 

 

Conditions Media use and Rural Agenda 1
Control .13(**)
Fairness .09(*)
Cooperation .13 (**)

Interdependence .09 (*)

 

Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

A univariatc between subjects analysis of covariance was calculated to examine the
effects of heavy and light media use, using gender and race as fixed factors, while

covarying out the effect of education and age. Gender was not significantly related to

64

media use (F (l, 3056) = 3.35, p >.05). Differences in what respondents indicated as their
race also significantly differed in heavy and light media users, F (6, 3056) = 10.65, p =
.00. Heavy media users (M = 3 .67 years,) tended to have significantly less education than
light media users (M = 4.31). Older respondents (M = 52 years) tended to be significantly
heavier media users than lighter viewers (M = 47 years), F (l, 3056 =101.13, p = .00).

In summary, in the fairness reflame and the interdependence reflame hypotheses
support for the rural agenda differed significantly between the treatment condition and
the control group. In all treatment conditions, geography mattered but not always in the
direction predicted. In the fairness reflame, there was a significant difference in support
for a rural policy agenda between rural and suburban peOple as predicted. In the
cooperation flame, there was also a significant difference in the level of support between
rural and suburban respondents but in the opposite direction predicted. In the
interdependence condition, there was a significant difference between levels of support
for the rural agenda between rural and urban people but also not in the direction
predicted. Within the control group itself, the difference in support for the rural agenda
differed significantly between urban and rural people (t (505) = -2.06, p < .05) while not
differing between rural and suburban groups (t (686) = 1.30, p > .05). In the second
experiment, exposure to the simplifying model did not cause any significant difference in
support for the new rural agenda 2 variable. The last hypothesis about media use and
support for the new rural agenda was supported, indicating that there was a significant
correlation between support for the rural policy agenda 1 and media use. See Table 12 for

a summary of all hypotheses.

65

Table 12
Summary of Hypotheses Results

H1: Respondents exposed to a reflame with the value of fairness
would have greater support for the new rural agenda than will
members of the control group.
HlA: Rural people who are exposed to the fairness
reflame will demonstrate higher levels of support
for the new rural agenda than will urban people.
HlB: Rural respondents who are exposed to the fairness
reflame would demonstrate more support for the new
rural agenda than will suburban respondents.

H2: Respondents who are exposed to the reflame that
stresses cooperation as a value will demonstrate greater support
for the new rural policy agenda than will members of the
control group.
H2A: Urban respondents who are exposed to the
cooperation reframe would demonstrate more support
for the new rural agenda than will rural respondents.

H2B: Suburban respondents who are exposed to the
cooperation reflame will demonstrate more support
for new rural agenda than will rural respondents.

H3: Respondents who are exposed to the reframe that is
built around the value of interdependence will demonstrate
greater support for new rural agenda than will members of
the control group.
H3A: Urban respondents who are exposed to the
interdependence reframe would demonstrate more
support for the new rural agenda than those
respondents in rural condition.

H3B: Suburban respondents who are exposed to
the interdependence reframe would demonstrate
more support for the new rural agenda than will
those respondents in rural condition.

H4: Subjects exposed to the simplifying model would
demonstrate greater support for new rural agenda than

did the subjects not exposed to the model in any condition.

H5: Lighter television viewers will differ in their support
for the new rural agenda flom heavy television viewers

66

SUPPORTED

NOT SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

NOT SUPPORTED

NOT SUPPORTED

NOT SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

NOT SUPPORTED

NOT SUPPORTED

NOT SUPPORTED

SUPPORTED

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CONCLUSION
This chapter will briefly review the framing literature and ground the current
project in flaming effects theory. Then the major findings will be summarized.
Methodological issues of concern and limitations will be discussed to improve future
research using the Strategic Frame Analysis methodology. Recommendations for both
communications and rural development audiences are included in this chapter. Finally,
the chapter will conclude with some ideas about the expected utility of this research.
Summary of Framing Effects Literature
D’Angelo (2002, 873) offered what he calls the “hard core” of a flaming research
program focusing on four empirical goals that individual researchers pursue to various
degrees:
a) Identify thematic units called flames;
b) Investigate the antecedent conditions that produce frames;
c) Examine how flames activate and interact with an individual’s prior knowledge;
and
(1) Examine how frames shape societal level processes such as public opinion.
The full research program undertaken by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation undertook
study in each of these areas. This specific study is intended as a bridge between the third
and fourth areas.
Strong empirical evidence confirms framing effects across several bodies of
literature. In the prospect theory research, flaming effects repeatedly occur when

equivalent choices are offered but specific word choice differs. Researchers have looked

67

at conditions that mediate framing effects, for example, the addition of credible advice.
Other researchers have focused on the cognitive aspect of flaming, looking at issues such
as accessibility and relationship to persuasion. Many researchers in the communications
field have explored the effects of the news media acting as flaming agents and the
subsequent impact on attributions of responsibility and policy choice (Iyengar, 1992;
Iyengar & Reeves, 1997;Valkenburg, Semetko & De Vreese, 1999; Gilliam, & Iyengar,
2000). Several researchers have experimented with changing the value of the flame to
test its impact on issue knowledge and belief importance (Nelson & Oxley, 1999;
Terkildsen & Schnell, 1997). For example, in the research on the women’s movement,
the values were selected from an analysis of historical data and were then tested
(Terkildsen & Schnell, 1997).

This research built specifically on previous research, first seeking to understand
the current dominant flames and incumbent values, and then manipulating values and a
metaphor in the alterative reflames. This research confirmed the basic finding that
manipulating frame elements results in changed understanding.

This research, however, adds another dimension to the existing body of flaming
research because it seeks to test flaming effects via support for a policy agenda.
Individuals in this study report significantly different levels of support for policy choices
when exposed to an alternative value flame. The simple diagram in Figure 5 represents
reflaming as suggested by this research. Changing the value of the dominant flame will
result in a change in the level of support for a new rural policy agenda. No similar

reflaming model could be found in the existing literature.

68

Figure 6

The Reframing Process

Reframing Process

Reframe Issue
Frames New Level One
Value

Dominant Frame

Level One Value New way of

thinking
Cultural
Frames

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

   

Changed support
For polices

       

      

Support for policies

Major Findings

One of the key findings of the research was that when individuals are presented
with the fairness and interdependence reflames, their support for the rural policy agenda
was higher than the control group. It is important to note, however, that the control
demonstrated a very high level of support for what was essentially a rural policy
manifesto. The high levels of support for rural policy across all groups may be attributed
to a social desirability effect of some kind, since respondents were not offered any cost
trade-offs or contexts in which to judge their actual level of support. If all Americans
actually supported rural policy change at these levels, then this research would have been

unnecessary.

69

While it is not surprising that the dominant frames around rural America are both
entrenched and pervasive, it is useful to know that it can indeed be dislodged, however
temporarily, by other values such as fairness and interdependence. Both values, it would
appear, gave respondents another way to reason about their support for rural policy. One
way to understand why cooperation failed to move support, would be to consider that this
value has less centrality than the value of fairness and interdependence in this context.
Elder and Cobb constructed a hierarchy of symbols (1983, 39), positing that higher order
symbols have more potency than situational ones. They contend, for example, that the
concept of “liberty” was acquired earlier in the socialization process than an idea like
“deregulation” and is therefore more central to a person’s identity. It might be possible to
theorize that fairness and interdependence, as values, are more proximate to our identity
as Americans, than is cooperation.

It had been hypothesized that the fairness argument would heighten the
competition between geography and result in less policy support for rural issues among
urban and suburban people. It was also thought that the cooperation reflame, because of
its metaphor family, would work on the enlightened self-interest of all. This was not the
case.

The interdependence reflame was designed to reach into the larger ‘connection’
metaphor family that implies that the sum is greater than the parts and that all parts are
important to the functioning of the whole (Morgan & Bales, 2003). The concept that rural
America is part of the larger system that is America appeared to have lifted support for a

rural agenda.

70

Support for rural policy varied by geographic location is equally interesting where
the analysis showed both significant and insignificant differences between groups. In the
cooperation and fairness reflames, rural and urban respondents did not differ significantly
in their support for the rural agenda. When rural and suburban groups were compared,
significant differences appeared in support for the rural agenda in the fairness and
cooperation reflames but not in the interdependence treatment condition. The first two
flames may have cued up an “us versus them” way of thinking that created differential
support between suburban and rural audiences.

Urban people, exposed to the interdependence reflame, demonstrated significantly
less support for the rural policy agenda than did rural people. This same reflame,
however, did not create a significant difference in the level of support for the rural agenda
between rural and suburban people.

For rural advocates, these findings provide interesting food for thought as
advocates determine the role of urban and suburban voters with respect to the success of
their policy campaigns. Rural people behaved according to their own self-interests,
showing higher level of support for the rural agenda overall. Urban and suburban people,
however, did support the rural agenda differently under the various reframing conditions,
useful information in the creation of a communications strategy.

The failure of the simplifying model to cause different levels of support as posited
by the fourth hypothesis, can be explained at least two ways, both of which will require
fitrther qualitative and quantitative testing to confirm. Either it is the wrong metaphor
completely or it needs to be further refined. It may be the tourniquet as the metaphor

invoked too vivid a picture. That the model may have, in fact, depressed policy support is

71

further evidence of the need for additional testing. The pilot test of the survey uncovered
problems in the tourniquet language, which was changed in the full survey. Obviously,
the changed language did not have any better success than it did in the pilot.

The fifth hypothesis departed flom the value flaming experiment in that it looked
at how media use might influence support for rural policy. Support for the fourth
hypothesis involving television viewing and the rural policy agenda showed another kind
of influence at work. Heavy and light viewers did have significantly different levels of
support for the rural agenda. Cultivation theory was the basis for the idea that heavy
television viewing would serve to reinforce the dominant model; but the data does not
support that idea (Gerbner et al., 1994). Less flequent viewers, showed less support for
rural policy agenda than did heavy viewers. It has been suggested that heavy television
viewing shapes viewers’ beliefs and conceptions of reality (Hawkins & Pingree, 1981,
1990)

This idea that heavy television viewers most fully embrace the most general and
stable dimension of shared values should have translated into less support among heavy
viewers for the new rural agenda than light television viewers in the treatment conditions
(Gerbner et al, 1994) but, it did not. Previous content analysis of news coverage of rural
issues showed that television news coverage was rare and predominately episodic and
failed to contextualize events in terms of broader issues (Lichter, Lichter & Amundsen,
2002, 2005). Consequently, it is unclear how much rural flaming happens among
television viewers coming from elite news coverage. Additional research is necessary to
understand the role of news coverage and television viewing behavior in reinforcing the

dominant model and its subsequent impact on support for a new rural policy agenda.

72

Future content analysis of rural news coverage would be a useful way to track
whether advocates are successful in introducing an alterative rural flame that is then
reinforced in media discourse.

Methodological Considerations

The methodology used in this study, Strategic Frame Analysis, is an only recently
developed experimental, multi-method research approach. Every time SFA is used,
learning takes place and the opportunity to hone the methodology occurs. This
application was no exception.

Additional pre-testing of the reflames is suggested in the future, to make sure that
these messages actually test the value that they are intended to test. The pilot survey
weakly showed that the reflaming statements cued up different word associations but not
in the ways predicted.

Creating a typology of values and ways to test them would be useful for future
SF A to assure continuity between studies in level-one values. The language of the
reflames could have been strengthened, particularly in the cooperation and
interdependence reflames based on what the semantic differential data in the pilot
showed.

This could have been an artifact of the extremely small sample size (N = 17 per
reflame) or the semantic differential question itself or the choice of word pairs that were
used. It could also have meant that the reflamed statements were not written in a way to
strongly convey the level one value and should have been rewritten for the full survey.

The results flom the full survey would argue that the reflames were at least different flom

73

one another. In the future, it would be useful to pretest the word scales qualitatively to
ascertain whether they are cuing up the predicted associations.

As a result of the pilot survey, the simplifying model language was changed in the
full survey. Given the results, the changes did not make any difference and the model still
did not work as predicted. As suggested previously, the model still needs considerable
testing to be useful in message development.

Limitations

The limitations of the research project are many. The complexity of issue flames
requires that researchers use their own subjective viewpoint in delineating elements of
flames (Gandy, 2003). Researchers have generated a virtual laundry list of flames
without resulting in any single well-defined set of flames (Benford, 1997). The flactured
paradigm of flaming results in almost as many ways of understanding flaming as there
are flaming studies (Entman, 2002), so no single, well—developed research methodology
exists to help guide this project. To simplify the flame and to achieve greater reliability of
measurement, much of the meaningful perspective that flaming perspective might
provide is often lost (Gandy, 2003).

The lack of clear definition of the values tested is a shortcoming in the SFA
methodology. Future work should include development of a typology of values so that
they can be tested across issues.

Another limitation included the timing of the survey, which was taken mid-July,
2004. The pilot test was conducted in early July and changes in the wording of the
metaphor required additional human subjects approvals for the full questionnaire. This

pushed the full survey even later than had been planned. Coming in a presidential

74

election year, when rural issues had received more news coverage than in previous years,
may have influenced support for rural policies. A recent content analysis of elite news
media stories showed that rural news coverage was up 57 percent during this time period
compared to a similar time period in the previous year (Lichter, Amundsen & Lichter,
2005).
Recommendations

For communications scholars, this research extends and builds on flaming effects
theory. In addition to demonstrating the contributions of empirical communications
research to the practice of communications, this study explores what factors influence
how flames are developed and diffused to create changes in the policy environment
(Gandy, 2003; Hertog & McLeod, 2003). This research opens a new landscape to
exploration; specifically how do people reason within alternative flames that results in an
increase in support for a policy agenda? It moves beyond the flequently researched idea
that changing the flame does, indeed, result in meaning change and puts flaming research
into an action mode. Frames, in this research, are not viewed as what surrounds a central
image, the frame, but instead as a verb, as in flaming a house. This research did not seek
to highlight the existing frame about rural America, as a cormnunications campaign
might do. Instead, this research sought to build a new house, flaming a different
argument, using different materials altogether.

The fairness and interdependence reflames, which moved support for the rural
agenda, were designed to provide a rationale for why rural areas are struggling that
triggers a new way of thinking. In so doing, both were able to compete with the Natural

Order flame present in the current, dominant rural flames.

75

Whether the issue is rural America or childhood obesity, Strategic Frame
Analysis is a methodology that should be subjected to further testing. Are there other
flame elements, in addition to values treatments and the simplifying model, which
could be added to the methodology? The Frameworks Institute sees the development
of a new flame as part of a puzzle, as seen in Figure 7. Other puzzle pieces could be
tested including the role of messengers, visuals and stories.

Future work on SFA should develop tighter definitions around expert policy
solutions. Creating a policy agenda is more art than science at this point. Since using
support for a policy agenda is a significant departure flom traditional flaming
research, more explicit protocols need to be developed as to which and how many
policies need to be included. The survey also includes a group of single item measures
which could have provided useful guidance as to the effectiveness of flames had they
been expanded into at least three item measurements.

One of the challenges facing issue initiators is that they often lack the skills
necessary to package their issue into cultural terms that will appeal to large numbers
of people (Cobb & Ross, 1997, 15). Agenda conflicts involve whether the government
will seriously consider a grievance issue. Secondly, they are about competing
interpretations of political problems. The last step of SF A, which is outside of the
scope of this study, involves the dissemination and training process of rural advocates.
The dissemination of the data to rural social movement actors, and the subsequent
evaluation of whether those actors embrace alterative messages (and what those new
message might mean for policy change) is where this research will receive validation.

Frames and flaming techniques are part of every communicator’s toolkit of effects.

76

Much scholarly research in the social movement and political disciplines has
focused on the importance of flames in communications efforts. Understanding flames
and their effects can be seen as a strategic resource that can “direct attention and then
guide the processing of information so that a preferred reading of the facts comes to
dominate public understanding” (Gandy, 2002, 365).

One key to any successflil effort to reflame rural America requires building or
mobilizing organizations around particular issues and policies. The agenda setting
literature helps to explain how reflamed messages about rural America could lead
rural advocates to get on the public or formal agenda (Cobb & Ross, 1997). For rural
development advocates, the challenge is to take this research and create the social
mobilization necessary to disseminate the most successful reflamcs. First, rural
advocates must become adept at recognizing the current rural flames, utopia and
dystopia, as they occur. If rural advocates continue to use messages of crisis or
disparity, they will continue to cue up the existing flames. To be effective, rural
advocates need to understand how the fairness flame might be incorporated into
communication with constituencies, policymakers, and media. The interdependence
frame is worthy of additional exploration by advocates, as part of their overall rural
message development. Advocates must also think about offering solutions as part of
their flames.

Reflaming is a slow and uncertain process, particularly when the current
flames are so deeply entrenched and so comfortable for most Americans. What this

research tells advocates is that there is no easy way to dislodge the current flame, but

77

there is hope that new flames can change the way Americans think about rural people
and places, and resulting in changed and better policies.
The Frameworks Institute suggests a seven-step program for advocates
undertaking the difficult work of reflaming social issues:
1. Denial, in which you can't believe that what you've done in the past doesn't
work, even though you know better, and can only dimly see how you might do
it differently.
2. Wonder and Ah-Hal, in which suddenly everything you see is Framing!
Framing! Framing!
3. Paralysis, in which you are aflaid to flame because you know the bad flames
are in you.
4. Assimilation, in which you bunker down, read and think more, and try to learn
how to get yourself unstuck.
5. Awkwardness, in which your flame has the head of a cat and the tail of a dog,
but you recognize it and keep trying.
6. Integration, in which you successfully reflame a piece and it works, and you
keep doing it, and it works better.
7. Conversion, in which you realize that you had better share your knowledge
with your colleagues and coalitions, or their flames will undermine yours (Bales,
2005).
Rural advocates who want to apply this research to their current work can find
some guidance in these results. First of all, rural advocates should avoid triggering the

dominant flame by not painting rural America as a place apart flom the rest of the

78

country. All the quaint and museum-like images of rural America lead audiences back to
the dominant flame. Even with the best of motives, the ‘specialness’ of rural people and
places, in either a positive or negative way, works against the kind of thinking that leads
to new policy outcomes. In their messages, rural America should be connected to the rest
of America, both physically (as one country) but also as a place that shares similar
challenges and problems.

This research reinforces the way many advocates already tell their stories, using a
fairness flamework. Many advocates already embrace the idea that rural America is not
getting its fair share of resources. They should continue to reinforce the idea of fairness
but with great care not to engage in an “us versus them” message. Rural America
deserves a fair share of opportunity and resources because we are all in this together as
one country is an example of how the fairness message might be translated into a general
appeal. In what may seem completely counter intuitive to many rural advocates, they may
be more successful if they focus their messages less on the rural part of rural America and
more on the America part.

Current messages from rural advocates often focus on compelling single stories of
one family or person. What we know flom Iyengar’s work is that this kind of episodic
story telling does not lead to attribution of responsibility for rural solutions outside of that
family or that community (1992). Instead, messages should focus on telling stories in a
thematic way, which places people within the context of the larger issue or system.

Another common message flom advocates is the crisis or ‘sky is falling’ theme.
While these can garner attention, they don’t lead to the kind of thinking that produces

solutions, if the current policies for rural America are any indication. Messages should

79

instead focus on telling stories that highlight both the problems and the solutions. The
Framing Puzzle in Figure 7 shows generally how the pieces of a new flame might come
together.

Figure 7

The Framing Puzzle

Simplifying Model

Level One
Value

Solutions
Available

 

Note. Copyright held by The Frameworks Institute, 2005. Reprint permission granted.

Conclusion
The power of the dominant flame around rural America is used to sell
everything flom soft drinks to political candidates. “This rural America of our dreams

persists because it is wrapped up in our desire forties to the land, economic

80

independence and community support” (Browne et al., 1992, 17). As rural scholars
point out, altering the minimalist rural development of the past is a daunting task. The
task has multiple dimensions including: the myth that farm policy is surrogate for
rural policy; a lack of adequate data on rural areas; the pervasive assumption that little
can be done to help rural areas left behind; the idea that rural America is treated in
isolation flom the larger national an international economy; and the lack of a unified
rural constituency. These scholars argue that the application of our historical agrarian
values to policy today is the crux of the challenge. Taking up their challenge, this
research sought not to debunk the common agrarian myth, or what we now understand
to be part of the dominant rural flames, but to create a new flame, by attaching it to
other American values such as fairness, thereby fomenting a new way of thinking
which will eventually lead to policy change.

In addition to understanding flaming theory across more traditional disciplines,
such as psychology, communications, sociology and political science, this research also
required understanding the body of research involving how policy change occurs. While
not covered in the literature review, it is important to understanding why this research
matters. As many longitudinal studies of policy controversy conclude, policy change
often requires that policy entrepreneurs look for ways to change the public and policy
makers’ perceptions of their issue (Baumgartner & Jones, 1991, 2002). Changes in the
image of the policy can lead to mobilization of the apathetic and movement in
jurisdictional venues, all of which are necessary for policy change to occur.

Frame analysis is the first step in understanding the array of arguments and

counter arguments that surround complex social issues (Gamson, 1988, 1992; Schon &

81

Rein, 1994). Once we understand the dominant flame, or the bundle of frames that
comprise that flame, it is possible to test alternative flames, or to engage in a process of
refiaming in an attempt to change the existing pattern of discourse. The usefulness of this
research is in the development of communication products that enter into the variety of
discourses now ongoing about rural America. Whether it is the discussions of policy
makers, or the coverage by the nation, state or local news media, the hope is when a
critical mass of rural advocates all begin to use better crafted messages, based on the
research and a new rural metaphor (once it is discovered), the way rural America is
understood will slowly begin to change across a variety of discourses.

In the body of literature studying social movements, we see that social movement
actors use flames to define their issues in ways to elaborate responsibility and to
prescribe potential solutions. This research provides the first stepping-stone on that
journey for rural social movement actors. When we deconstruct powerful flames like the
ones identified in this dissertation and attempt to construct new ones, we seek to reveal or
to illuminate what informs the flame. Frame construction is often more interpretative
than strictly scientific process, peeling away layers of meaning to develop alternative
flames which seem authentic to issue advocates.

The research in this dissertation will be judged successful if it serves as a gateway
to flirther dialogue, policy action and change in rural America. Frame construction is not
just a technique, a methodology or a part of flaming effects theory, it is also part of a
larger political project intended to have far reaching implications for rural Americans.

The challenge for rural advocates is neither to improve the public’s views of rural

people nor to develop a national fondness for Rural America. It is certainly also not a

82

short-terrn campaign to change the current dominant rural flame. Rather, building public
will for policy change on behalf of Rural America will require a long term commitment
to building a new communications flame across a wide range of rural advocacy groups.
Ultimately, the new successful rural flame will illuminate the value of fairness in
addressing rural concerns, and will build on a sense of geographic interdependence to

connect all people to these issues, wherever they live.

83

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ajzen I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior, Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Altschull, J. H. (1995). Agents of power: the media and public policy (2” ed. ).
White Plains, NY: Longman Publishers.

Anderson, BS. (1992). Identifying and responding to activist publics: A case
study. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4, 151-165.

Andreasen, A. R. (1995). Marketing social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.

Applebaum, R. P. (1970). Theories of social change. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally
College Publishing Company.

Aubrun, A. & Grady. J. (2003). The Agrarian Myth Revisited: Findings from
Cognitive Elicitations, Cultural Logic, LLC: A report prepared for the Kellogg
Foundation

Aubrun, A. & Grady, J. (2004). Simplifying models for Rural Problems. Power
point presentation delivered to the Kellogg Foundation, Irvington, Virginia.

Aubrun, A. & Grady, J. (2004). Simplijjring Rural Issues: Findings from
Cognitive Analysis and Phone Interviews. Report to Frameworks Board of Directors,
Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Bales, S. N. (No date). A Five Minute Reflesher Course in Framing. Kids Count
E-Zine, 8. Frameworks Institute. Retrieved from http://www.frameworksinstitutecrg.

Bales, S. N. (2002). The Frameworks Perspective: Strategic Frame Analysis.
Retrieved on October 27, 2003 flom http://www.frameworksinstitute.org

Bales, S .N. (2004). How Americans think about social issues. Power point
presentation to WK. Kellogg Foundation.

Bales, S. N. (2003). Frames and the consequences for rural issues, Parts I and 2,
Power point presentation, Washington, DC.

Bales, S .N. (2005). The seven stages of Frameworks learning. Frameworks

Institute. Retrieved on June 19, 2005 flom
http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/strategicanalysis/sevenstagesshtml

84

Bales, S. N. & Gilliam, F. (2004) Communications for social good. The
Foundation Center. Retrieved May 13, 2004 from
http://www.fdncenter.org/for_grantmakers/practice_matters

Ball-Rokeach, S. J ., Rokeach, M. & Grube, J. W. (1982). The great American
values test: Influencing behavior through television. New York: The Free Press.

Bamberg, S., Kuhnen, S. M., Schmidt, P. (1999). The impact of general attitudes
on decisions: a flaming approach. Rationality and Society, 11(1), 5-25.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to Ecology of Mind. Novato, CA: Chandler Publishing
Company.

Baumgartner F. R & Jones, B. D. (1991). Agenda dynamics and policy
subsystems. The Journal of Politics, 53(1), 1044-1074.

Baumgartner, F. R. & Jones, B. D. (2002). Policy Dynamics. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Benford, R. D. & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements
an overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology. 26, 611-639.

Benford, R. D. (1997). An insider’s critique of the social movement framing
perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 67(4), 409-430.

Bennett, w. L. (1996). News: the politics ofillusion (3“ ed. ), White Plains, N.Y.:
Longman Publishers.

Benoit, W. L.(1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public
Relations Review, (23) 2, 177-186.

Bergner, D. J. (1986). The maturing of public interest groups. Public Relations
Quarterly, 31(3), l4-l6.

Berry, J. M. (1989). T_he_ Interest Group Society. Harper Collins Publishers.

Best J. (1995). Images of issues: typifiting contemporary social problems (2nd
ed.), New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Blumer, H. (1948). Public opinion and public opinion polls. American
Sociological Reviele3, 542-554.

Bodensteiner, C. A. (1995). Predicting public and media attention span for social
issues. Public Relations Quarterly, 40(2), 14-20.

85

Bohan—Baker, M. (2001). Pitching Policy Change. Harvard Family Research
Project, 7(1), 3-4, 19.

Boninger, D. S. (1995). Origins of attitude importance: self-interest, including
Social Identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(1), 61-80.

Bonk, K., Griggs, H.,& Tynes, E. (1999). The Jossey-Bass guide to strategic
communications for nonprofits. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bostrom, M. (2003). Perceptions and misperceptions: an analysis of qualitative
research exploring views of rural America. Public Knowledge LLC: a report prepared for
the Kellogg Foundation.

Bostrom, M. (2004). Connection, cause and character: an analysis of qualitative
research exploring views of rural America. Public Knowledge LLC: a report prepared for
the Kellogg Foundation.

Breimyer, H. F. (1991). Over-fulfilled expectation: A life and an era in rural
America. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.

Browne, W. P., Skees, J. R., Swanson, L. E., Thompson, P. B., Unnevehr, L .J.
(1992). Sacred cows and hot potatoes. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bryan, J. L. (1997). The coming revolution in issues management: elevate and
simplify. Communication World, 14(7), 12-15.

Bryant, J. & Zillman, D. (2002). Media efl'ects: Advances in theory and research,
(2“ ed. ), Erlbaum: Marwah, NJ.

Burstein, P. & Linton, A. (2002). The impact of political parties, interest groups,
and social movement organizations on public policy: Some recent evidence and

theoretical concerns. Social Forces, 81(2), 380-408.

Burstein, P. (1998). Bringing the public back in: Should sociologists consider the
impact of public opinion on public policy? Social Forces. 77(1), 27-62.

Campbell, J. L. (2002). Ideas, politics, and public policy. Annual Review of
Sociology, 28, 21-38.

Capek, S. M. (1993). The “environmental justice” frame: a conceptual discussion
of an application. Social Problem,40, 1.

Cappella, J. N. & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the
public good. New York, Oxford University Press.

86

Center for the Study of Rural America (2003). Main streets of tomorrow:
Growing and financing rural entrepreneurs. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Center for the Study of Rural America (2004). New approaches to rural policy:
Lessons from around the world. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the
use in source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 752-766.

Chambers, R. E. (1996). Rural development planning: a time for change.
Economic Development Review, 14(2), 21-23.

Cloke, R. (1996). Rural life-styles: material opportunity, cultural experience, and
how theory can undermine policy. EconomicGeography, 72( 4), 433-449.

Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason and feel about rights and liberties.
American Journal of Political Science, 3 7, 867-899.

Cobb, R. W., & Elder, CD. (1971). The politics of agenda-building: alternative
perspective for modern democratic theory. The Journal of Politics, 33(4), 892-915.

Cobb, R., & Ross, M. H. (1997). Cultural strategies of agenda denial:
avoidance, attack, and redefinition. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Cobb, R., Ross, J. K., & Ross, M. H. (1976). Agenda building as a comparative
political process. The American Political Science Review, 70(1), 126-138.

Communications Consortium Media Center (1999). Strategic media: designing a
public interest campaign. Washington, DC: Communications Consortium Media Center.

Coombs, W. T. (1992). The failure of the task force on food assistance: a case
study of the role of legitimacy in issues management. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 4, 101-122.

Comman, J. N. and Kincaid, B .K. (1984). Lessons from rural America, a case
history, Cabin John, MD.: Seven Locks Press.

Coser, L. (1956). T he firnctions of social conflict. New York, NY: The Free
Press.

Crable, R. E., & Vibbert, S. L. (1985). Managing issues and influencing public
policy. Public Relations Review, 3-16.

Creighton, J. L. (1999). Public participation in federal agencies’ decision making
in the 19908. National Civic Review, 88(3), 249-258.

87

D’entreves, A. P. (1951). Natural law: An introduction to legal philosophy.
Hutchinson, University Library.

D’Angelo, P (2002). News flaming as a multiparadigmatic research program: a
response to Entman. Journal of Communications, 870-888.

D’Andrade, R. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

D’Andrade, R. & Strauss, C. (1992). Human motives and cultural models.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dalla, R. & Baugher, S .L. (2001). Immigration and the rural Midwest. In Moore
III, R. M. Ed. The Hidden America, Social Problems in Rural America for the T wenty-
First Century, Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press & London: Associated
University Presses.

Davidson, 0D. (1996). Broken heartland: the rise of America ’3 rural ghetto,
Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Davis, D. & Marema, T. (2001). A rural perspective. Unpublished paper, Center
for Rural Strategies, Whitesburg KY

Davis, J. J. (1995) The effects of message flaming on response to environmental
communications. Journal of Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285-299.

Dearing, J. &. Rogers, E. (1996). Agenda-Setting. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.

Detweiler, J. B. & Bedell, B. T. & Salovey, P. & Pronin, E. & Rothman, A. J.
(1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-flamed messages motivate beach-
goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189-196.

Domke, D. & McCoy, K. & Torres, M. (1999). News media, racial perceptions,
and political cognition. Communication Research, 26(5), 570-607.

Domke, D. & Perlmutter, D. & Spratt, M (2002). The primes of our times? An
examination of the ‘power’ of visual images. Journalism, 3(2), 131-159.

Downs, A. (1977). Up and down with ecology: the issue-attention cycle. Public
Interest, 28, 38-50.

Druckman, J. M. & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: how citizens’
conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 4 7, 4729-4745.

88

Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Discursive designs: critical theory and political institutions,
American Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 656-679.

Durham, F. D. (1998) News flames as social narratives: TWA flight 800.
International Communication Association.

Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth:
Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich.

Edelman, M. (1985). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana, IL: University of
Illinois Press.

Edwards, J. L. (1998). The very model of a modern major (media) candidate:
Colin Powell and the rhetoric of public opinion. Communication Quarterly, 46(2), 163-
176.

Elder, C. D., & Cobb, R.W. (1983). The political uses of symbols. New York, NY:
Longman, Inc.

Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda: T he formation of men ’s attitude. New York, NY:
Vintage Books.

Elwood, W. N., Ed. (1995). Public relations inquiry as rhetorical criticism: Case
studies of corporate discourse and social influence. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Entman, RE. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a flactured paradigm.
Journal of Communications 43:4, 51-58.

Entman, R. E. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, opinion and US.
foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

F enton Communications (2001). Now hear this. Fenton Communications,
Washington, DC.

Feto, J. (1999). Wide open spaces. American Demographics: 21, 10, 44-45.

F ilkins, R. & Allen, J. C. & Cordes, S (2000). Predicting community satisfaction
among rural residents: an integrative model. Rural Sociology, 65(1), Social Science
Module, 72—86.

Flora, C.B., Flora, J. & Fey, S. (2003). Rural communities: Legacy and change.
(2"d ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Flora, C. B.; Flora, J. L.; Spears, J. D.; Swanson, L. E.; Lapping M .B. &

Weinberg, M. L. (1992). Rural communities: Legacy and change (2“ ed. ). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

89

Flora, J. L. (2002). Review essay: Whither rural community development? Rural
Sociolog, 67(4), 637-647.

Filkins, R. & Allen, J. C. & Cordes, S. (2000). The search for an effective rural
policy: An endless quest or an achievable goal. Nebraska City, Nebraska R UPRI Rural
Policy conference Rural matters: October 2002.

Friedland, W. H. (2002). Agriculture and rurality: beginning the “final
separation?” Rural Sociology, 67(3), 350-373.

Gamson, W. A. (1980). Understanding the careers of challenging groups: A
commentary on Goldstone. American Journal of Sociology, 85 (5), 1042-1060.

Gamson, WA. (1985). Gofflnan’s legacy to political sociology. Theory and
Society. 14 (5), 605-622.

Gamson, W. A. (1988). Political discourse and collective action. In International
social movement research: From structure to action.. Klandermans, B.; Kriesi, H. &
Tarrow, S., (Eds.) Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press,
178-192.

Gamson, WA. (1995). Hiroshima, the Holocaust, and the politics of exclusion.
American Sociological Review, 60, 1-20.

Gamson, W. A. (2000). Framing social policy. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 7(2),
(Retrieved on October 1, 2002 flom www.nonprofiquarterlyorg/print/ 156.html)

Gamson, W. A. (2003). Forward in SD. Reese, O. H.Gandy, Jr., A.E. Grant,
(2003). Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the
Social World. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Gamson, W.A., Croteau, D., Hoynes, W. & Sasson, T. (1992). Media images and
the social construction of reality. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 373-393.

Gamson, W. A.; Fireman, B. & Retina, S. (1982). Encounters with unjust
authority. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Gamson, W.A. & Goodson, A (2000). Social movements and children’s policy.
GCYF Insight. Washington, DC: Grantmakers for Children Youth and Families.

Gamson, W. A. & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public Opinion on
nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37.

90

Gamson, W. A. & Wolfsfeld, G. (1993). Movements and media as interacting
systems. American Association of Political Science, 528, 114-125.

Gandy, O. (2003) Epilogue: Framing the horizon: A retrospective assessment. In
S.D. Reese; O.H. Gandy, Jr., A.E. Grant (Eds.) Framing public life: Perspectives on
media and our understanding of the social world (pp.355-378). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum

Associates.

Gamham, A. (1997). Representing information in mental models. In M.A.
Conway (Ed.) Cognitive Models of Memory, 149-172 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gerbner, G., Gross, L, Morgan, M., Signorelli, N. (1994). Growing up with
television; the cultivation perspective. In Bryant, J. & Zillman, D. (Eds.). Media efifects:
Advances in theory and research, Erlbaum: Marwah, NJ.

Gaunt, P. (1993). Beyond agendas: New directions in communications research.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Gibson, C.B. & Zellmer—Bruhn, ME. (2001). Metaphors and meaning: An
intercultural analysis of the concept of teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46.

Gilliam, F. D. & Bales, SN. (2001). Strategic flame analysis: reflaming
America’s youth. Social Policy Report, 15(3), 3-15.

Gilliam, Jr., F. D. & Iyengar, S. (2000). Prime suspects: The influence of local
television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science 44(3), 560-
573.

Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching, Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

Gofflnan, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience.
Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Graber, D. (2003). The media and democracy: Beyond myths and stereotypes.
Annual Review of Political Science, 6,139-60.

Greenberg, A. (2000). Perceptions of rural America: 242 in-depth interviews,
Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner Research. Report prepared for and published by the
Kellogg Foundation.

Greenberg A. & Greener, W. (2003). Perceptions of rural America: Interviews

with members of Congress. Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner Research. Report prepared
by and published by the Kellogg Foundation.

91

Greenberg, A. (2002). Perceptions of rural America: A survey with state
legislators. Greenberg, Quinlan Rosner Research, Inc. Report prepared by and published
by the Kellogg Foundation.

Greenberg, A. & McCreesh, P. (2003). Injecting rural issues into the presidential
campaign survey results. Greenberg, Quinlan and Rosner Research. Inc. Report prepared
for and published by the Kellogg Foundation.

Greenberg, A., Walker, D. & Greener, W. (2005). The message from rural
America: the rural vote in 2004. Report prepared for and published by the Kellogg
Foundation.

Greening, D.& Gray, B. (1994). Testing a model of organizational response to
social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 3 7 (3), 467.

Gunther, A. C. (1998). The persuasive press inference: Effects of mass media on
perceived public opinion. Communication Research, 25(5), 486-504.

Haggins, J. (2005). Retrieved on January 7, 2005 flom
http\\www.museum.tv/archives/etv/A/htmlA/andygriffith/andygriffith.htm

Haider-Markel, D.P, & Meier, K.J. (1996). The politics of gay and lesbian rights:
Expanding the scope of the conflict. Journal of Politics, 58, 332-349.

Hainsworth, B. (1990). The distribution of advantages and disadvantages. Public
Relations Review, 16(1), 33-40.

Hainsworth, B. & Meng, M. (1988). How corporations define issues
management. Public Relations Review, 14(4), 18-31.

Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of flaming: implications for public relations.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 1 1(3), 205-242.

Hallahan, K. (2001) The dynamics of issues activation and response: An issues
processes model. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1), 26-59.

Hamrick, K. (2003) Rural America at a glance. Rural Development Research
Report No. (RDRR97-1) Economic Research Service: Washington, DC. Retrieved on
June 1, 2004 flom http://www.ers.usdzggov/Publications/rdrr97-l.

Hart, J. F. (1991). The Land That Feeds Us. New York-London: W.W. Norton &
Company.

Hawkins, R.P. & Pingree, S. (1981). Uniform content and habitual viewing:

Unnecessary assumptions in social reality effects. Human Communication Research, 7,
291-301.

92

Hawkins, R.P. & Pingree, S. (1990). Divergent psychological processes in
constructing social reality flom mass media content. In Signorielli, N. & Morgan, M.
(Eds.). Cultivation Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Herek, G. M. (1999). The social construction of attitudes: functional consensus
and divergence in the US public’s reactions to AIDS, in G. Maio & J. Olson (Eds. ) Why
We Evaluate: Functions of Attitudengahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the
functional approach to attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly: 1987, 50, 4, 285-303.

Hertog, J. K. & McLeod, D. M. (2003). A multiperspectival approach to flaming
analysis: a field guide. In Reese, S.D.; Gandy, H. Jr., Grant, A.E. (Eds.). Framing public
life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 139-162).
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hiebert, R. E. (2003). Public relations and propaganda in flaming the Iraq war: a
preliminary review. Public Relations Review, 29, 243-255.

Hilgartner S. & Bell, R. C. and O’Conner, R. (1982). Nukespeak: the selling of
nuclear technology in America, New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Hilgartner, S. & Bosk, C. L. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A
public arenas model, American Journal of Sociology, 94(1), 53-78.

Hofstadter, R. (1955). The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F .D.R. New York:
Alfled A. Knopf.

Holbert, L. & Pillion, O. & Tschida, D. A. & Arrnfield, G. G. & Kinder, K. &
Cherry, K. L. & Daulton, A. R.(2003). The West Wing as endorsement of the US.
Presidency: expanding the bounds of priming in political communication. International
Communication Association.

Hovland, Carl (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived flom experimental
and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist, 14, 8-17.

Hewlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (1998). Policy subsystem configurations and policy
change: Operationalizing the post-positivist analysis of the politics of the policy process.
Policy Studies Journal, 26(3), 466-481.

Iyengar, S. & Peters, M. D. & Kinder, D. R. (1982). Experimental demonstrations
of the “not-so-minimal” consequences of television news programs. The American

Political Science Review, 76 (4), 848-858.

Iyengar, S. & Reeves, R., (Eds.) (1997). Do the media govern? Politicians, voters
and reporters in America. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

93

Iyengar, S. & Simon A. (2000). New perspectives and evidence on political
communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychologi, 51, 149-69.

Iyengar, S. (1992). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Jackman, M. R. & Senter, M. S. (1980). Images of social groups: Categorical or
qualified? Public Opinion Quarterly, 342-361.

Jacoby, W.G. (2000). Issue flaming and public Opinion on government spending.
American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 750-767.

Johnson, T. J ., Hays, C.E. & Hays, S. P. (1998). Engaging the public: How
government and the media can reinvigorate American democracy, Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Johnston, H. & Klandermans, B. (1995). The cultural analysis of social
movements. In Johnston, H. & Klandermans, B.(Eds.), Social movements and cultures.
Minneapolis, University of Minneapolis Press.

Karlberg, M. (1998). Remembering the public in public relations research: From
theoretical to operational symmetry. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, 263-278.

Kim, S & Scheufele, D. A. & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way:
Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue.
Columbia: Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly.

Kinder D. R. & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color racial politics and
Democratic ideals._Chicago:_University of Chicago Press.

Kingdon, J .W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, (2nd ed. ). New
York, NY, Longman.

Kitto, J. A. (1998). The evolution of public issues management. Public Relations
Quarterly, 43(4), 34-39.

Kotler, P., & Roberto, E. L. (1989). Social Marketing: Strategies for Changing
Public Behavior, New York, NY: The Free Press.

Kremar, M & Curtis, S. (2003). Mental models: understanding the impact of
fantasy violence on children’s moral reasoning. Journal of Communications, 460-478.

Krosnick, J. A. (1988b). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A

study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations and voting behavior,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196-210.

94

Krosnick, J. A. & Kinder, D. R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for
the president through priming. The American Political Science Review, 84(2), 497-512.

Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. (1997). The discourse of issues management: A genre of organizational
communication. Communication Quarterly, 45(3), 188-210.

Lakoff, G. ( 1987). Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, morality and politics, or why conservatives have lefl
liberals in the dust. Social Research, 62.

Lakoff, G. (2003). Metaphors and war, again. (Retrieved July 24, 2004 from
http://www.altemet.org/story/ 1 5414/).

Lakoff, G. (2004). Don ’t think of an elephant: know your values and frame the
debate._White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.

Lavine, H. & Huff, J. W. & Wagner, S. H. & Sweeney, D. (1998). The
moderating influence of attitude strength on the susceptibility to context effects in
attitude surveys. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(2), 359-373.

Lee, A. & Aaker, J. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of
regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86(2), 205-218.

Leff, D. R., Protess, D. L. &. Brooks, S. C. (1986). Crusading journalism:
Changing public attitudes and policy-making agendas. Public Opinion Quarterly, 30(3),
300—3 15.

Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L. & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created
equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behaviors and
Human Decision Processes, 76 (2), 149-188.

Lichter, S.R., Amundson, D. & Lichter, LR. (2002) Perceptions of rural America:

media coverage. Center for Media and Public Aflair. Report prepared for the Kellogg
Foundation.

95

Lichter, S.R, Amundson, D. & Lichter, LR (2005). The message from rural
America: media coverage. Center for Media and Public Aflairs, report prepared for the
Kellogg Foundation.

Lippmann,W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Macmillan.
Lippmann,W. (1925). The phantom public. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Lipset, S. M. (1986). The sources of public interest activism. Public Relations
Quarterly, 31 (3), 9-12.

MacLachlan, G. & Reid, 1. (1994). Framing and interpretation. Carlton, Victoria,
Australia, Melbourne University Press.

Maher, T.M. (2003). Framing: an emerging paradigm or a phase of agenda-
setting. In Reese, S.D.; Gandy, H. Jr., Grant, A.E. (Eds.). Framing public life:
Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world mp .83-94). Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Maheswaran, D. & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing
and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367.

Mahon, J .F. & MacGowan, R.A. (1996)._Industry As A Player In The Political
And Social Arena: Defining The Competitive Environment, Westport, CT.: Quorum
Books.

Manheim, J. B. & Albritton, RB. (1984). Changing national images: international
public relations and media agenda setting. The American Political Science Review, 78(3),
641-657.

May, P. J. (1986). Politics and policy analysis. Political Science Quarterly,
101(1), 109-125.

Mazur, A. (1981). The Dynamics of Technical Controversy, Washington, DC:
Communications Press, Inc.

McAdam, D. & McCarthy, J. D. & Zald, M. N.(l996). Comparative Perspectives
On Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, And Cultural
F ramings. New York; Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, J .D.; Smith, J. & Zald, M.N., (1996). Accessing public, media and
governmental agendas. In D. McAdam, J .D. McCarthy, J. D. & M. N. Zald ( Eds.),
Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing
tructures and cultural framings (pp.312-337). New York: Cambridge University Press.

96

Mcceth, M. K. (1992). Rural Development and Environmental Preservation: A
Search for Community Consensus. Economic Development Review, 10( 3), 41-45.

McCombs, M. & Ghanem, S. (2003). The convergence of agenda setting and
framing. In Reese, S.D.; Gandy, H. Jr., Grant, A.E. (Eds.). Framing public life:
Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp 67-82). Mahwah,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCombs, M, Shaw, D.L., Weaver, D., Editors. (1997). Communication and
democracy, exploring the intellectual frontiers in agenda-setting theory. Mahwah, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McCombs, M. & Shaw, D.L. (1973). The agenda setting function of the mass
media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 62-75.

McGregor, A. (1998). Ruralness, development and democracy: media, myths and
the creation of meaning at Lake Cowal, New South Wales. Australian Geographer, 29
(2), 191-203.

McGuire, W.J .(1989) Theoretical foundations of campaigns. In Rice, R.E.&
Atkin, C.K.,( Eds.), Public Communication Campaigns, 48.

McLeod, D. M. & Detenber, B. H. (1999). Framing effects of television news
coverage of social protest. International Communication Association.

McQuail, D. & Windahl, S. (1993). Communications Models for the Study of
Mass Communication (2“ ed. ). London: Longman.

Mendleberg, T. (1996). Implicitly racial appeals and the impact of campaigns.
Paper delivered at a seminar for Annenberg Research Fellows, Annenberg School for
Communications, University of Pennsylvania.

Meng, M. (1992). Early identification aids issues management. Public Relations
Journal, 48(3), 23-24.

Meyer, D. S. (2003). Social movements and public policy: eggs, chicken, and
theory. Center for the Study of Democracy University of California, 1rvine._Retrieved on
June 29, 2004 from http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/03-02.

Miller, J. M & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of
presidential evaluations: politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted
source. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 301-5.

Mooney, C. (2003). Winning the frame game. Utne Reader, 78-81.

97

Morgan, P. & Bales, SN. (2004). Competition, cooperation and connection: How
these metaphors affect child advocacy. Frameworks Kid Count E-Zine, 11. Retrieved
June 1, 2004 from www. frameworksinstitute.org/products/issuel1framing.html.

Mooney, C. Z., & Lee, M.H. (1999). The temporal diffusion of morality policy:
The case of death penalty legislation in the American states. Policy Studies Journal,
27(4), 766-780.

Moore III, R. M. Edited by (2001). The hidden America: Social problems in rural
America for the twenty-first century. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University Press &
London: Associated University Presses.

Morris, A. & Mueller, C. (1992). Frontiers in social movement theory. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Murphy, P. (1996). Chaos theory as a model for managing issues and crises.
Public Relations Review, 22(2), 95-114.

Mutz, D. C. & 8085, J. (1997). Reading public opinion: The influence of news
coverage on perceptions of public sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 431-451.

Nabi, R. L. (2003). Exploring the framing effects of emotion. Communication
Research,_30(2), 224-247.

Nelson, R. A. (1990). Bias versus fairness: the social utility of issues
management. Public Relations Review, 16(1), 25-33.

Nelson, R. A. & Heath, R. L. (1986). A systems model for corporate issues
management. Public Relations Quarterly, 31 (3), 20-23.

Nelson, T. E. & Clawson, R. A. & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil
liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review,
91(3), 567-583.

Nelson, T.E. & Oxley, Z.M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance
and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040-1067.

Nelson, T.E., Oxley, Z.M. & Clawson, RA. (1997). Towards a psychology of
framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246.

Nelson, T.E. & Wiley, EA. (2003). Issue frames that strike a value balance: a
political psychology perspective. In Reese, S.D.; Gandy, H. Jr., Grant, A.E. (Eds.).

Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world
(pp.245-266). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

98

Neuman, W. R. & Just, M. R. & Crigler, A.N. (1992). Common knowledge, news
and the construction of political meaning. Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press.

Nichols, J, (November, 3 2003). Needed: a rural strategy: democrats can win the
farm and small-town vote--if they pay serious attention. The Nation.

Norrander, B. & Wilcox, C. (1999). Public opinion and policymaking in the
states, the case of post-Roe abortion policy. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 707-722.

Page, B. I. & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. The
American Political Science Review, 77(1). 175-190.

Page, B. I., Shapiro, R.Y.; Dempsey, GR. (1987). What moves public opinion?
American Political Science Review, 81, 23-44.

Pan, Z. & Kosicki, GM. (2003). Framing as a strategic action in public
deliberation. In Reese, S.D.; Gandy, O.H. Jr., Grant, A.E. (Eds). Framing public life:
Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp.35-66): Mahwah,
N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J .T. & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a

determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 847-855.

Pires, M. A. (1989). Working with activist groups. Public Relations Journal,
45(4), 30-32.

Poore, C. (1997). How issues management turned the tide: a case study for action
and results. Communications World, 1 4( 7), 23-24.

Power, T. M. (1996). Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies, The Search for
Valu of Place. Washington, DC: Island Press

Price, V. & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical
account of media priming and framing. In G. Barnett & F.J. Boster (Eds.) Progress in the

Communications Sciences (pp.l73-211). Greenwich CT: Ablex

Ramsey, S. A. (1993). Issues management and the use of technologies in public
relations. Public Relations Review, 19(3), 261-276.

Rapp, D. (1988). How the US. got into agriculture and why it can '1 get out.
Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc.

99

Reese, S.D.; Gandy, O.H. Jr., Grant, A.E. (2003). Framing Public Life:
Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Mahwah, N.J.:
Erlbaum Associates.

Reese, S. (2003). Preface. In Reese, S.D.; Gandy, O.H. Jr., Grant, A.E. (Eds.)
Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world
(pp..xiii-xvi). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A
social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47(3), 26-48.

Rice, R. E. & Atkin, C.K.(l989) Public communication campaigns (2“ ed. ),
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Rice, R. E. & Atkin, CK. (2001). Public communication campaigns (3rd ed. ),
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Richards, D. (2001) Coordination and shared mental models. American Journal of
Political Science, 45(2), 259-276.

Richardson, J. (2000). Partnerships in communities, reweaving the fabric of rural
America. Washington, DC. & Covelo, California: Island Press.

Rochefort, D. & Cobb, R. (1994). The politics of problem definition: Shaping the
policy agenda. Lawrence, KS: University Press.

Rokeach, M. (1960).The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of
belief systems and personality systems. Basic Books.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Palo Alto, CA: CPP, Inc.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Dififusion of innovations (4th ed. ), New York, NY: The
Free Press.

Roseland, M. ( 1998). Toward Sustainable Communities. Cabriola Island BC, and
Stony Creek CT, USA: New Society Publishers.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. & Fazio, R. H. (1997). The role of belief accessibility in
attitude formation. The Southern Communication Journal, 62(2), Research Library Core

Ryan, C. & Carragee, K.M & Meinhofer, W. (2001). Theory into practice:
framing, the news media, and collective action. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media,_45(1),175-182

Ryan,C.(l991) Prime time activism: Media strategies for grass roots organizing.
Boston: Southport Press

100

Sabatier, P. A. & Jenkins-Smith H. C., Edited by (1993). Policy change and
learning, an advocacy coalition approach, Boulder-San Francisco-Oxford: Westview
Press.

Sabatier, PA. (1999). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.

Salant, P. (1990). A community researcher ’s guide to rural data. Washington,
DC & Covelo, California: Island Press.

Salmon, C. T. (1989). Information campaigns: Balancing social values and
social change, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Salmon, C.T., Post, L.A., & Christensen, RE. (2003) Mobilizing public will for
social change. Prepared for the Communications Consortium Media Center, Washington,
DC.

Schank, R. 1990. Tell me a story: Narrative and intelligence. Evanston:
Northwestern University Press.

Schattschneider, E.E. (1960).The semi-Sovereign people. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.

Scheufele, DA. (1999). Framing a theory of media effects. Journal of
Communications, 103- 122.

Schneider, S. K. & Jacoby, W. G. (2003). Public attitudes forward the policy
responsibilities of the national and sate governments: Evidence from South Carolina.
State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 3(3). 246-269

Schon D.A. & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of
intractable policy controversies._New York: Basic Books

Shah, D. V.; Domke, D. & Wackman, D. B. (1997). Values and the vote: Linking
issue interpretations to the process of candidate choice. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly 74(2), 357-387

Shah, D. V.; Domke, D. & Wackman, D. B (2003). Value flaming and political
judgement. In Reese, S.D.; Gandy, O.H. Jr., Grant, A.E. (Eds.) Framing public life:
Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp.227-244). Mahwah,
N.J.: Erlbaum Associates.

Sharp, E. B. (1994). The dynamics of issue expansion: cases from disability
rights and fetal research controversy. The Journal of Politics, 56(4), 919-939.

101

Shaw, R. (1996). A primer: the activist 's handbook. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.

Sherman, S. J. & Judd, C. M. & Park B. (1989). Social cognition. Annual Review
of Psychology, 40, 281-326.

Shull, S.A. & Gleiber, D.W. (1994). Testing a dynamic process of policy making
in civil rights. Social Science Journal, 31(1), 54-65.

Skees, J. R & Swanson, L. E. (1994). The politics of information, in Christenson,
J. A., Maurer, R.C. & Strang, N.L. (Eds)._Rural Data, People & Policy (pp.15-2 7).
Westview Press, Boulder: CO.

Slack, T. & Jensen, L. (2002). Race, ethnicity and underemployment in
nonmetropolitan America: a 30-year profile. Rural Sociology, 67(2), 208-233.

Smith, J. (1996). The Countryside Ideal: Anglo-American Images of Landscape.
American Planning Association, Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(1),
137- 13 8.

Smith, M. D. & Krannich, R. S. (2000). Culture clash revisited: Newcomer and
longer-term residents’ attitudes toward land use, development, and environmental issues
in rural communities in the Rocky Mountain west. Rural Sociology, 65(3); Social Science
Module.

Snow, D.A. & Benford, R.D. (1992).Master frames and cycles of protest in
Morris, A.D. & Mueller, C.M. (Eds). Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven:
Yale University Press.

Snow, D.A.; Rochford, E.B.; Worden, S.K. & Benford, RD. (1986). Frame
alignment processes, micro mobilization and movement participation. American
Sociological Review, 51(4), 464-481.

Spector, M. & Kitsuse, J .I. (1977). Constructing social problems, Menlo Park,
CA: Cummings Publishing Company.

Stevens, B. (1999). Persuasion, probity, and paltering: the prudential crisis.
Journal of Business Communication, 36(4), 319-334.

Stewart, C. J ., Smith, C. A. & Denton, Jr., R. E. (1984). Persuasion and social
movements, Prospect Heights: Waveland Press, Inc.

Stoker, L.(1997). Interests and ethics in politics. American Political Science
Review, 86, 369-380.

102

Stone, D. A. (1997). The policy paradox: The art of political decision-making.
New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.

Stone, D. A (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political
Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281-300.

Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. New York & Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Tarrow, S. (1992). Mentalities, political culture and collective action frames:
Constructing meaning through action. In Morris, A. & Mueller, C., Frontiers in Social
Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Terkildsen, N. & Schnell, F. (1997). How media frames move public opinion: an
analysis of the woman’s movement. Political Research Quarterly, 50(4), 879-900.

Tichenor, D. J. (1999). The presidency, social movements, and contentious
change: Lessons from the woman’s suffrage and labor movements. Presidential Studies
Quarterly, 29(1), 14-25.

Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, G.A. & Olien, ON. (1970). Mass media and differential
growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 158-170.

Tickameyer, A.R. & Duncan, CM. (1990). Poverty and opportunity structure in
rural America. Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 67-86.

Tucker, K. & Broom, G. (1993). Managing issues acts as bridge to strategic
planning. Public Relations Journal, 49(11), 33-41.

Tucker, K.& McNemey, S. L.(1992). Building coalitions to initiate change.
Public Relations Journal, 48(1), 28-31.

Tucker, K.& Trumpfheller, B. (1993). Building an issues management system.
Public Relations Journal, 49(11), 36-38.

Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the
psychology of choice. Science, 21 1 (4481), 453-458.

Valentino, N. A. (1999). Crime news and the priming of racial attitudes during
evaluations of the president. Public Opinion Quarterly, 63, 293-320.

Valkenburg, P. M. & Semetko, H. A. & De Vreese, C. H. (1999). The effects of
news frames on readers’ thoughts and recall. Communication Research, 26 (5), 550-569.

103

Van Leuven, J. & Slater, M. (1991). How publics, public relations and the media
shape the public opinion process. In J .E. Grunig & L.A. Grunig (Eds. ), Public Relations
Research Annual, 3, (pp.165-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Vasquez, G. M. (1996). Public Relations as Negotiation: an Issue Development
Perspective. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8(1), 57-77.

Wallack, L. (1990) “Improving Health Promotion: Media Advocacy and Social
Marketing Approaches” in C. Atkin and L. Wallack, (Eds.), Mass Communication and
Public Health: Complexities and Conflicts._Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Wallack, L., Woodruf, K., Dorfman, L. & Diaz, 1. (1999). News for a change: An
advocate 's guide to working with the media, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Waltenburg, E. N. & Swinford, B. (1999). The Supreme Court as a policy arena:
The strategies and tactics of state attorneys general. Policy Studies Journal, 27(2), 242-
259.

Walters, T.N., Walters, L.M. & Gray, R.(l996). Agenda building in the 1992
presidential campaign. Public Relations Review, 22(1), 9-25.

Wartick, S.L. & Mahon, J .F . (1994). Towards a substantive definition of the
corporate issue construct: A review and synthesis of the literature. Business and Society,
33(3), 293-311.

Weiss, J. A. & Tschirhart, M. (1994). Public information campaigns as policy
instruments. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, I 3, 82-1 19.

Weiss, J .W. (1998). Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management
approach (2” ed. ). Melbourne: Harcourt-Brace.

Wilson, L. J. (1990). Corporate issues management: an international view. Public
Relations Review, 16(1), 40-52.

Wimmer, R. & Dominick, J .(2000). Mass Media Research (6” ed. ).. Belmont, Ca:
Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Wright, P. (1980). Message-evoked thoughts: persuasion research using thought
verbalizations. Journal of Consumer Research. 7 (2), 151-157.

Wylie, F. (1997). Anticipation: key to crisis management. Communication
World, 14( 7), 34-36.

Zahariadis, N. (2003). Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy, Political Decision
Making in Modern Democraciengashington, D.C., Georgetown University Press.

104

Zald, MN. (1996). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing in D. McAdam, J .D.
McCarthy, & M.N. Zald, (Eds.). Comparative perspectives on social movements:
Political opportunities, mobilizing structure and cultural framings (pp.262-275). New
York, Cambridge University Press.

Zald, M.N. & McCarthy, J .D. (1977). Dynamics of social movements. Cambridge,
MA: Winthrop Publishers.

Zaltman, G. & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change, New York, NY:
John Willey and Sons.

105

APPENDICES

 

 

Appendix A
Pilot Survey
Priming Survey — Pilot, July 2004
(n=150, in Percent)

i. Survey ID #
ii. Phone # ( ) -
iii. Date

(ENTER 6 DIGITS —

MMDDYY) / /

 

iv. F IPS Code
v. U/S/R Code

 

 

vi. Interview Completion Primary #
lSt attempt 1
1 callback 2
2+ callbacks 3
Substitute # 4
vii. Interviewer Initials

 

viii. Split 1
C1 Control] (n=50)
F Fairness (n=34)
R Cooperation (n=34)
I Interdependence (n=32)

ix. Split 2
C2 Contr012 (n=75)
M Model (n=75)

Hello, I am calling for National Opinion Survey and the Kellogg Foundation. I would like to ask
you a few questions facing our nation, state and local community. Your participation is
completely voluntary. You can stop the interview at any point or you may refuse to answer any
questions. I am not selling anything and I will not ask you for a donation.

The Kellogg Foundation is a non-profit organization, whose mission is to apply knowledge to
solve the problems of people.

Your phone number was randomly selected and we do not know your name or address. While we
will not ask you anything private or personal, we assure you that your responses will remain
anonymous. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The
interview will last approximately 12 minutes.

If you have any questions or concerns about the study, please contact Dr. Frank Fear at Michigan
State University at (517)432-0734. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact —

106

anonymously, if you wish —Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Since this is a scientific study, we need a balance of men and women, may I speak to the
youngest man 18 years or older who is at home right now.

(Repeat for new respondent if necessary)

By answering the questions you are consenting to be part of this study and have your answers
included in the results. May I start the interview now?

RECORD RESPONDENT’S GENDER (DO NOT ASK).

Male 48%
Female 52

1. Think for a moment about (PHRASE I). How would you rate the job we are doing in
(PHRASE 2). Are we doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job in (PHRASE 2)?

C1: Control]: skip question
F: Fairness: 1: The problems facing small towns and rural places in America

2: Addressing the economic and social problems facing small towns and rural places in
America
R: Cooperation: 1: National issues like the economy, education, and healthcare that
affect both rural and urban areas

2: Cooperating among different regions of the a nation to address these kinds of major
issues
I: Interdependence: l: The well being of the nation as a whole in terms of its education,
health care and economic systems

2: Making sure that all regions of the nation are functioning and contributing to the
vitality of the nation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control F aimess Coopgeration Interdependence
Excellent NA - - -
Good NA 28 33 46
Only fair NA 29 44 39
Poor NA 32 20 l 2
Don’t know NA 1 l 2 -

 

2. How concerned are you (ISSUE) — extremely concerned, very concerned, somewhat
concerned, or not at all concerned?

 

 

 

 

 

Control F aimess Cooperation Interdependence
Extremely NA 19 15 13
concerned
Very NA 34 l l 34
concerned
Somewhat NA 3 l 5 1 39
concerned

 

 

 

 

 

107

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all NA l4 17 ll
concerned
Don’t know NA 3 7 3

 

 

 

 

C1: Control]: skip question

F: Fairness: that small towns and rural places in America are being left behind because
they are not getting the resources they need

R: Cooperation: that infighting and selfishness between regions is keeping us from
addressing major national issues

I: Interdependence: that unaddressed problems and untapped assets that exist in some
parts of the country are holding back the nation’s progress

3. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement. (FOLLOW UP)
And do you feel strongly or not so strongly about that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control F aimess Cooperation Interdependence
Agree, NA 53 55 5 1
strongly
Agree, not NA 26 20 27
strong
Don’t know NA 6 l 1 7
Disagree, NA 9 5 6
not strong
Disagree, NA 6 9 9
strongly

 

 

C1: Control]: skip question

F: Fairness: In this country, we believe that all Americans should have the same
opportunities. But the reality is that people in small towns and rural places are not enjoying
the same benefits as the rest of the nation. In fact, nearly all of the poorest counties in the
nation are in rural America, and the divide between urban and rural prosperity is becoming
greater. This happens because the efforts that enhance a community’s well being, like
economic development, availability of health care programs, and opportunities for a good
education, have disproportionately benefited metropolitan areas. People in rural areas have
proven they have ingenuity and a desire to work hard; they just need the same resources to
succeed. We need to level the playing field and make sure that those parts of the country that
are at a disadvantage get their fair share of opportunities.

R: Cooperation: In this country, we believe that any challenge can be overcome if we work
together to solve it. Right now, there are a series of problems that require urban and rural
areas to work together to make progress. The reality is that the nation’s economic,
educational, health, and community systems break down in inner cities as well as in small
town and rural areas. The only way we can strengthen the economy, or improve education
and healthcare, or enhance community well being, is to set aside our divisions, work together,
and invest wherever the need and opportunity is most pressing. Each part of the country has
different skills and resources to bring to address these issues. To seize the opportunities and
surmount the challenges of the 21St century, we need unique cooperation among all regions in
the country.

108

I: Interdependence: In this country, we believe that what affects Americans in one part of
the nation affects us all and that we will only succeed when all parts of the nation are in good
shape. We have a unique opportunity to move ahead as a country through creating good jobs
and economic opportunity, improving education, reforming health care, and strengthening
communities. Indicators of well being suggest that small towns and rural places are breaking
down and the effect is spreading to the well being of the nation as a whole. This is happening
because the efforts that enhance a community’s well being, like economic development,
availability of health care programs, and opportunities for a good education, have
disproportionately benefited metropolitan areas, which results in cutting rural places off from
opportunities. We can prevent further damage by working together to reconnect the skills and
resources that exist in the nation’s heartland, which will then reverberate throughout the

nation.

 

109

 

Please rate each of the following for how important a priority you believe it should be, on a scale
where zero means not a priority and 10 means an extremely important priority. (MARK 11 FOR
DON’T KNOW OR REFUSED)

RANDOMIZE

 

I Control Fairness Cooperation Interdep.

 

4. Provide 6.8 7.9 7.9 8.2
incentives for small
businesses to start up or
expand in rural areas

 

5. Expand high- 6.5 6.9 6.6 7.1
speed Internet connections
and cell phone coverage in
rural areas

 

6. Expand rural 6.9 7.8 7.5 7.9
areas’ access to federally
insured mortgages, small
business loans, and college
loans

 

7. Offer college 7.0 7.9 7.4 8.2
scholarships to those from
any region who agree to
teach in rural schools for at
least five years

 

8. Increase the 8.1 8.7 8.3 8.1
availability of health care in
rural communities,
particularly preventive
health care services

 

9. Develop 7.6 8.4 7.9 9.0
educational programs in
rural areas that provide the
high quality education that
will be needed in the new
economy

 

10. Institute regional 6.5 6.8 6.7 7.3
smart-growth strategies that
restrict major development
to those areas with existing
infrastructure, and protect
rural areas from sprawl

 

ll. Offer medical 7.3 8.2 7.9 8.2
school scholarships to
students who agree to
practice for at least five
years in underserved parts of
the state

 

 

 

 

 

 

12. Provide 5.9 6.2 6.5 7.3

 

 

110

 

assistance for family farmers
to transition to organic
farming which is more
profitable for farmers

 

13. Develop the
biofuels industry which
would provide a market for
corn stalks and other
agricultural by-products

 

 

6.3

 

7.8

 

7.3

 

7.7

 

14. Would you say you are generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the nation’s efforts to

(ISSUE):

C 1: Controll: skip question

F: Fairness: 1: make sure that rural people enjoy the same benefits as people who live

elsewhere

R: Cooperation: 1: Cooperate to address major issues shared by all parts of the nation
I: Interdependence: 1: Make sure that all regions in the nation are in good shape and

contributing to the nation’s progress

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
Satisfied NA 28 36 35
Dissatisfied NA 69 56 62
Don’t know NA 3 8 3

 

 

 

 

 

lll

 

How important is it for the nation to make the needs of each of the following areas a priority —
extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important? First, how
important is it to prioritize the needs of (READ) - extremely important, very important,
somewhat important, or not important?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANDOMIZE
15. Cities and urban areas
Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
Extremely 12 14 1 5 22
important
Very 41 23 40 32
important
Somewhat 40 49 39 46
important
Not 8 14 6
important
Don’t know
16. Suburban areas
Control F aimess Cooperation Interdependence
Extremely 12 8 10 19
important
Very 28 36 47 25
important
Somewhat 55 42 35 50
important
Not 6 8 9 6
important
Don’t know 5
17. Small towns and rural areas
Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
Extremely l l 31 14 32
important
Very 36 33 52 39
important
Somewhat 49 34 3 l 26
important
Not 4 2 3 3
important
Don’t know

 

 

 

 

 

For each of the following, please tell me how much responsibility it should have for addressing

the concerns of small towns and rural areas in the nation — a lot of responsibility, some, a little, or

not much? When it comes to addressing the concerns of small towns and rural areas, does the
(READ) have a lot of responsibility, some, a little or not much?

RANDOMIZE

 

 

 

18. Federal government

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence

A lot of 24 36 18 32
responsibility

Some 43 46 43 45
responsibility

A little 12 9 9 1 5
responsibility

Not much 19 9 30 9
responsibility

Don’t know 2

 

 

 

 

 

19. State government

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
A lot of 38 58 46 53
responsibility
Some 48 34 25 39
responsibility
A little 8 9 21 6
responsibility
Not much 6 8 3
responsibility
Don’t know

 

 

 

 

 

20. Local governments in rural areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control F aimess Cooperation Interdependence
A lot of 58 69 62 68
responsibility
Some 30 25 29 26
responsibility
A little 4 3 6 -
responsibility
Not much 6 3 3 6
responsibility
Don’t know 2

 

 

 

 

 

113

 

 

 

NEW SPLIT

C2:
M:

Contr012 (skip question)
Model
21. Experts say that vast areas of America are suffering from what they call the

“tourniquet effect.” When factory jobs and small farms are lost in rural areas, the
effect is like cutting off the normal circulation between those regions and the rest of
the country. When the normal flow of money, people and services that link urban and
rural regions together is choked off, rural areas are left stranded and withering. This
tourniquet effect is making the country as a whole less healthy. Had you heard
anything about this before?

Model
Yes 3 1
No 68

Don’t know -

Please rate each of the following for how important a priority you believe it should be, on a scale
where zero means not a priority and 10 means an extremely important priority. (MARK 11 FOR
DON’T KNOW OR REFUSED)
RANDOMIZE

C2:

 

Control

Model

 

22. Expand high-speed Internet connections in rural
schools

7.2

7.1

 

23. Invest in emerging industries in rural areas, such as
agricultural biotechnolgy or wind power

7.6

7.7

 

24. Locate more government contracts and government
jobs in rural areas

6.8

7.0

 

25. Offer medical school scholarships to those from
any region who agree to practice in rural areas for at least
five years

7.7

7.9

 

26. Coordinate all national efforts for rural policy
through one federal agency

5.3

5.4

 

27. Target and develop a small number of rural areas
with the potential to become regional anchors for jobs and
economic development

7.4

7.4

 

28. Plan economic development and targeted business
incentives to bring good jobs that are appropriate for the
area.

8.2

8.2

 

29. Address continuing environmental problems,
including groundwater pollution from industrial farms and
environmental degradation caused by mininflnd forestry

7.9

8.1

 

30. End government subsidies to corporate
agribusiness

6.6

6.8

 

 

31. Adjust required minimum wage rates for all parts
of the state to take into account the cost of living in an area

 

7.6

 

7.5

 

Contr012 (skip intro)
M: Model Still thinking about the Toumiquet Effect that is choking off the normal flow of

money, people and services that link urban and rural regions.

114

 

Please tell me if you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. (FOLLOW
UP) And do you feel strongly or not so strongly about that?

RANDOMIZE ORDER

32. The challenges and opportunities in small towns and rural areas will affect the nation
so we must address their issues together

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdep Control 2 Model
1

Agree, strongly 52 57 50 59 53 54
Agree, not 34 39 34 24 38 28
strong
Don’t know - -
Disagree, not 12 2 12 6 7 10
strong
Disagree, 2 3 3 12 2 8
strongly

 

33. Small towns and rural areas are an important part of our heritage that should be
preserved so we should save some in order to make sure that future generations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

remember them
Control Fairness Cooperation Interdep Control 2 Model
1
Agree, strongly 64 59 60 71 63 63
Agree, not 23 26 23 24 22 25
strong
Don’t know 3 l -
Disagree, not 9 7 8 6 7
strong
Disagree, 4 8 6 6 7 5

strongly

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

 

 

34. People in small towns and rural areas are capable of handling their own problems so
outside interference should be discouraged

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdep Control 2 Model
1

Agree, strongly 23 16 18 18 14 24
Agree, not 24 19 26 15 28 15
strong

Don’t know 4 2 l. 2
Disagree, not 25 30 38 29 27 33
strong

Disagree, 25 35 l 5 39 30 26
strongly

 

35. Progress will inevitably destroy small towns and rural areas so there is little that can be
done to help them now.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Control Fairness Cooperation Interdep Control 2 Model
1

Agree, strongly 10 12 12 6 11 10
Agree, not 19 4 7 18 7 19
strong

Don’t know 2 2 - 2
Disagree, not 31 39 21 37 34 29
strong

Disagree, 38 45 57 39 49 40
strongly

 

Now I’m going to mention some groups in society. For each, I want you to tell me whether you
think this group generally shares most of your values, some of your values, or hardly any. How
about (read items)? (shares none = vol. response)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANDOMIZE
Most Some Hardly None DK
Any
36. Rich Control 1 9 41 46 2 2
people
Fairness 4 48 34 12 3
Cooperation 5 34 42 12 7
Interdep 20 44 26 4 6
Control 2 8 39 38 8 7
Model 10 44 38 6 2
37. Poor Control 1 24 61 10 4
people
Fairness 15 72 9 4
Cooperation 3O 54 9 7
Interdep 28 46 18 6 3
Control 2 24 58 9 2 6
Model 24 60 13 - 3
38. People Control 1 21 67 12
who live in cities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116

 

 

 

 

or urban areas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fairness 11 62 23 4
Cooperation 1 1 63 17 3 7
Interdep 34 56 6 4
Control 2 17 69 11 - 3
Model 22 56 17 3 2
39. People Control 1 36 55 9
who live in
suburban areas
Fairness 27 55 18
Cooperation 22 49 22 7
Interdep 27 58 9 6
Control 2 29 53 16 2
Model 29 55 13 3
40. People Control 1 52 40 8
who live in small
towns or rural
areas
Fairness 53 38 10
Cooperation 52 36 3 3 7
Interdep 63 32 3 3
Control 2 47 45 4 1 2
Model 62 28 8 - 2
41. People Control 1 12 36 46 6
on welfare
Fairness 3 38 48 10 2
Cooperation 13 50 3 l 7
Interdep l 9 3 l 32 13 6
Control 2 12 41 36 8 2
Model 11 36 44 5 4
42. Older Control 1 64 28 8
Americans
Fairness 50 42 8
Cooperation 58 32 3 7
Interdep 67 27 6
Control 2 60 32 6 1
Model 60 32 6 2
43. Baby Control 1 41 42 15 2
boomers
Fairness 36 41 24
Cooperation 50 38 6 7
Interdep 36 46 12 6
Control 2 38 47 ll 4
Model 44 36 17 3
44. Young Control 1 21 51 24 2 3

people under the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

117

 

age of 30

Fairness 25
' l 9

27

Control 2 19
Model 27

 

In this survey, we’ve talked a lot about (INSERT)
Cl: Controll: skip question
F: Fairness: small towns and rural places in America being left behind because they are
not getting their fair share of the resources they need
R: Cooperation: the infighting and selfishness between regions that is keeping us from
cooperating to address major national issues
I : Interdependence: making sure that all regions in the nation are in good shape and
contributing to the nation’s progress

118

I am going to read to you several pairs of words, and I’d like you to please tell me which word
comes closer to how you feel about more national investment in rural areas. There’s no right or
wrong answer, just how you feel. Ok, so think about your feelings toward addressing issues in
rural areas. . .here’s the first pair:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANDOMIZE ORDER
(Positive Value is Always Scored as Low on the Scale)
Control F aimess Cooperation Interdependence

Control Model Control Model Control Model Control Model
Q45-Cooperative or 3.3 4.5 3.9 3.0 4.1 4.1 3.5 2.5
Competitive
Q46-Unfair or Fair 3.2 4.1 4.1 2.9 3.8 4.4 3.3 3.8
Q47-Equal or 3.8 4.6 4.1 3.0 3.5 4.1 3.3 3.3
Unequal
Q48-Important or 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.2 2.6 1.8 1.7 2.4
Unimportant
Q49-Unnecessary or 2.9 3.3 2.3 2.5 3.3 3.2 1.8 2.9
Necessary
Q50-Connected or 3.3 4.6 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.1 3.6 3.6
Disconnected
Q51-Ineffective or 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.8 4.0 3.8 2.9 3.4
Effective
Q52-He1pful or 3.0 4.0 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.8 3.3 3.2
Unhelpful
Q53-Interdependent 3.8 4.1 4.3 3.5 3.4 4.5 3.6 3.7
or Dependent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Demographics are total figures for the entire sample.)
And now, just a few more quick questions for statistical purposes. This information will only be
used for analysis of this study, and will be kept completely confidential.
54. Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican or Independent? (IF
INDEPENDENT, DON’T KNOW) Would you say you are closer to the Democrats
or Republicans?

Democrat ....................................... 30
Lean Democrat .............................. 12
Independent, no lean ...................... l4
Lean Republican .............................. 7
Republican ..................................... 30
Don’t know / Refused ...................... 7

55. Are you currently registered to vote or not?

Yes ................................................. 89
No ................................................... 10
Don’t know ..................................... 1

119

56. If the election for president were held today, would you vote for (ROTATE ORDER)
George Bush, the Republican candidate OR John Kerry, the Democratic candidate? (IF
UNDECIDED) Well which candidate are you leaning toward?

George Bush/Republican ............... 38
Lean Bush ....................................... 3
Lean Kerry ...................................... 1
John Kerry/Democrat ..................... 42
Ralph Nader (vol.) ...........................
Can’t vote ........................................ I
Won’t vote ...................................... 4
Don’t know .................................... 10

57. In what year were you born? Average age = 50.2

58. What is your employment status?

Employed filll time ...................... 48
Employed part time ........................ 5
Self employed ................................ 8
Not employed but looking ............. 3
Homemaker .................................... 5
Student ........................................... 2
Retired .......................................... 23
Other, not working ......................... 4
Refused .......................................... 2

59. Are you married, living with a partner, single, separated, widowed, or divorced?

Married 51
Living with a partner 1
Single, never married 19
Separated/divorced 1 2
Widowed 13
Refused 3

60. (IF MARRIED) Does your spouse work, part-time or more, outside the home or
would you say that your spouse’s work is mainly at home?

Employed 66
At home 34
Refused

61. Do you have any children?

Yes 73
No 25
Refused 2

120

62. (IF YES) In which of the following age groups do they belong? (CHECK ALL

THAT APPLY)
Under 2 years old 11
2-5 years old 12
6-11 years old 15
12-18 years old 15
Over 18 years old 70
Refused

63. What is the last year of schooling that you have completed?

1 - 11th grade 6
High school graduate 24
Non-college post H.S. (e.g. tech) 2
Some college (jr. college) 28
College graduate 18
Post-graduate school/PHD 18
Don't know 3

64. What is your race?

White 8
Black

Hispanic (Puerto Rican, Mexican-American, etc.)
Asian/pacific islander

Other

Mixed race

Don't know/refused

ANNh-‘UJLIIUJ

65. And are you of Spanish or Hispanic descent?

Yes
No 97
Don't know/refused 3

66. On average, about how many hours of television would you say you watch each day?
................................................ 2.7 average (enter # of hours)

67. And finally, which of the following best describes your personal experience with small
towns and rural areas:

I currently live in a rural area .............................................................................................. 46
I used to live in a rural area ................................................................................................. 29
While I haven’t lived there, I have spent a lot of time visiting rural areas ........................... 7
I have spent a limited amount of time in rural areas ........................................................... 12
I have never really been in rural areas .................................................................................. 4
Don’t know (vol.) ................................................................................................................. 3

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME [TERMINATE]

121

Appendix B

Priming Survey - July 2004
July 20-30, 2004

N=3105, In Percent

viii. Split 1

Cl Controll n=1005

F Fairness n=700

R Cooperation n=700

I Interdependence n=700
ix. Split 2

C2 Contr012 n=1553

M Model n=1 5 52

Hello, I am calling for National Opinion Survey and the Kellogg Foundation. I would like to ask
you a few questions facing our nation, state and local community. Your participation is
completely voluntary. You can stop the interview at any point or you may refuse to answer any
questions. I am not selling anything and I will not ask you for a donation.

The Kellogg Foundation is a non-profit organization, whose mission is to apply knowledge to
solve the problems of people.

Your phone number was randomly selected and we do not know your name or address. While we
will not ask you anything private or personal, we assure you that your responses will remain
anonymous. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. The
interview will last approximately 12 minutes.

If you have any questions or concerns about the study, please contact Dr. Frank Fear at Michigan
State University at (517)432-0734. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact -
anonymously, if you wish —Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503, e-mail:
ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Since this is a scientific study, we need a balance of men and women, may I speak to the
youngest man 18 years or older who is at home right now.

(Repeat for new respondent if necessary)

By answering the questions you are consenting to be part of this study and have your answers
included in the results. May I start the interview now?

RECORD RESPONDENT’S GENDER (DO NOT ASK).
Male 48
Female 52

45. Think for a moment about (PHRASE 1). How would you rate the job we are doing in
(PHRASE 2). Are we doing an excellent, good, only fair, or poor job in (PHRASE 2)?

122

 

C l: Controll: skip question
F: Fairness: l: The problems facing small towns and rural places in America
2: Addressing the economic and social problems facing small towns and rural places in

America
R: Cooperation: 1: National issues like the economy, education, and healthcare that

affect both rural and urban areas
2: Cooperating among different regions of the a nation to address these kinds of major

issues
I: Interdependence: l: The well being of the nation as a whole in terms of its education,

health care and economic systems
2: Making sure that all regions of the nation are functioning and contributing to the

vitality of the nation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fairness Cogeration Interdependence
Excellent 3 2 5
Good 2 l 25 34
Only fair 42 43 41
Poor 27 25 19
Don’t know 7 5 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

46. How concerned are you (ISSUE) - extremely concerned, very concerned, somewhat
concerned, or not at all concerned?

Cl: Controll: skip question
F: Fairness: that small towns and rural places in America are being lefi behind because

they are not getting the resources they need
R: Cooperation: that infighting and selfishness between regions is keeping us from

addressing major national issues
I: Interdependence: that unaddressed problems and untapped assets that exist in some

parts of the country are holding back the nation’s progress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
Extremely concerned 14 15 14
Very concerned 32 29 25
Somewhat concerned 41 36 45
Not at all concerned 1 1 l7 13
Don’t know 2 3 4

 

123

 

47. Please tell me if you agree or disagree with the following statement. (FOLLOW UP)
And do you feel strongly or not so strongly about that?

Fairness
stron 5 l
A not stron 26

Don’t know 4
' not 9
l 0

 

Cl: Controll: skip question

F: Fairness: In this country, we believe that all Americans should have the same
opportunities. But the reality is that people in small towns and rural places are not enjoying
the same benefits as the rest of the nation. In fact, nearly all of the poorest counties in the
nation are in rural America, and the divide between urban and rural prosperity is becoming
greater. This happens because the efforts that enhance a community’s well being, like
economic development, availability of health care programs, and opportunities for a good
education, have disproportionately benefited metropolitan areas. People in rural areas have
proven they have ingenuity and a desire to work hard; they just need the same resources to
succeed. We need to level the playing field and make sure that those parts of the country that
are at a disadvantage get their fair share of opportunities.

R: Cooperation: In this country, we believe that any challenge can be overcome if we work
together to solve it. Right now, there are a series of problems that require urban and rural
areas to work together to make progress. The reality is that the nation’s economic,
educational, health, and community systems break down in inner cities as well as in small
town and rural areas. The only way we can strengthen the economy, or improve education
and healthcare, or enhance community well being, is to set aside our divisions, work together,
and invest wherever the need and opportunity is most pressing. Each part of the country has
different skills and resources to bring to address these issues. To seize the opportunities and
surmount the challenges of the 21" century, we need unique cooperation among all regions in
the country.

I: Interdependence: In this country, we believe that what affects Americans in one part of
the nation affects us all and that we will only succeed when all parts of the nation are in good
shape. We have a unique opportunity to move ahead as a country through creating good jobs
and economic opportunity, improving education, reforming health care, and strengthening
communities. Indicators of well being suggest that small towns and rural places are breaking
down and the effect is spreading to the well being of the nation as a whole. This is happening
because the efforts that enhance a community’s well being, like economic development,
availability of health care programs, and opportunities for a good education, have
disproportionately benefited metropolitan areas, which results in cutting rural places off from
opportunities. We can prevent further damage by working together to reconnect the skills and
resources that exist in the nation’s heartland, which will then reverberate throughout the
nation.

124

 

Please rate each of the following for how important a priority you believe it should be, on a scale
where zero means not a priority and 10 means an extremely important priority. (MARK 11 FOR
DON’T KNOW OR REFUSED)

RANDOMIZE

 

Average on a lO-Point Scale

 

Control

Fairness

Cooperation

Interdependence

 

48.

Provide incentives for small
businesses to start up or expand in
rural areas

7.5

7.8

7.5

7.7

 

49.

Expand high-speed Internet
connections and cell phone coverage in
rural areas

6.7

7.0

6.6

6.7

 

50.

Offer college scholarships to those
from any region who agree to teach in
rural schools for at least five years

7.5

7.7

7.5

7.6

 

51.

Increase the availability of health
care in rural communities, particularly
preventive health care services

8.3

8.3

8.3

8.3

 

52.

Develop educational programs in
rural areas that provide the high
quality education that will be needed
in the new economy

8.3

8.3

8.3

8.3

 

53.

Institute regional smart-growth
strategies that restrict major
development to those areas with
existing infrastructure, and protect
rural areas from sprawl

6.5

6.7

6.6

6.6

 

54.

Develop the biofuels industry which
would provide a market for corn stalks
and other agricultural by-products

6.9

7.3

7.1

7.2

 

 

55.

Target and develop a small number
of rural areas with the potential to
become regional anchors for jobs and
economic development

 

6.9

 

7.1

 

6.9

 

7.0

 

56. Would you say you are generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the nation’s efforts to

(ISSUE):

Cl: Controll: skip question

F: Fairness: 1: make sure that rural people enjoy the same benefits as people who live

elsewhere

R: Cooperation: 1: Cooperate to address major issues shared by all parts of the nation
I: Interdependence: 1: Make sure that all regions in the nation are in good shape and

contributing to the nation’s progress

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
Satisfied 3 6 3 l 39
Dissatisfied 5 8 64 5 8
Don ’t know 7 5 3

 

 

 

125

 

How important is it for the nation to make the needs of each of the following areas a priority —
extremely important, very important, somewhat important, or not important? First, how
important is it to prioritize the needs of (READ) - extremely important, very important,

somewhat important, or not important?

RANDOMIZE

 

 

 

 

 

areas

 

 

 

 

 

% Extremely Important
Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
57. Cities and urban areas 17 14 20 16
58. Suburban areas 11 11 11 ll
59. Small towns and rural 18 22 21 21

 

For each of the following, please tell me how much responsibility it should have for addressing
the concerns of small towns and rural areas in the nation - a lot of responsibility, some, a little, or
not much? When it comes to addressing the concerns of small towns and rural areas, does the
(READ) have a lot of responsibility, some, a little or not much?

RANDOMIZE

 

 

 

 

 

rural areas

 

 

 

 

 

% A Lot of Responsibility
Control Fairness Cooperation Interdependence
60. Federal government 27 34 30 33
61. State government 51 59 54 55
62. Local governments in 65 69 65 70

 

126

 

 

NEW SPLIT

C2: Contr012 (skip question)

M: Model

19. Experts say that vast areas of America are suffering from what they

Call the "Toumiquet Effect." The loss of factory jobs, small farms and small
businesses in rural areas has the effect of cutting off the normal

circulation between those regions and the rest of the country. When

the normal flow of money, people, and services that link urban and

rural regions together is choked off, rural areas are lefi stranded and withering, and
the Toumiquet Effect makes the country as a whole less healthy. When the
tourniquet is loosened by the reestablishment of economic and other ties, the critical flow of
money, people and services is restored and the whole country benefits.

M Split Only
Yes 22
No 76
Don’t know 1

Please rate each of the following for how important a priority you believe it should be, on a scale
where zero means not a priority and 10 means an extremely important priority. (MARK 11 FOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DON’T KNOW OR REFUSED)
RANDOMIZE
Average lO-Point
Scale
Control Model
20. Expand high-speed Internet connections in rural schools 7.4 7.5
21.1nvest in emerging industries in rural areas, such as agricultural 7.7 7.8
biotechnology or wind power
22. Locate more government contracts and government jobs in rural 6.8 7.0
areas
23. Offer medical school scholarships to those from any region who 8.0 8.0
agree to practice in rural areas for at least five years
24. Coordinate all national efforts for rural policy through one federal 5.4 5.5
agency
25. Address continuing environmental problems, including 8.3 8.2
groundwater pollution from industrial farms and environmental
degradation caused by mining and forestry
26. Provide assistance for family farmers to transition to organic 7.2 7.2
farming which is more profitable for farmers

 

 

127

C2: Contr012 (skip intro)
M: Model Still thinking about the Toumiquet Effect that is choking off the normal flow of
money, people and services that link urban and rural regions. . ..
Please tell me if you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. (FOLLOW
UP) And do you feel strongly or not so strongly about that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANDOMIZE ORDER
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Not Not Disagree
Strong Strong

27. The challenges and opportunities in

small towns and rural areas will affect

the nation so we must address their

issues together

Control 2 50 36 9 4

Model 49 38 8 4
28. People in small towns and rural areas

are capable of handling their own

problems so outside interference should

be discouraged

Control 2 18 22 31 26

Model 15 18 35 29
29. Progress will inevitably destroy small

towns and rural areas so there is little

that can be done to help them now.

Control 2 9 10 31 49

Model 10 9 33 45

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And now, just a few more quick questions for statistical purposes. This information will only be used
for analysis of this study, and will be kept completely confidential.
N=3105
30. Do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican or Independent? (IF
INDEPENDENT, DON’T KNOW) Would you say you are closer to the Democrats
or Republicans?

Democrat ....................................... 32
Lean Democrat ................................ 9
Independent, no lean ...................... 15
Lean Republican .............................. 9
Republican ..................................... 29
Don’t know / Refused ...................... 7

128

31. Are you currently registered to vote or not?

Yes ................................................. 89
No ................................................... 10
Don’t know ..................................... l

32. If the election for president were held today, would you vote for (ROTATE ORDER)
George Bush, the Republican candidate OR John Kerry, the Democratic candidate? (IF
UNDECIDED) Well which candidate are you leaning toward?

George Bush/Republican ............... 39
Lean Bush ....................................... 2
Lean Kerry ...................................... 2
John Kerry/Democrat ..................... 41
Ralph Nader (vol.) .......................... 1
Can’t vote ........................................ 1
Won’t vote ...................................... 2
Don’t know .................................... 12

33. In what year were you born?

18-29 years old 13
30-39 years old 14
40-49 years old 20
50-64 years old 31
65+ years 19
Refused 3

34. What is your employment status?

Employed fiill time ...................... 45
Employed part time ........................ 7
Self employed ................................ 8
Not employed but looking ............. 4
Homemaker .................................... 5
Student ........................................... 3
Retired .......................................... 24
Other, not working ......................... 2
Refused .......................................... l

129

35. Are you married, living with a partner, single, separated, widowed, or divorced?

Married 58
Living with a partner 5
Single, never married 17
Separated/divorced 1 0
Widowed 8
Refused 2

36. (IF MARRIED) Does your spouse work, part-time or more, outside the home or
would you say that your spouse’s work is mainly at home?

Employed 66
At home 33
Refused l

37. Do you have any children?

Yes 74
No 25
Refused l
38. (IF YES) In which of the following age groups do they belong? (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLY)
Under 2 years old 6
2-5 years old 13
6-11 years old 17
12-18 years old 21
Over 18 years old 68
Refiised -

39. What is the last year of schooling that you have completed?

1 - 11th grade 4
High school graduate 23
Non-college post H.S. (e. g. tech) 2
Some college (jr. college) 24
College graduate 26
Post-graduate school/PHD 18
Don't know 2

130

40. What is your race?

White 8
Black

Hispanic (Puerto Rican, Mexican-American, etc.)
Asian/pacific islander

Other

Mixed race

Don't know/refused

hr-‘N—‘GQO

41. And are you of Spanish or Hispanic descent?
Included above

42. On average, about how many hours of television would you say you watch each day?
2.8 hours

43. And finally, which of the following best describes your personal experience with small
towns and rural areas:

I currently live in a rural area .............................................................................................. 38
I used to live in a rural area ................................................................................................. 26
While I haven’t lived there, I have spent a lot of time visiting rural areas .......................... 13
I have spent a limited amount of time in rural areas ........................................................... 17
I have never really been in rural areas .................................................................................. 5
Don’t know (vol.) ................................................................................................................. 2

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME [TERMINATE]

131

   

11111111111111111»