Shanook - Jansen - The Effect of News Framing On Prejudices Towards Muslims

Running head: THE EFFECT OF NEWS FRAMING ON PREJUDICES TOWARDS MUSLIMS IN THE
NETHERLANDS
The Effect of News Framing on Prejudices Towards Muslims in the Netherlands
Shanook Nomi Jansen
Tilburg University, Tilburg
Master thesis, 714732
School of Humanities
Communicatie en Informatie Wetenschappen
Interculturele Communicatie
Tilburg University
August, 2012
Supervisor: dr. A. el. Aissati
Second Supervisor: dr. M. J.W. Stokmans
Authors Note
This master thesis was supported by Tilburg University, department Communication and
Information Sciences in the Netherlands. The author thanks the critical reviews of the two
supervisors and the help of friends for their assistance in finding participants for this study. Special
thanks go to my father and Marie Postma-Nilsenova, who contributed to the results of the thesis.
Correspondence concerning this thesis should be addressed to Shanook Jansen, Department
of Communication and Information Sciences, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, D421, 5037 AB,
Tilburg. Contact: s.n.jansen@tilburguniversity.edu

THE EFFECT OF NEWS FRAMING ON PREJUDICES TOWARDS MUSLIMS IN THE NETHERLANDS 2
Index
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................ 5
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6
Theoretical Framework Negative Prejudices ..................................................................................... 10
Endorsement of Multiculturalism ................................................................................................... 11
Stereotypes ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Realistic threat ................................................................................................................................ 13
Symbolic threats ............................................................................................................................. 14
Intergroup anxiety .......................................................................................................................... 15
Demographic factors contributing to negative attitude towards immigrants ................................. 17
Theoretical Framework media effect on negative prejudices towards Muslims ............................... 19
News framing ................................................................................................................................. 19
The process of frame building ........................................................................................................ 20
Frame setting and the effect of frames on individuals ................................................................... 20
Simplification and Stigmatization of Islam in Western media....................................................... 23
Lack of reporting minority views in the media .............................................................................. 24
The effect of negative news framing .............................................................................................. 25
Framing journalists ......................................................................................................................... 26
Methodology ...................................................................................................................................... 26
S.N. Jansen
Selecting the news frame ................................................................................................................ 26
The independent variable: news frames ......................................................................................... 28
Evaluation test of the frames .......................................................................................................... 29
Participants main study .................................................................................................................. 31
Dependent variables, measuring prejudices towards Muslims ...................................................... 32
Procedure ........................................................................................................................................... 35
Results ................................................................................................................................................ 37
Main effect of framing ....................................................................................................................... 42
Endorsement of Multiculturalism ................................................................................................... 42
Symbolic threat............................................................................................................................... 44
Realistic threat ................................................................................................................................ 44
Stereotypes ..................................................................................................................................... 45
General Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 47
Main effect ..................................................................................................................................... 48
Limitations and future research ...................................................................................................... 51
References .......................................................................................................................................... 53
Appendix I.......................................................................................................................................... 60
Codebook Frames ........................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix II ........................................................................................................................................ 63
Stimuli ............................................................................................................................................ 63
Appendix III ....................................................................................................................................... 66
S.N. Jansen
Distribution..................................................................................................................................... 66
Appendix IV ....................................................................................................................................... 68
Codebook survey ............................................................................................................................ 68
S.N. Jansen
Abstract
The goal of this present study is to demonstrate the role of news frames on prejudices
towards Muslims in the Netherlands. Over the past decade the negative discussion concerning
Muslims in politics increased and was related to the negative discussion in the media. National
surveys revealed increased negative prejudice towards Muslims, which was in line with the
discussion in the media. First, we examined the process of negative prejudices towards Muslims.
We found that the structural model of Gonzlez et al. (2008) indicated a relationship between
endorsement of multiculturalism, perceived symbolic and realistic threat and stereotypes which
predicts prejudices towards Muslims. Based on our correlations and support of literature studies, we
found more complex relationships with indicates that the structural model was too limited. We
therefore, proposed an alternative model, which was supported by our correlations. In order to test
the effect media has on negative prejudices towards Muslims, we used a 3 (neutral, negative,
positive condition) x2 (pre-measurement, post-measurement) between subjects design. Therefore,
attitudes were measured based on the variables from our model, addressing the issue of Islamic
Schools in the Netherlands. Our findings indicated that news framing only affected endorsement of
multiculturalism. We can explain this due to our specific focus on endorsement of Islamic culture,
than to cultural diversity in general. Nevertheless, this study demonstrates the effect that elite and
media coverage has on attitude change towards endorsement of Islamic culture in the Netherlands.
With the help of the elite and media, attitudes towards Muslims and Islam could become more
positive in the Netherlands.
Keywords: news framing; social behavior; prejudices; Muslims in the Netherlands.
S.N. Jansen
Introduction
Over the last decade a public debate evolved concerning the integration of Muslims in the
Netherlands. Journalist, Deborah Scroggins spoke of a Dutch-Muslim cultural war (Scroggins,
2005), which represents the increasingly intolerant attitude towards Muslims in the Netherlands.
Many politicians in the Netherlands of both left- and right- wing parties openly declared their
concern and distrust towards Islam. Left-wing politician Paul Scheffer was one of the first who
evoked discussion with his article The Multicultural drama. This article was published in a major
Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad, stating that multiculturalism had failed due to immigrant
groups who were unwilling to integrate. Furthermore, he expresses his concern about the rapidly
growing group of Muslims and their illiberal ideologies (Scheffer, 2000). Critics pointed out that
immigrants were stereotyped as Muslims and they were generalized to all being sympathizer of this
illiberal Islam, which is presented as threatening to the Dutch norms and values (Entzinger, 2003).
The discussion evoked by Scheffer was seen as the start of the turnaround in the public debate
concerning Muslims in the Netherlands (Entzinger, 2003).
From that moment onwards the discussion in the politics was focused on the differences
between the norms and values of the Dutch and Muslims (Entzinger, 2003). The attack on
September 11 by a Muslim fundamentalist organization increased the negative discussions
concerning Muslims in the Netherlands (Gonzlez, Verkuyten, Weesie & Poppe 2008). Right-wing
politicians; Pim Fortuyn, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders popularized the discussion concerning
Muslims in the Netherlands by emphasizing on anxiety towards Islam (Shahid, 2009). These
politicians were able to put the discussion concerning Muslims on the politic agenda, which was an
important issue among the Dutch population but was neglected by the politic elite (Vliegenthart,
2007). The discussion concerning Muslim issues was soon picked up by the media and public,
which turned into a popular discussed topic in the politics as well as in the media (Vliegenthart,
S.N. Jansen
2007). Due to this media attention, the government advisory committee conducted research about
the relationship between media and politics. The results showed that there was a strong relation
between politics and media, mostly mediated by journalists. The report stated that journalists
presented a one-sided negative image concerning the Islamic and Arab world (RMO, 2003; ROB,
2003). The Social and Cultural Planning Office conducted national surveys, which indicated a
decline in acceptance of multiculturalism in the Netherlands (Vliegenthart, 2007). In line with the
discussion this was mostly due to the differences between norms and values, rather than social
participation (Gonzlez et al., 2008). When Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh (a filmmaker who
criticized the Islam) were assassinated by Muslims, hostility towards Muslims became even
stronger. Over these few years the acceptance towards Muslims decreased and the fear towards
Islam increased (Entzinger 2003).
The relationship between the public debate and politics was manifested in stricter integration
policies. For instance, the integration note in 2011 proposed that a more strict integration policy is
necessary to prevent the Dutch society from falling apart. (Waarden Nederlandse Samenleving
Centraal in Integratiebeleid, 2011). The report stated that integration issues are raised by
developments in the Islamic and Arab world. The Dutch society fears the loss of norms and values
of the Dutch culture. A survey revealed that 41% of the Dutch population believes that the lifestyle
of Islamists is incompatible with those of the Dutch (Integratienota, 2011). According to Enzinger
(2003) the Netherlands has developed itself from a multicultural society into an assimilative society.
Policies are focused on fully adapting towards the Dutch culture, norms and values.
The question that should be raised here is to what extent is the media responsible for this
increased negative prejudices towards Muslims? It seems that the Dutch have little contact with
immigrant groups (Dagevos, Gijsberts, van Praag, 2003). So, it would be unlikely that the negative
prejudices towards Muslims are based on intergroup contact. This implies that other factors
contribute to the creation of negative prejudices of Muslims. More empirical evidence showed that
S.N. Jansen
news media reports negative about ethnic minorities. Especially Moroccans, Turks, South
Europeans and colonialized people are often related to criminal activities in the media (ter Wal &
Phalet, 2004; Lubbers, Scheepers & Wester, 1998).
The dilemma illustrated here is that the public discussion, concerning problems with
Muslims in the politics is related to the discussion in the media. The media mostly emphasizes on
threat, culture differences and problems with Muslim (Devroe, 2007). Due to this observation, we
have reasons to believe that negative prejudices and intolerant behavior towards Muslims is also
mediated by the influence of news media, which was supported by Shahid (2009). Intolerance
behavior leads to a gap between the Dutch and Muslims. Tolerance, which I define as accepting
minorities with various perspectives, contributes to a democracy and reduces cultural conflicts
(Sniderman et al. 2005; Schalk-Soekar, van de Vijver, Hoogsteder, 2004). Due to intolerant
behavior cultural conflicts subsist between Muslims and the Dutch. Feelings of perceived threat
keep persisting and integration policies can never succeed when there is intolerance, so cultural
conflicts will never resolve. This forms a problem for the Dutch society as well for its policy
makers and the Dutch government.
Understanding the factors which are associated with attitudes towards Muslims in the
Netherlands has a practical as well as a scientific importance. Therefore, the objective of the
research presented in this thesis has a scientific purpose to explain the role which media contributes
to negative prejudices towards Muslims. Scientifically, this study gives insight into the factors
which underlie negative prejudices and how it manifests in social behavior. This insight results in
practical purposes. Insight in the effects of news framing could make people more aware of bean
critical to the news information they perceive. Additionally, these results can possibly contribute to
reduce anti-Muslim attitudes and reduce cultural conflicts. Therefore, the central research question
of this master thesis research attempts to answer is:
S.N. Jansen
To what extend are individuals affected by written news media in their prejudices against
Muslims?
S.N. Jansen
Theoretical Framework Negative Prejudices
In order to shed light on our research question this study consists out of two parts. We first
need to examine which factors contribute to negative prejudices towards Muslims. Prejudices are
irrational, unfavorable judgments towards a group or individual based on race, gender, age social
class etcetera (Gonzlez, Verkuyten, Weesie, and Poppe, 2008 ). Several studies found evidence
that endorsement of multiculturalism, stereotyping, perceived symbolic threat (cultural threat),
realistic threat (group interests), intergroup contact and in-group identification relate to each other
and predict negative prejudices towards Muslims (Stephan & Stephan, 1996; Verkuyten, 2005;
Gonzlez et al., 2008). The meaning of these terms will further be examined in the first part of our
theoretical framework. The relationship between these variables is explained by the structural
model (model 1), proposed by Gonzlez et al. (2008). Furthermore, the relationship between these
factors needs to be examined, in order to use them as variables in our experimental study. The
second part of our theoretical framework will introduce the effect media framing has on negative
attitudes towards Muslims, which are mediated by the variables in the first theoretical study. The
literature study concerning negative prejudices will further deepen the relationship between the
variables presented in model 1 and critically review the model based on other literature reviews.
Model 1. The structural model Gonzlez et al. (2008, p.676)
S.N. Jansen
Endorsement of Multiculturalism
Individuals, who hold positive attitudes towards multiculturalism, believe that cultural
diversity contributes to the society (Gonzles et al. 2008). A study measuring multicultural
ideologies found that the Dutch were neutral towards endorsement of multiculturalism (Arends-
Tth, van de Vijver, 2003). However, in terms of acculturation strategies, the Dutch prefer an
assimilation strategy . This means that they prefer immigrants to abandon their own culture to fully
adapt to the Dutch culture (Arends-Tth, van de Vijver, 2003; van Oudenhoven, Prins and Buunk,
1998). This strategy implies that the Dutch do not prefer a multicultural society, but strive towards
an assimilative society. It could be the case that the Dutch do not see benefits in a multicultural
society, since people tend to be more positive towards multiculturalism when this is beneficial for
themselves (Berry & Kalin, 1995).
However, endorsement of multiculturalism would directly reduce negative prejudices, which
is explained by the Multicultural Hypothesis. This hypothesist proposes that endorsement of
multiculturalism leads to acceptance towards out-groups (Verkuyten, 2005). The direct relationship
between endorsement of multiculturalism and negative prejudices was confirmed by Verkuyten
(2005). The study showed that when Dutch in-group members endorsed multicultural ideologies,
the attitude towards the Turkish-Dutch minorities were less negative.
Gonzlez et al. (2008) found that endorsement of multiculturalism was also indirectly
related to prejudices towards Muslims. A survey research among Dutch adolescences revealed that
that less endorsement of multiculturalism leads to stronger perceptions of symbolic threat and
realistic threat and more negative stereotypes towards Muslims. These terms will be explained
further in this part of the theortetical framework. This indirect relationship was supported by Ward
and Masgoret (2006). The results of a telephone survey in New-Zealand found that endorsement of
multiculturalism caused decreased feelings of symbolic and realistic threat and increased positive
attitudes toward immigrants. Thus, endorsement of multiculturalism has direct effect as well as
S.N. Jansen
indirect effect on prejudices towards Muslims. Indirect effect is mediated trough feelings of
symbolic and realistic threat and the use of stereotypes. These factors are furtherer explained in the
next sections.
H1: Endorsement of multiculturalism directly predicts attitudes towards Muslims and
indirectly through symbolic threat, realistic threat and the use of stereotypes.
Stereotypes
Stereotyping is an oversimplified mental believe, opinion or concept about groups of people,
individuals or events (Ibroscheva, 2009). Past research found evidence that negative stereotypes
correlated strongly with negative prejudices (Stephan & Stephan, 1996; Gonzlez et al., 2008).
Negative stereotypes develop when a member of the out-group does not show similarities with the
in-group. This results in negative prejudices and they easily become outsiders (Ibroscheva, 2009).
These out-side groups are frequently associated with negative stereotypes due to over-generalized
dissimilarities (Geartner & McLaughlin, 1983). Gonzlez et al. (2008) argues that the relation
between threat and stereotypes is difficult to grasp, because different evidence has been found
concerning stereotypes. On the one hand it could be treated as an independent threat which has
direct effect on negative prejudices but also as a factor which mediates between symbolic and
realistic threat.
Contrary to Gonzlez et al (2008) their model, we believe that stereotypes are directly
related to negative prejudices but are also mediated by symbolic threat and realistic. Our believes
are confirmed by further research. Sniderman, Hagendoorn and Prior (2003) found that people who
experience symbolic threat, also hold negative stereotypes towards immigrants in the Netherlands.
Furthermore, Verkuyten (1997) argued that fear and threat underlie the negative out-group
stereotypes. For instance, fear for competition over group interest with the out-group caused
negative stereotypes, while reduced fear causes positive stereotypes (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007).
S.N. Jansen
It is therefore, expected that the negative stereotypes towards Muslims in the Netherlands is
mediated by feelings of symbolic threat and realistic threat. Realistic threat, which will be described
in the next section.
H2: Negative stereotypes directly predict negative prejudices towards Muslims but are also
indirectly mediated by realistic threat and symbolic threat.
Realistic threat
A distinction was made between symbolic threat and realistic threat because evidence
showed that they differed in predicting negative prejudices towards immigrants. Symbolic threat
was found to be a predictor of negative prejudices towards immigrants despite strong or weak
identification with the in-group. However, realistic threats were only found to be an indicator of
negative prejudices when participants strongly identified with the in-group (Bizman & Yinon,
2001). Other research found that symbolic threat was a stronger indicator of negative prejudices
than realistic threat (Tausch et al., 2007)
Realistic threats can occur when a group feels economically, politically and physically
threatened. However, realistic conflict theories suggested that realistic threat involves mostly
conflicts concerning group interests (Gonzlez et al., 2008). Conflicts occur when in-group
members perceive competition over jobs, houses and their economic situation. Therefore, the
economic situation of a country can contribute to the feelings of threat. When the economy in a
country declines, the attitude towards immigrants becomes less tolerant (Entzinger, 2003).
Immigrants, who are economically unsuccessful, are perceived as failures of integration. For
instance by abusing the in-group their economic resources and by taking advantage of
unemployment benefits. This results in the increase of negative prejudices towards immigrants
(Johnson, Farrel & Gunn, 1997).
S.N. Jansen
On the other hand, immigrants who are economically successful may also be perceived as a
threat to the dominant position of the host majority. Believes of competition for society its
economical resources could underlie these attitudes, such as job provision (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson
&Armstrong, 2001). This perceived threat is known as the zero-sum believe (Esses et al., 2001). It
assumes that the more the immigrant group obtains the less it is available for its own group. This
results in the perception of being threatened by immigrants and the feeling of competing with
immigrants. The host majority could feel the need to take actions to remove this perceived
uncertainty, which leads to avoidance, discrimination and derogatory attitudes towards immigrants
(Stephan,Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999; Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa,
1998). It is considered that negative attitudes and discrimination towards the out-group increases
when the perceived threat is higher.
As discussed before, the perception of group differences based on believes, norms, values and
morals can form an even greater threat to the majority. This is known as Symbolic threats (Stephan
& Stephan, 1996), which the next section will explore.
Symbolic threats
The cultural differences between the in- and out-group can be perceived as a threat to the
cultural identity of the in-group. The Integratienota 2011 addresses the cultural differences between
the Islamic world and the Dutch culture. This is an example of perceived symbolic threat. The fear
that is described in the note is the anxiety of losing norms and values of daily Dutch life. This
perceived cultural threat can lead to hostility towards the out-group (Greenberg, Pysczynski,
Solomon, Rosenblatt, Veeder, Kirkland, & Lyon, 1990). When members of the in-group have
strong in-group attitudes, it is expected that they feel even more resistance towards the threatening
out-group (Stephan & Stephan, 1996), which will be addressed in the next section.
S.N. Jansen
Intergroup anxiety
Intergroup anxiety is the perceived threat that in-group members experiences during social
interaction with out-group members (Stephan & Stephan, 1996). Stephan and Stephan (1996) found
that intergroup contact and in-group identification affected the level of perceived intergroup
anxiety. Moreover, the feeling of anxiety towards immigrant groups determines the feeling of being
threatened. Islam and Hewstone (1993) found that feelings of intergroup anxiety predict the
increase of negative prejudices towards out-groups.
First of all, little amount of contact directly causes negative prejudices (Stephan & Stephan,
2000). However, when the in-group has little contact with the out-group feelings of symbolic and
realistic threat will be perceived stronger (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). This perceived threat
mediates the relationship between intergroup contact and negative prejudices (Stephan & Stephan,
1996). Furthermore, no contact leads to categorization and ignorance towards the out-group, which
results in negative stereotypes. As a result, when contact with Muslims increases, negative
stereotypes will reduce (Pettigrew, 1997).
Thus, intergroup anxiety is mediated by contact with Muslims and strong identification with
the in-group. No contact with Muslims directly leads to negative prejudices towards Muslims, but is
also mediated by perceived symbolic and realistic threat towards Muslims. Additionally, little
contact leads to negative stereotypes, which directly affects negative prejudices. Endorsement of
multiculturalism in this study is focused on endorsement of Islamic culture. Due to this emphasis on
Muslims we expect that intergroup contact will directly affect endorsement towards
multiculturalism, so we assume that:
H3. Little direct contact with Muslims causes less endorsement towards multiculturalism,
increased perception of symbolic and realistic threat and people hold more negative
stereotypes towards Muslims, while having contact with Muslims will endorse
S.N. Jansen
multiculturalism and reduces perception of symbolic and realistic threat and the use of
negative stereotypes.
Furthermore, evidence was found that strong in-group identification is related to symbolic
threat. When people strongly identify themselves with their in-group, it would be very likely that
they consider it important to preserve their own culture. As a result, strong identification was found
to correspond to realistic threat (Stephan & Renfro, 2002). People with a strong in-group
identification felt more realistic threats, which is found to be positively related to racial attitudes
(Stephan & Renfro, 2002). However, the relation with symbolic threat was found to be stronger
(Riek, Mania & Gaertner, 2006). For example; perceived intergroup threat between Catholics and
Protestants in Northern Ireland showed that symbolic threat was a predictor of negative attitude,
when participants strongly identified themselves with the in-group, while realistic threat was not
(Tausch, Tam, Hewstone, Kenworthy & Cairns, 2007). Similar results were found in a study, done
in the Netherlands. Dutch people who had a strong identification with the Dutch culture and in-
group had a higher tendency to perceive immigrants as a threat to their Dutch identity and culture
maintenance (Van Oudenhoven, Prins & Bunk, 1998). Therefore, we hypothesize:
H4. The in-group identification towards the Dutch becomes stronger when people perceive
symbolic and realistic threats.
Identification with the in-group tends to be stronger when people are exposed to negative
and threatening information. Issues related to immigrants have strengthened the perceived
intergroup threat(Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005). For instance, in 2002 the media paid attention
towards the rise of a right-wing populist movement, which, openly claimed that Islamic religion is a
threat to the Dutch society. Analysis of cross-sectional data from the period 2001 to 2003 shows
S.N. Jansen
that intergroup identification was stronger during that period of time, due to perceived intergroup
threat (Verkuyten & Zaremba, 2005). Since intergroup threat is a predictor of in-group
identification it indicates that issues addressed in the media affects in-group identification. This will
be further discussed second part of the theoretical framework. First, we want highlight the effect of
demographic factors on negative prejudices against immigrants.
Demographic factors contributing to negative attitude towards immigrants
The study of Pettigrew (1997) showed that especially lower educated people and older
people were more prejudiced, due to their pride in their nationality. Sniderman et al. (2003) found
supportive evidence for this claim. A survey was conducted concerning attitudes towards Muslims
among Dutch citizens. Within this research a distinction was made between negative attitudes
towards Muslims and cultural conflicts. Sniderman et al. (2003) stated that negative attitudes were
mediated by negative prejudices, while cultural conflicts are caused by being aware of cultural
differences. They assume that individuals who are higher educated held more cultural conflicts, due
to their awareness of the own culture and not willing to put their own culture in perspective. The
results of this study shows that individuals who were negative abound multiculturalism, were
participants with a higher education level, however, these individuals were not prejudiced. On the
other hand, individuals who were lower educated held more negative attitudes driven by prejudices
against Muslims. One could argue, the lower the education the higher the negative prejudices
towards Muslims would be, while higher educated individuals will perceive more cultural conflict
due to their awareness of the own culture.
S.N. Jansen
Theoretical model to predict negative prejudices towards Muslims
Based on the combination of different literature research concerning negative prejudices
towards Muslims we came to the conclusion that the structural model of Gonzlez et al. (2008) was
limited in representing the relations between endorsement of multiculturalism, symbolic threat,
realistic threat, stereotypes, intergroup contact and in-group identification. We therefore, developed
our own model (Model 2). This model represents the relationship between factors which contribute
to negative prejudices towards Muslims.
In brief, we found that intergroup anxiety increased when there was little intergroup contact
as well as when in-group identification was strong (Stephan and colleagues, 1996; 2002). The
model of Gonzlez et al. (2008) proposed that intergroup contact was only mediated by stereotypes.
We, on the other hand found that intergroup contact is mediated by perceptions of symbolic and
realistic threats as well (Stephan & Renfro, 2002; Riek, et al., 2006). Furthermore, Gonzlez et
al. (2008) found a relation between in-group identification and symbolic threat, however, we found
a relation with realistic threat as well. This was supported by Bizman and Yinon (2001), when
intergroup identification was strong, realistic threats would also become stronger. Contrary to
Gonzlez et al. (2008) their model, we found that both symbolic as realistic threat affected
stereotypes (Sniderman, et al., 2003; Verkuyten, 1997). Additionally, we found that factors such as
age and education level also affected negative prejudices towards Muslims (Pettigrew, 1997;
Sniderman et al., 2003) Therefore, we assume to find relations concerning the following model,
which were earlier formulated in the text.
S.N. Jansen
Model 2. The network which predict prejudices towards Muslims Jansen (2012)
The next section will examine the effect news media framing has on negative attitudes
towards Muslims. The process of news framing will be explored in order to outline the effect it has
on perception forming.
Theoretical Framework media effect on negative prejudices towards Muslims
News framing
News framing is related to agenda-setting, which tries to influence the importance of topics
on the public agenda. However, news framing explicitly focusses on the essence of the issues rather
than focusing on a specific topic. News framing is often used for political issues and tries to
promote a story to affect how the public understands the essence of a topic (Entman, 2004). Stories
are created through connecting a series of incidents (de Vreese, 2005). The difference between
agenda setting and framing is that agenda setting focusses on the salience of issues, while framing
focusses on the presentation of issues through stories (de Vreese, 2005), which are produced by
significant people who can affect news stories.
Earlier research showed that these stories are often identified with stereotypes, metaphors,
visual images, characters, symbols, catchphrases and lexical choices (van Gorp, 2005). Journalist
S.N. Jansen
may often rely on quotes, information and analysis from the elite which are; politicians, scholars
and other significant people (Nelson, Clawson & Oxley, 1997). Thus, the elite have a great
influence on news stories being produced. Attitudes could be influenced by making specific issues
more important by outlining specific subjects or specific facts, emphasizing on values or opinions
(de Vreese, 2004). Not only storylines are created, the attitude of the public to understand and how
they perceive a problem is also affected (Nelson, Clawson & Oxley, 1997). It does not mean that
frames can absolute affect someones mind, however, issues can be presented as more important,
which can affect people their understanding of that issue (de Vreese, 2004). Scheufele (1999)
describes the process of media frame building into four stages of process: frame building, frame
setting, effects of frames on individuals and individual frames linked with media frames.
The process of frame building
First, the media is building the frame to give structure to the information, presented to the
public. There are several factors important when creating a news frame; ideology, attitude, norms
and values of the journalist. Second, the organization culture of the medium influences how the
frame is being presented (Scheufele, 1999). Finally, the political ideology of the news medium also
contributes the creation of a frame. For instance, the Dutch newspaper Telegraaf is seen as a
popular conservative, newspaper. It remarkably spends more articles on crime, opposed to the
liberal Volkskrant, who focusses more on discrimination (van Dijk, 1991). Thus, the ideology of a
newspaper can affect the emphasize they spend on issues (Scheufele, 1999).
Frame setting and the effect of frames on individuals
The second and third process of frame building is setting the frame and its effect. The frame
cannot be a frame if it has not any effect. In order to build a frame, the presentation of frames and
how to characterize issues are important (Scheufele, 1999). The prospect theory can give insight in
S.N. Jansen
the effect news presentation can have on people their attitudes and choices. It proposes that people
are affected by how information is presented (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). A more recent
experiment under Psychology students was conducted by Smith and Levin (1996). Participants were
given a situation where they had cancer and they were asked which treatment they would choose.
The first condition were given the following treatment options.
Surgery: Of 100 people having surgery 90 live through the post-operative period, 68 are alive at
the end of the first year, and 34 are alive at the end of five years (p.287).
Radiation therapy: Of 100 people having radiation therapy all live through the treatment, 77 are
alive at the end of one year, and 22 are alive at the end of five years(p.287).
The second condition was given the same treatment options, however differently formulated:
Surgery: Of 100 people having surgery 10 die during surgery or the post-operative period, 32 die
by the end of the first year, and 66 die by the end of five years (p.287).
Radiation therapy: Of 100 people having radiation therapy, none die during treatment, 23 die by
the end of one year, and 78 die by the end of five years (p.287).
Results showed that participants chose the program which was presented as more
beneficially formulated for them, rather than the program which was formulated as more risky. The
majority of the participants in the first condition chose for surgery, while the majority of the
participants in the second condition chose radiation therapy. This result indicates that people are
affected by how frames are presented. The effect of news framing increases when issues are
frequently presented to the public (Scheufele, 1999). Iyengar (1991) proposes the accessibility
bias, when people are exposed to media frames, they would access their memories and retrieve
S.N. Jansen
information they already possess. The frame could cause more effect, because the information is
already freshly stored in the memory (Iyengar, 1991). This theory was supported by Nelson et al.
(1997) who found evidence that media frames had significant effect to influence attitude when more
emphasis was put on specific issues, facts or values of people. Due to frequent reporting and
salience making of issues, causes that people perceived these issues as more important. These
issued could be perceived as less important when presented under alternative frames (Nelson et al.
1997; McCombs & Shaw 1972; McLeod, Becker & Byrnes, 1975).
People rely on news reports, due to their belief in the news as a reliable and trustworthy
source. Devroe (2007) claims that the public, confronted with evidence about an event or incident
have a lot of faith in the news. Especially when it was published in newspapers, it was memorized
considerately better than when discussed on television (Devroe, 2007). A survey about trust in news
reports towards minorities revealed that 71% of the respondents believed that the news reflected
the truth about minorities. Moreover, 12% believed that the news had a negative impact on the
perception of minorities and 13% found that the minorities were described more positive than in
reality (Mullan, 1997).
For instance, negative presentation and frequently reporting of Muslims in Western media
caused the image of Muslims to be negatively affected (Shahid, 2005). The presentation of Muslims
in the media creates negative storylines, which causes simplification and isolated position of Islam,
Muslims being stigmatized, in-group versus out-group report and lack of reporting minority views
in the media (Shahid, 2005). This suggest that when newspapers frequently report negatively about
Muslims, people are inclined to perceive this news topic about Muslims as an important social
problem.
S.N. Jansen
Simplification and Stigmatization of Islam in Western media.
Negative presentation of Muslims in the news is due to the simplistic presentation of
Muslims. Simplification of Muslims occurs through overgeneralization each incident by subscribing
it to an act in the name of Islamic religion (Shahid, 2005). Shahid (2005) argues that September 11,
was characterized in the media as an attack on Western norms and values instead of the attack on
American policy in the Arab world. The media overgeneralizes the norms and beliefs of Islam and
report in terms of terrorism, fundamentalism and fascism (Shahid, 2005). This simplification leads
to stigmatization of Muslims in the media.
A discourse analysis of European and North American media revealed that news stories
favor the majority group and create negative belief about immigrants (Van Dijk, 2000). Immigrants
were stereotyped as people who break the law and who are different and threatening to the majority.
On the other hand, the majority was presented as being victimized by immigrants. Van Dijk (2000)
considers that media is the main source for whites to form attitudes and ideologies and to retrieve
information. Many of the readers do not have contact with immigrants and have no other resources
to retrieve information from. Van Dijk (2000) also mentioned that whites prefer reading negative
news about out-groups. This stigmatization was also found in the fact that media reported in terms
of in-group/out-group. Creating a contrast between the in-group versus out-group in the media,
affects prejudices towards Muslims. Van Dijk (1983) discovered that also Dutch media contrasted
an in-group/out-group opposition. Again, negative associations were mostly connected with ethnic
cultural minorities. According to van Dijk (1983) out-groups were underrepresented in the news.
When they were cited it primarily served for the purpose to shed a distance between the in-group.
H5: The Dutch hold negative prejudices towards Muslims because negative news
predominates the media discussion.
S.N. Jansen
Lack of reporting minority views in the media
Not only simplification leads to negative presentation of Muslims in the news, the lack of
reporting Muslim also contributes to negative presentation. The perspective of the Western elite
dominates Western media. According to Ter Wal and Phalet (2004) the most frequent issue covered
in the Volkskrant between 1998 and 2002 was religion concerning Muslims in the Netherlands. The
Volksrkant is originally a Catholic newspaper, however it is now considered as a liberal newspaper,
read by relatively high educated people (van Dijk, 1991). The topic Muslims was discussed in 24%
of all the news facts and in 27% all the opinion articles of the Volkskrant. The articles often
reported on Turkish and Moroccan nationalities, besides this, the term Muslim or allochtoon
(immigrant) was frequently used (Ter Wal & Phalet, 2004). Due to lack of citations from minorities
in the news, a negative image is reinforced (Shahid, 2005). This is also the case in the Volkskrant,
where the Dutch majority dominates the discussion about Islamic issues. The discourse analysis of
van Dijk (1983) confirms this. The study focused on reporting minorities in the Dutch media, using
10 national newspapers and two local newspapers in the months October 1981 and August 1982.
Furthermore, articles were coded on negative, positive and neutral The results showed that
press releases issued by Komitee van Marokkaanse Arbeiders in Nederland (Committee Moroccan
Workers in the Netherlands) were not published by the majority of the newspapers. Van Dijk (1983)
found that out of 173 articles about minorities, only two were positive, while articles about
majorities scored higher; 34 out of 69 were positively coded. Additionally, negative articles were
found to be larger than positive articles.
H6. Positive news framing causes an increase of positive prejudices towards Muslims, while
negative news framing causes an increase of negative prejudices towards Muslims.
S.N. Jansen
The effect of negative news framing
Negative news significantly affects peoples attitudes. Supportive evidence was found by
Sheafer and Dvir-Gvirsman, (2010). They held a content analysis over a time period of eight years
about attitudes towards the Oslo peace process with the Palestinians showed that negative
information regarding the peace process had a 1.5 times stronger effect on attitude compared to
positive information (Sheafer & Dvir-Gvirsman, 2010).
Additionally, experimental studies provided similar evidence. A strong relation between
negative attitudes and news framing was found. In the study of Price, Tewksbury and Powers
(1997) the impact of news frames on feelings and attitudes of University students were measured.
Students had to read a fictitious story about their university with similar content, using three frames:
human interest, conflict and personal consequences. Significant results were found that the different
news frames affected the attitudes, feelings and even decision making behavior of the participants.
A control condition, where participants only read the common content of the three texts was used to
verify the results. The weaknesses of this study is addressed by de Vreese et al. (2001), stating that
the study could not be generalized to other issues, due to non-realistic topic. Therefore, de Vreese et
al. (2010) did similar research with real newspaper topics. Based on a content analysis of the news
they adjusted a real newspaper article, which was frequently discussed. Their objective was to
measure the effects of news framing on the support for membership of Turkey in the European
Union. The results showed that both positive and negative news framing significantly affected the
attitudes of the participants. However, negative news framing showed significant stronger effect on
attitudes towards Turkish membership in the European Union.
However, we believe that the timing of conducting this study could also affect the results of
this study. The topic membership of Turkey in the European Union was frequently discussed in
the news around the time the study was conducted. It could therefore, cause a significant larger
effect, which can be explained by the accessibility bias theory (Iyengar, 1999) and the effects of
S.N. Jansen
news waves on people (Fishman, 1978). Nevertheless, these studies support that negative
presentations of the news have a stronger impact on people than positively presented news.
H7: Negative news framing has a stronger effect on attitude change than positive news
frames.
Framing journalists
Not only the audience is subjected to media framing, journalist can be affected by framing
as well. Fishman (1978) states that news organizations follow other organizations in news themes
they address to the public. The Watergate, for example, was examined by a few journalists. They
were investigating the illegal activities of the Nixon administration (Fishman, 1978). This news
theme was soon picked up by other journalists and a Watergate news wave occurred. However,
when Nixon was deposed, the news wave also stopped (Fishman, 1978). The case study of
Fishman (1978) concerning crime waves showed that a small number of news organizations
affected other news organizations by reporting about crimes towards old people in New York. This
theme evoked that journalists were seeking for the relationship between crime against the elderly
and the role of authority. Fishman (1978) stated that authority also have power to determine the
effect of the news wave. The news wave became even more realistic when officials confirmed the
crime against the elderly, so authorities have power to prevent news themes becoming news waves.
The next section will address, the effect framing has on attitude change towards Muslims.
Methodology
Selecting the news frame
Due to the criticism of de Vreese et al. (2001) we wanted to select a realistic issue for our
experiment. The content analysis of ter Wal and Phalet (2004) was used, to understand the most
discussed topic concerning Muslims in an important newspaper in the Netherlands. The study
S.N. Jansen
included articles about Islam in the Netherlands from the liberal Volkskrant, between 1998-2002.
This newspaper was analyzed because it was the most frequent read newspaper in that period of
time and considered to be a quality newspaper. Quality newspapers are considered to report diverse
political topics and tries to deepen issues in search of quality (ter Wal and Phalet, 2004). Contrary
to popular newspapers such as the Telegraaf, which seeks for amusement and sensation (van Dijk,
1991).
In total, ter Whal and Phalet (2004) selected 866 articles, based on their content of Muslims
and Islam in the Netherlands. These articles did not contain any content of crisis or damaging
incidents in relation to Islam, in order to prevent bias. Therefore, articles about September 11 and
the articles concerning a discussion about multiculturalism, the multicultural drama, by Paul
Scheffer, were not selected. In the line with van Dijk (2000), the most frequent issues in relation to
Muslims and Islam were: (Table 1) religion, criminality, discrimination and prejudices. Ter Wal and
Phalet (2004) also stated that the negativity of these issues could be explained through the fact that
negative news is reported more often than positive.
Table 1. Overview of the most reported issues concerning Muslims in de Volkskrant 1998-2002
Issue Frequency (N=866) Percentage of Muslim or Frequency about
Islamic utterances in relation to Moroccans (N=199)
Religion 344 24.7 38
Criminality, violence, drugs 276 19.8 28
Discrimination, prejudices 248 17.8 30
Integration 195 14.0 24
Education 191 13.7 35
Social economical status 190 13.6 12
(ter Wal & Phalet, 2004, p.18)
Ter Wal and Phalet (2004) subdivide topics within the issue religion, since religion is the
most frequent reported issue. Within religion, out of 344 news articles homosexuality is the most
S.N. Jansen
frequent topic discussed (64 articles). Second, Islamic schools (47 articles) are frequently discussed.
The topic headscarfs represents 42 articles of Islamic discussion. Finally, Muslim fundamentalism
count 34 of the articles, which is also mentioned in articles concerning Muslim fundamentalist
influence on Islamite educational institutions (ter Wal & Phalet, 2004). Considering the fact that
the topic Islamic schools within the topic religion is frequently discussed causes ecological
validity for our experiment. However, the topic could be less beneficial in this research, since the
topic Islamic Schools is frequently negatively reported in the media. As discussed before, we could
expect that participants were already biased by this topic. To minimize the effects of news waves
and accessibility bias, we chose a realistic topic between a past time period. We could therefore, be
certain that popular issues addressed in the news by the time we were conducting our study would
not show any effect.
The independent variable: news frames
In order to test the relevance of the issues addressed the frame consisted out of aspects of ter
Wal and Phalet (2004) their analysis. In the line of de Nelson et al (1997) a negative news frame
and a positive news frame were used. However, in the discussion they argued that they should have
used a control group to get information concerning the baseline attitude of participants. Therefore,
in this study a control group was used to give insight in the baseline attitude of our participants. We
will use this condition as our baseline measurement, where the other measurements are compared
with.
The content of the manipulated articles was based on questions from the codebooks by
Devroe (2007) and de Vreese (2010) appendix I: codebook based on literature study. Devroe
(2007) conducted a content analysis of news media concerning Muslims in the Netherlands and
Belgium. For their content analysis they used a codebook to make a distinction between topics such
as religion, politics, stereotypes etcetera concerning Muslims. De Vreese (2010) also conducted a
content analysis to make a distinction between positive and negative frames, which were subdivided
S.N. Jansen
into, economic, cultural or security topics. We combined questions from both research codebooks to
apply them to our dependent variables: multiculturalism, symbolic threat, realistic threat and
stereotypes. For example the following question was coded as multiculturalism: Does the news
item discusses the differences between people with Islamic beliefs and Dutch concerning social
roles? (equal rights, emancipation, rights of women, rights of children, attitude towards
homosexuals compared to the Dutch) (Devroe, 2007, p.174).
Based on these questions news frames were constructed. The use of codebooks was done to
ecologically validate our frames.
Following the material of Nelson et al. (1997) the content was kept constant, therefore, the
negative and the positive news frame were highly comparable. In the negative frame negative
adjectives were used and in the positive news frame positive adjectives were used. However, due to
the fact that negative news could have a stronger impact on people (Sheafer & Dvir-Gvirsman,
2010) the positive frame was more extended. In this way the effect of negative would be more equal
to the positive. For the neutral frame, we used no opinionated adjectives and singularly facts
concerning Islamic schools were presented. In appendix II the original frames are attached in Dutch.
Evaluation test of the frames
In order to test whether the frames were interpreted the same way as was intended by the
researcher an evaluation test was done, using an online survey, supported by Thesistools software.
In total five Assistant Professors and one Full Professor of Tilburg University (three female)
between the age of 29-72 years (M= 43.33, SD=15.31) were asked to participate in the survey. All
participants had extended experience with experimental research in the field of social behavior. We
could therefore, expect that they have a critical and objective view on the frames. Participants were
asked to rate the text of all three frames. The amount of effect was measured on a five point scale,
ranging from no effect to very negative/positive/not neutral, whereas five indicated a strong effect.
S.N. Jansen
Per text the participants received the following questions: To what extent do you evaluate
this article will positively/negatively/not affect a reader (with an average knowledge of the news) on
the topic "Islamic schools"?. The second question was: To what extent do you evaluate this article
will positively/negatively/not affect a reader (with an average knowledge of the news) on prejudices
towards Muslims. First, we wanted to know if the experts would think the effect of the frames on
the realistic topic Islamic Schools. Secondly, we wanted to measure the effect of the frames on
prejudice towards Muslims. We only asked for prejudice, since our dependent variables will predict
negative attitude and to keep the survey approachable.
Table 2. Evaluation test of the manipulation N=5 ( 2 little to no effect 4 strong effect)
Negative frame Negative frame Positive frame Positive frame Neutral frame Neutral frame
effect on Islamic effect on effect on Islamic effect on effect on Islamic effect on
schools prejudices schools prejudices schools prejudices
towards towards towards
Muslims Muslims Muslims
Mean 4.17 4.00 3.50 3.17 2.83 3.00
SD 0.41 0.63 1.05 0.98 0.75 0.89
Median 4.00 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00
Table 2 shows that for the negative frame the majority expects a negative effect on attitudes
toward Islamic Schools and negative prejudices towards Muslims. The low SD= 0.41 indicates that
there were no outliers and the Median shows that all participants ranked around 4.00. The positive
frame shows more variation between participants SD= 1.05. The median shows that most
participants ranked around 3 towards attitude on Islamic schools. However, participants found that
the frame had a more positive effect on prejudices towards Muslims, Median = 4.00. The neutral
frame was not found to be very neutral since both questions scored >2. Participants could give
open suggestions how to create more effect to the frame. Based on the suggestions, the frames were
adjusted.
S.N. Jansen
Participants main study
In total, 85 adolescents between 18 and 54 years of age (M = 26.3, SD = 7.6) volunteered to
participate in an online experimental survey. Age did not show significant difference between
condition, (236) =40.86, p=0.27. Sixty-one percent of the participants were female, and 39% were
male (M = 1.62, SD = 0.49). Additionally, gender did not show any significant difference between
conditions (22) =3.19, p=0.20. Eighty seven percent of the participants had native Dutch parents,
7% of the participants had one parent who was born elsewhere and 6% of the participants had both
parents from a different country (M = 1.15, SD = 0.48). There was no significant difference per
condition between the participants with native Dutch parents, and participants with parents born
elsewhere, (24) =2.15, p=0.71, most participants were born out of Dutch native parents.
Furthermore, there was a distinction made, between high, middle and low education levels
(M = 1.79, SD = 0.66). High educated people were participants who obtained or were still studying
for an Academic degree (29% of the participants). Middle educated people were participants who
obtained or were still studying Applied Sciences (56%). Lower educated people were people with
Intermediate Vocational Education or lower (16%). There was no significant difference found
between level of education among the conditions, (24) =3.50, p=0.48. Moreover, eighty nine
percent of the participants reported to read the newspaper on a daily basis (M = 1.13, SD = 0.34).
The amounts of exposure of participants to news information did not show any significant
difference between conditions (22) =1.46, p=0.48.
Seventy-nine percent of the participants reported to have little or no contact with Muslims
(M = 1.96, SD = 0.63). No significant difference was found between conditions, (24) =2.22,
p=0.70. Finally, 43% of the participants felt identification with the Dutch, 34% felt medium
identification and 23% felt no identification with the Dutch (M = 3.07, SD = 0.91). Additionally, no
significant difference was found among condition, (24) =0.95, p=.92.

S.N. Jansen
Dependent variables, measuring prejudices towards Muslims
Prejudices towards Muslims in the Netherlands were measured using the measures of
Gonzlez, et al. (2008). The survey included the negative prejudices predictors; Endorsement of
multiculturalism, symbolic threat, realistic threat and stereotypes.
Measuring endorsement of Multiculturalism. The multicultural ideology scale of Berry
and Kalin (2005) was used to measure the endorsement of multiculturalism. This instrument has
been used in earlier studies in the Netherlands and proved its validity (Gonzlez et al., 2008;
Arends-Tth &Van de Vijver, 2003; Verkuyten, 2005). Similar to Verkuyten (2005), the scale
consists of 10 items, using five negative loaded words and five positive loaded words, to prevent
bias. These 10 items indirectly measured endorsement of multiculturalism. When participants
agreed on negatively loaded statements they did not endorse multiculturalism. In order to apply the
scale to this study, we focused on endorsement of multiculturalism towards the Islamic culture.
Therefore, the term immigrants was replaced for Muslims. Otherwise, we could not make a
distinction between prejudices towards Islam or other cultures.
To illustrate the types of items out of ten questions three sample questions were: Dutch
natives should do more to learn about the customs and heritage of different cultural groups in this
country; Muslims in the Netherlands should forget their cultural background as soon as
possible and People who come to live in the Netherlands should change their behavior to be
more like the Dutch. Ratings were given using a 5-point scale anchored at Strongly disagree and
Strongly agree. Cronbachs alpha in the pre-measurement was 0.82 and 0.89 in the post-
measurement, which show a reliability of the scale. The endorsement of multiculturalism becomes
stronger when the score is lower.
S.N. Jansen
Measuring symbolic threat. To measure threat, a distinction is made between realistic
threat and symbolic threat. Both are based on Stephan, Martnez, Schwarzwald and Tur-Kaspa
(1998). Moreover, the threat scales were validated by the study of Verkuyten et al. (2008). For the
symbolic threat scale, four items were used to have a strong reliable Cronbach alpha of 0.89 in the
pre-measurement and 0.89 in the post-measurement. Participants had to answer on a 5-points scale,
ranging from Strongly disagree to Strongly agree four statements: Dutch identity is being
threatened because there are too many Muslims; Dutch norms and values are being threatened
because of the presence of Muslims; Muslims are a threat to the Dutch culture and Our way of
life is not being modified by Muslims. The statements were directly used from Verkuyten et al.
(2008), who only used one positive formulated statement.
Measuring realistic threat. For the realistic threat scale also four items were used,
Cronbach alpha was 0.77 in the pre-measurement and 0.83 in the post-measurement, which shows
reliability. The items included realistic threats based on Stephan, Martnez, Schwarzwald and Tur-
Kaspa (1998); such as crime, job loss and economic cost for social services. Four items were
measured: Muslims should not receive social assistance destined for Dutch; Muslims increased
the amount of crime in the Netherlands; Muslims take away jobs from the Dutch and Muslims
pose a health hazard to the Dutch. Responses were given on a 5-point scale ranging from
Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. A high score indicated a high perception of threat. Again,
the items were directly used from the study of Stephan et al. (1998), who only used negatively
formulated questions to measure threat.
Measuring stereotypes. Seven antonyms adjectives were used to measure stereotypes:
violent, honest, intelligent, friendly, kind, inferior and avaricious (Gonzlez et al., 2008). The final
adjective was replaced from Verkuyten et al (2008), to a more applicable term goodor bad. This
S.N. Jansen
antonym was based on the similar stereotype scale validated by Nelson et al.(1997). Responses
were duplicated from a 5-point scale of Verkuyten et al. (2008) ranging from: No, absolutely not
to Yes, certainly. Cronbachs alpha for the pre-measurement was 0.88 and 0.89 in the post-
measurement, which shows its reliability. Contrary to other scales, a high score indicated a positive
stereotypes towards Muslims.
Measuring intergroup contact. The frequent amount of contact with Muslims was
measured by the validated scale of Verkuyten et al. (2008), using four items. The responses were
given on a 4-point scale, the items were: How many Muslim friends do you have?, the answered
ranged from 1 noneand 4 only Muslim friends. The following items were ranging from never
to often: Do you have contact with Muslim students at school?; Do you have contact with
Muslims in your neighborhood?; and Do you have contact with Muslims
somewhere else, for example in sport clubs?. Cronbachs alpha for these scales was 0.72, which
was found reliable. In this case, high scores meant frequent contact with Muslims.
Measuring in-group identification. In order to measure the closeness towards the in-
group the Dutch in this case, four items were measured in the post-measurement, based on Lutanen
and Crocker (1992). The items were: My Dutch identity is an important part of my self; Being
Dutch is a very important part of how I see myself; Overall, my group memberships have very
little to do with how I feel about myself and In general, belonging to social groups is an
important part of my self-image. The items were measured on 5-point scales ranging from
Strongly disagree to Strongly agree. Cronbachs alpha was 0.74, which was also found
appropriate. High scored meant strong identification with the Dutch.
S.N. Jansen
Demographics and general questions. Demographics and non-attitude measurements were
stated at the end of the survey. It is well known that for demographics people do not need much
effort to fill it in, compared to attitude questions; therefore, it was chosen to ask at the end of the
survey. Demographics included: gender, age, birth country of mother, birth country of father. There
was chosen to only ask for the birth country of the parents, due to the fact that according to CBS
(2012) an autochtoon is: someone with both their parents being born in the Netherlands,
regardless where the person was born themselves.
Education level was measured asking the highest education one obtained or were still
studying, using a dropdown list: WO Master; WO Bachelor; HBO Master; HBO Bachelor;
MBO and Lower than MBO. Furthermore, the frequency of news information one received was
measured using a dropdown list with the answer options: Daily; Every other Day; Once a
week; Once per two weeks; Once a month and Less than once a month. In order to test
whether the manipulation was successful participants had to fill out the open question: What do
you think the researcher was trying to measure in this research?.
Procedure
We used a 3 (negative frame, positive frame, neutral frame) x 2 (pre-measurement, post-
measurement) between subjects design. Participants were approached to participate through the
snow ball method and social media. Not fully competed surveys were excluded from the analysis.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: neutral frame, negative
frame or positive frame. Automatic randomization, using JavaScript code was applied in order to
exclude possible confounding factors. The procedure in all the three conditions was identical.
Participants could pick their own time to fill out the online survey at any place. In order to simulate
the situation in which they would read a news article.
S.N. Jansen
The survey was called Islamitische scholen in Nederland (Islamic schools in the
Netherlands) and presented with a Tilburg University logo, using LimeSurvey software. The
participants had to read a short introduction, stating the aim of the research. The first block was a
pre-measurement block, used to measure the un-manipulated attitude towards Muslims. The un-
manipulated attitude was used as a control variable. The block consisted out 9 filler questions, 10
questions related to Multiculturalism. The positively formulated questions were re-coded so that the
scale would be similar to the negatively formulated answers. For all questions count: the higher the
score the negative is the attitude. There were 4 questions concerning symbolic threat, one question
was recoded, and 7 questions related to stereotypes, which were also recoded. All the questions are
noted in our codebook, which can be found in appendix IV.
After the first block, participants received an announcement, stating that they had to read a
text concerning Islamic Schools. The text was related to the random assigned conditions and
appeared for two minutes on the screen. Participants could not precede the survey until they waited
for two minutes to pass. This was done to keep the manipulation consistent. Finally, the post-
measurement block was identical to the pre-measurement. Participants received the same questions,
however, presented in a different order. Instead of 9 filler questions they had to fill out 18 dummy
questions in order to mask the objective of the experiment. More dummy questions were used, due
to prevent test effect. At the end of the survey intergroup-contact and in-group identity was
measured. Finally, a manipulation check was done at the end of the survey. Participants had to
answer the open question: What do you think was the purpose of this study. Eighty-two percent
of the participants were unaware of the purpose of the experiment and 18 percent was aware of the
experiment. Education level showed significance for awareness of the manipulation, (2(2)=7.36,
p<0.05). Academic educated participants were most aware (M = 1.7, SD = 0.48).
S.N. Jansen
Results
In order to measure attitude change, a pre-measurement and a post-measurement were done.
The Shapiro-Wilks test of normality revealed that the coefficient of the pre-measurement and the
post-measurement were both not normally distributed (Table 3). Distributions histograms are
presented in Appendix III
Table 3. Shapiro-Wilks test of normality for the pre-measurement and post-measurement (N=85)
D p
Multiculturalism pre- measurement 0.97 0.40
Multiculturalism post- measurement 0.96 0.01
Symbolic threat pre-measurement 0.94 0.001
Symbolic threat post-measurement 0.93 <.001
Realistic threat pre-measurement 0.92 <.001
Realistic threat post-measurement 0.93 <.001
Stereotype pre-measurement 0.97 ns
Stereotype post-measurement 0.97 0.03
Intergroup contact 0.95 0.004
In-group identification 0.97 0.03
Due to, the relative large sample size (N=85) Shapiro Wilks might be too strict to test for
normality. Therefore, we take a closer look at the Skewness and Kurtosis (Table 4). This result
indicates that the data is not normally distributed, because it deviates from zero. However, other
than realistic threat in the pre-measurement, Skewness and Kurtosis are not greater or smaller than
one (University of Texas, 2012). Therefore, we will treat the data as normally distributed.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for all items in mean scores (N=85)
M (SD) Skewness Kurtosis
Multiculturalism pre- measurement 2.97 (0.74) 0.48 -0.20
Multiculturalism post- measurement 2.99 (0.85) 0.53 -0.27
S.N. Jansen
Symbolic threat pre-measurement 2.61 (1.10) 0.53 -0.42
Symbolic threat post-measurement 2.58 (1.12) 0.65 -0.35
Realistic threat pre-measurement 2.16 (0.89) 1.01 1.24
Realistic threat post-measurement 2.29 (0.98) 0.84 0.45
Stereotype pre-measurement 3.09 (0.72) 0.32 0.61
Stereotype post-measurement 3.10 (0.78) -0.09 0.52
Intergroup contact 1.96 (0.63) 0.54 0.12
In-group identification 3.07 (0.91) -0.31 -0.25
To see the relationships between the items, we use Pearsons correlations (Table 5 till 7).
First, the relationships between the predictors of negative prejudices towards Muslims were
explored if they were in line with the model we proposed. Therefore, we only used the baseline
condition (neutral condition). This condition represents the attitudes towards Muslims when they
were exposed to neutral information. Pearsons correlations (table 5) in the post-measurement of the
baseline condition, demonstrates the relationship as suggested by Gonzlez et al. (2008). Intergroup
contact showed a negative medium correlation with stereotypes. (r=-343). Additionally, In-group
identification showed a medium positive relationship with symbolic threat (r=.422). Furthermore,
in line with Gonzlez et al. (2008) multiculturalism had a strong positive relationship with symbolic
threat (r=.765), realistic threat (r=.853) and stereotypes (r=.554), which supports the model of
Gonzlez et al (2008).
However, the relationships between the variables are more complex. As suggested by our
model more correlations were found. Intergroup contact had a medium negative relationship with
symbolic threat (r=-.299) and realistic threat (r=-.316). This means that when people had no
intergroup contact they perceived more symbolic and realistic threat. Additionally, in-group
identification showed a significant relationship with realistic threat as suggested by our model
(r=.417). Furthermore, we find correlations between intergroup contact and endorsement of
multiculturalism (r=-304), which is probably caused by the focus on endorsement of Islamic culture.
As opposed to Gonzlez et al. (2008) we found that stereotypes had a medium significant
S.N. Jansen
relationship with symbolic threat (r=.406) and even a relatively strong relationship with realistic
threat (r=.532). Our findings support our model and therefore H1 till H4.
Table 5. Pearsons rho parametric correlations post-measurement neutral condition (N=32)
Multiculturalism Symbolic Threat Realistic Stereotypes Contact Identification
Threat
Multiculturalism --
Symbolic Threat .765** --
Realistic Threat .853** .788** --
Stereotypes .554** .406* .532** --
Intergroup contact -.304* -.299 -.316 -.343 --
In-group identification .319 .422* .417* .313 .029 --
Note. **p<.01, * p<.05 (two-tailed)
We can now assume that endorsement of multiculturalism, symbolic threat, realistic threat
and stereotypes revealed strong correlations and are indicators of prejudices towards Muslims. In
addition, contact with Muslims and identification with the Dutch relate to these predictors of
prejudices. Table 6 gives an overview of the descriptive results of the pre-measurement and post-
measurement of the dependent variables per condition. Small differences were found between the
mean scores of the pre- and post-measurement. Based on the mean scores in the post-measurement
the neutral condition was slightly more negative than the positive condition, while the negative
condition was more negative than the neutral condition. This suggest support for H5 and H6. In
order to examine the relationship between framing and attitude change statistically, we compared
correlations with the baseline condition. We used Fishers-z transformation to calculate the
difference with the baseline condition: Z= (Ff,1 ZF,2) / [1/(n1-3) + 1/ (n2 3)]1/2 (Table 7 and 8)
S.N. Jansen
Table 6. Descriptives pre-measurement and post-measurement dependent variables per condition
Negative (N=26) Positive (N=27) Neutral (N=32)
Mean SD Median Mean SD Median Mean SD Median
Multiculturalism-pre 3.23 0.76 3.00 2.84 0.70 2.70 2.88 0.71 2.95
Multiculturalism- 3.38 0.83 3.20 2.75 0.81 2.50 2.88 0.80 2.70
post
Symbolic-pre 2.88 1.10 2.75 2.44 1.07 2.25 2.53 1.12 2.25
Symbolic-post 2.88 1.08 2.75 2.35 1.13 2.00 2.52 1.13 2.38
Realistic-pre 2.39 0.90 2.25 2.00 0.86 2.00 2.11 0.91 1.88
Realistic-post 2.61 0.98 2.50 2.06 0.95 2.00 2.23 0.96 2.13
Stereotype-pre 3.13 0.59 3.00 2.90 0.74 3.00 3.20 0.78 3.07
Stereotype-post 3.23 0.58 3.14 2.88 0.90 3.00 3.18 0.81 3.21
Table 7. Pearsons correlations between the post measurement of the baseline(N= 32) and positive
condition (N=27)
Multiculturalism Sig Symbolic Sig Realistic Sig Stereotypes Sig Contact Sig Identific Sig
Z-value Threat Threat Z-value Z-value ation
Z-value Z-value Z-value
Multiculturalism --
Symbolic Threat -0.29 0.77 --
Realistic Threat 1.87 0.06 -0.17 0.87 --
Stereotypes 0.83 0.41 -0.17 0.87 1.04 0.30 --
Intergroup contact -2.11 0.04 -2.11 0.04 -1.27 0.20 -1.69 0.09 --
In-group 2.49 0.01 2.02 0.04 1.97 0.05 1.36 0.17 1.13 0.26 --
identification
Based on the correlations presented in table 7 Fishers-z transformation indicates that the
difference between the post-measurement of the baseline and the positive condition caused a
significant negative relationship between endorsement of multiculturalism and intergroup contact
z=-2.11, p= 0.04. This indicates that when intergroup contact increases, endorsement of
multiculturalism also increases and vice versa. Additionally, Fishers-z transformation found a
positive relation between endorsement of multiculturalism and identification with the Dutch, z=
S.N. Jansen
2.49, p= 0.01, such that with endorsement of multiculturalism, identification with Dutch identity
becomes weaker, which is in line with our baseline condition. This showed a medium relationship
between these variables.
Symbolic threat negatively correlated with intergroup contact with Muslims, z=-2.11, p=
0.04. It is therefore expected that when symbolic threat decreases the contact with Muslims
increases. Finally, Fishers-z transformation found a significant positive relationship between
identification with the Dutch and perceived symbolic and realistic threat. This indicates that when
people do not have a strong identification with the Dutch perceived threat is also low.
In summary, positive framing caused endorsement of multiculturalism when intergroup
contact was high and when the in-group identification low. Positive framing also affected the
perception of symbolic and realistic threat, which was also mediated by the amount of intergroup
contact and the strength of in-group identity, these findings support H6.
Table 8. Pearsons correlations between the post measurement of the baseline (N= 32) and
negative condition (N=26)
Multiculturalism p Symbolic p Realistic p Stereotypes p Contact p Identifi p
Z-value Threat Threat Z-value Z-value cation
Z-value Z-value Z-value
Multiculturalism --
Symbolic Threat 0.98 0.33 --
Realistic Threat 1.60 0.11 -0.12 0.90 --
Stereotypes 0.45 0.65 -.1.14 0.25 -0.55 0.58 --
Intergroup 0.41 0.68 0.60 0.55 0.14 0.89 1.71 0.09 --
contact
In-group 0.89 0.37 0.69 0.49 0.94 0.35 1.72 0.09 0.52 0.60 --
identification
Table 8 shows a Fishers-z transformation between the post measurement of the baseline
condition and the negative condition. No significant relationships were found. This suggest that
S.N. Jansen
only when participants were exposed to positive news framing the endorsement of multiculturalism
and perception of threat changed, due to the amount of contact with Muslims and identification with
the Dutch. This result does not support H7, which indicated that negative framing would cause a
stronger correlation with prejudices towards Muslims. However, our descriptive results indicated
that participants were slightly more negative in the baseline condition, which could cause this none
significant results. Since correlations can only indicate a relationship between variables, we cannot
draw full conclusions on these results concerning the effects of framing. Therefore, a Two-Way
ANOVA was conducted.
As discussed before, the pre-measurement was regarded as a control variable. Additionally,
based on our literature research we have reasons to believe that variables such as, gender, age,
education level, birth place of the parents, frequency of news information intergroup contact and in-
group identification could affect our dependent variables. Therefore, we included these variables as
co-variants, to only measure the effects of the independent variable (frames). The next section will
address the results of this analysis.
Main effect of framing
Endorsement of Multiculturalism
A Two-Way ANOVA , with only the pre-measurement as a control variable determined that
endorsement of multiculturalism was affected by condition F (2, 81) = 3.550, p = 0.03, 2=0.08.
The effects size indicates that condition caused a medium effect on change in endorsement of
multiculturalism (Cohen, 1988). Thus, the change towards endorsement of multiculturalism could
be explained based on the effect of news framing, which partly supports H6. We wanted to make
sure that this significant result was not caused by the control variables. Therefore, we conducted
another Two-Way ANOVA with the control variables as co-variates (Table 9)
S.N. Jansen
Table 9. Two-Way ANOVA the effect of condition on Multiculturalism as control variables
Df (Error) F p
Condition 2 (72) 3.247 <0.05
Pre-meausrement 1 (72) 314.690 0.00
Birth place parents 2 (72) .051 0.95
Manipulation check 1 (72) .374 0.54
Age Group 1 (72) .447 0.51
Level of Education 1 (72) .002 0.96
In-group identification 1 (72) .447 0.51
Intergroup contact 1 (72) 1.142 0.29
News Frequency 1 (72) .068 0.80
This test revealed that none of the controlling variables were significant. This means that
they did not mediate the main effect of news framing on endorsement of multiculturalism. Thus
endorsement of multiculturalism was only affected by framing F (2, 72) = 3.247, p < 0.05, 2=0.08.
We can state that the effect size shows also a medium effect (Cohen, 1988). The reason for this
result could be mediated by the fact that our group was relatively homogeneous. Most participants
were highly educated, read the news frequently, were of the same age group, and were mostly born
out of native Dutch parents. This is supported by the Chi-square analysis, which revealed that the
controlling variables were equally divided among conditions. Additionally, in-group identification
with the Dutch did not show any significant effect on condition for endorsement of
multiculturalism. This could be caused by the fact that 77% of the participants identified themselves
with the Dutch. Having a relatively homogeneous group makes the chance to find a significant
difference smaller. Finally, intergroup contact was not affected by news framing. Since 97% of the
participants had no contact with Muslims it would be expected that there would be no significant
difference found. However, the correlation in the positive condition showed otherwise, we can
assume that these variables are indicators to affect endorsement of multiculturalism.
S.N. Jansen
Symbolic threat
A Two-Way ANOVA did not show any significant result when analyzing the effect of
condition on symbolic threat F (2, 81) = .462, P = 0.63 (Table 10). This result rejects H6 for
symbolic threat. When taking the control variables into account, no significance was found for
condition either. This means that news framing as well as age, education level and news frequency
had no effect on perceived symbolic threat. However, after controlling for birth place of the parents,
the ANOVA revealed significance towards symbolic threat F (2, 72) = 3.972 p = 0.02, 2=0.10.
This result indicates that birth place of the parents had a strong effect on perception of symbolic
threat. This means that participants with an immigrant parent were exceptionally differently
affected by symbolic threat after being exposed to news framing. Due to the medium correlation
between in-group identification and symbolic threat, we can assume that this could have contributed
to this result.
Table 10. Two-Way ANOVA the effect of condition on symbolic threat as control variables
Df (Error) F p
Condition 2 (72) .636 0.53
Pre-measurement 1 (72) 246.654 0.00
Birth place parents 2 (72) 3.972 0.02
Age Group 1 (72) .253 0.62
Level of Education 1 (72) .377 0.54
Level of identification 1 (72) .016 0.90
Amount of contact 1 (72) .176 0.68
Realistic threat
A two-way ANOVA with the pre-measurement as covariate revealed that realistic threat was
not affected by condition, F (2, 81) = 1.032 P = 0.36. Similar to symbolic threat, no other control
S.N. Jansen
variables affected perceived realistic threat (Table 11). We can, therefore, reject H6 for realistic
threat. However, controlling for birth place of the parents caused a significant effect with a strong
effect size, F (2, 72) = 4.373, p = 0.02, 2=0.11. This also indicates that participants with Dutch
parents perceived realistic threat differently from participants with immigrant parents after being
exposed to news framing.
Table 11. Two-Way ANOVA the effect of condition on Realistic threat as control variables
Df (Error) F p
Condition 2 (72) .632 0.53
Pre-measurement 1 (72) 278.641 .000
Birth place parents 2 (72) 4.373 0.02
Age Group 1 (72) .018 0.89
Level of Education 1 (72) 2.412 0.13
Stereotypes
Testing for the effect of framing on Stereotypes showed no effect F (2, 81) = .606 P = 0.55.
This indicates that H6 cannot be confirmed for stereotypes. Even controlling for our control
variables (Table 12) did not reveal any significance. This means that stereotypes were not affected
by news framing and were not mediated by our control variables. It is remarkable that endorsement
towards Multiculturalism showed significant effect, while stereotypes did not. We can explain this
due to our focus on endorsement of Islamic culture.
S.N. Jansen
Table 12. Two-Way ANOVA the effect of condition on Stereotypes with control variables as co-
variates
Df (Error) F P
Condition 2 (72) .325 0.72
Pre-measurement 1 (72) 44.067 0.00
Birth place parents 2 (72) .240 0.79
Manipulation check 1 (72) 1.699 0.20
Age Group 1 (72) 1.761 0.19
Level of Education 1 (72) 1.494 0.23
News Frequency 1 (72) .014 091
In short, we can state that framing had no effects on perception of symbolic threat, realistic
threat and stereotypes, which rejects H6 for these variables. Symbolic threat, realistic threat and
stereotypes were not affected by news frames, which did not predict prejudices towards Muslims.
However, news framing had effect on endorsement of multiculturalism. Thus, endorsement of
multiculturalism was affected by news framing. When participants were exposed to positive news,
endorsement of multiculturalism would increase and less negative prejudices towards Muslims as
well. The opposite effect was found when participants were exposed to the negative news frame.
We expected a larger effect on endorsement of multiculturalism, since our focus was on Islamic
culture. These results suggest strong direct relation between endorsement of multiculturalism and
prejudices towards Muslims, mediated by news framing. Furthermore, we can state that participants
with Dutch native parents perceived realistic threat and symbolic threat differently after being
framed than participants with immigrant parents. Since intergroup contact and in-group
identification with the Dutch correlated medium to strongly, we can assume that these are indicators
for our different result.
S.N. Jansen
General Discussion
This study sheds some light on the relationship between attitudes towards Muslims in the
Netherlands and the effects of news framing. First, we investigated the relationship between factors
which caused negative prejudices towards Muslims. Earlier research found evidence that attitudes
towards multiculturalism, symbolic threat, realistic threat and stereotypes were correlating factors,
which predicted prejudices towards Muslims (Gonzlez et al. 2008; Stephan & Stephan, 1996). The
relationship between these variables was presented in the structural model by Gonzlez et al.
(2008). However, based on our results and literature research we found that the model of Gonzlez
represented a too limited relationship between the variables. In the line with our literature research,
the results of the baseline condition revealed additional correlations. Therefore, we developed a
more precise model to present the relationships between factors which predict negative prejudices
towards Muslims in the Netherlands.
Adding to the standard model of Gonzlez et al. (2008), we found that intergroup contact not
only affected stereotypes, but also showed a medium correlation with symbolic and realistic threat.
In line with Stephan and Stephan (1996) this means that intergroup contact predicts prejudices
towards Muslims through perceived symbolic and realistic threat. Strangely, the model of Gonzlez
et al. (2008) did not find a relationship between stereotypes and realistic and symbolic threat. Since,
we found a medium to strong relationship we can state that perceived threat over group interests
leading to fear to protect group objectives and causing negative stereotypes.
On the other hand, we found a stronger correlation between perceived symbolic and realistic
threat with endorsement of multiculturalism than with stereotypes. We can explain this by our focus
on endorsement of Islamic culture. Due to our emphasis on Islamic culture in particular than on
cultural diversity in general, endorsement of multiculturalism became a strong direct predictor of
S.N. Jansen
negative prejudices towards Muslims. We can conclude that our model is supported by the
correlations in our study, which rejects the model of Gonzalez et al. (2008).
Main effect
Over the past decade the negative discussion concerning Muslims in politics increased and
was related to the negative discussion in the media. Government research indicated a strong
relationship between politic discussions and news media. National surveys revealed increased
negative prejudices towards Muslims in line with the discussion in the media, which indicated a
relation between negative prejudices and news media. In order to test the effect media has on
negative prejudices towards Muslims, we used a 3 (neutral, negative, positive condition) x2 (pre-
measurement, post-measurement) design. The difference of Fishers-z transformation between the
positive and the baseline condition revealed some significant difference. This result revealed that
intergroup contact and in-group identification are indicators of endorsement of multiculturalism and
perceived symbolic and realistic threat, when exposed to a positive frame.
On the other hand, Fishers-z transformation did not show significant differences between
the baseline condition and the negative condition. Our descriptive results showed that participants in
the baseline condition were slightly more negative than participants in the positive condition. This
indicates that why there was no significant difference found between the negative and the baseline
condition when comparing Fishers-z transformations. In general, individuals are exposed to more
negative news than to positive news and negative news has more effect on attitudes (van Dijk,
2000). In total, 89% of our participants reported to read the news on a daily basis. We controlled
for the effect of perceived news frequency on framing effects and no significant effect was found.
This could be due to the fact that none of the participants reported to not read any news information.
In line with this result and supported by van Dijk (2000) we argue that negative prejudices
towards Muslims was already present in the baseline condition, which causes no significant
S.N. Jansen
difference between the negative and baseline condition. This could also explain the reason why no
full support was found for H7, that negative news would have stronger effect than positive news.
To learn more about the effects of news framing in our experiment, we reconstructed a
realistic news topic concerning Islamic Schools. A Two-Way ANOVA showed a change in
endorsement of multiculturalism. After controlling for age, level of education, news frequency,
birth place of the parents, effect of manipulation in-group identification and intergroup contact, we
can state that none had significant effect on endorsement of multiculturalism. Thus, change of
endorsement of multiculturalism which was exclusively caused by news framing. Due to the
significant difference between the baseline condition and the positive condition we can assume that
the effect of condition was mainly caused by being exposed to the positive news frame. Thus, when
participants were exposed to positive news, endorsement of multiculturalism would increase and
thus less negative prejudices towards Muslims as well. This result was supported by Stephan and
Stephan (1996) and Gonzlez et al. (2008).
The significant effect news media framing has on endorsement of multiculturalism could be
caused due to our high percentage (85%) of high educated participants. Sniderman et al (2003)
proposed that higher educated people were negative towards multiculturalism than lower educated
people. However, Sniderman et al. (2003) stated that this was caused due to their awareness of their
own culture, instead of being affected by negative prejudices towards Muslims. Based on our
findings we reject that higher educated people were not affected by prejudices towards Muslims.
Our results demonstrate that endorsement of multiculturalism was affected by news framing and
predicts prejudices towards Muslims. The fact that we emphasized on the endorsement of Islamic
culture strengthened made endorsement of multiculturalism a stronger predictor of prejudices
towards Muslims.
It is remarkably, that we did not find any results why framing did not affected symbolic
threat, realistic threat and stereotypes. Contrary to our results, strong literature supported that
S.N. Jansen
perceived symbolic and realistic threat and the use of stereotypes is often presented in news media,
which affects prejudices towards Muslims. It suggests that perceived symbolic threat, realistic threat
and stereotypes cannot be affected due to exposure to one news article. It suggests a longer process
of framing in order to find a significant effect. This is supported by the fact that frequency of
reporting issues contributes to affecting prejudices (Nelson et al. 1997; McCombs & Shaw 1972;
McLeod, Becker & Byrnes, 1975).
Our result that birth place of the parents affected perceived symbolic threat and realistic
threat after being exposed to news framing could be explained due to our correlations. The results
of our correlations in the baseline condition showed that in-group identification had relatively
strong correlations with symbolic and realistic threat. It would be likely that participants born out of
Dutch parents perceived already some symbolic and realistic threat. Based on our descriptive results
we can state that 77% of our participants medium to strongly identify themselves with the Dutch
and 78 % were born out of Dutch parents. Identification with the in-group tends to be stronger when
perceived realistic and symbolic threat is strong (Stephan & Renfro, 2002 ; Riek et al., 2006). Since
identification with the Dutch was already relatively strong, we could expect that this had effect
participants who were born out of Dutch parents and therefore differed on perceived realistic and
symbolic threat.
Due to the fact that 97% of the participants had no contact with Muslims the chances of
finding a significant effect on news framing which was mediated by intergroup contact differences
was very slim. However, we did find support that intergroup contact medium correlated with
endorsement of multiculturalism, perceived realistic threat, perceived symbolic threat and
stereotypes. We can therefore state that intergroup contact is an indicator of negative prejudices
towards Muslims
S.N. Jansen
Limitations and future research
There were some limitations to our study, as mentioned before; the frames were not based
on a real newspaper article. However, we believe that the topic Islamic Schools is representative as
an issue for a newspaper article, since a content analysis found that it was frequently discussed in an
important Dutch newspaper and ecologically validated by codebooks of other studies. The effects of
framing underlie a long term process of being exposed to specific storylines. The process of news
framing showed that framing requires making an issue important by frequently outlining the topic.
Therefore, we can state that measuring the effects of one short text in an online survey would reveal
minimal results. It would, however, be interesting to measure the effects of frequently being
exposed to a similar topic. We would expect that this would cause a greater effect.
As discussed before, our group of participants was relatively homogeneous. Therefore, it
was impossible to make compartments between groups, since variables as news frequency,
education level, birth place of the parents and age were relatively constant. Additionally,
participants were mostly high educated and their mean age was 26 years old. In the line of earlier
research, we could expect a small effect including participants with these demographics. Since, low
educated individuals and older people tend to be more prejudiced towards Muslims. Even, selecting
the most critical group of participants, framing had effect on endorsement of multiculturalism. This
indicates that when lower educated and older participants would be included more prejudices
towards Muslims could be found and therefore, larger contrasts between the news frames. Due to
our literature findings that low educated people are more prejudiced (Sniderman et al., 2003), we
expect that future research in this area will reveal the effect of framing for perception of threat and
stereotypes.
Nevertheless, the findings of this study revealed that on endorsement of Islamic culture is
affected trough written news. We applied this issue on attitudes towards Muslims, however, it is
expected that this effect can apply for multiple topics as well. This insight on framing effects could
S.N. Jansen
be helpful to possibly reduce anti-Muslim attitudes, by the help of organizations, politicians,
individuals, where journalists rely their stories on. Multiculturalism could be promoted by
government institutions by paying more attention to immigrants their side of the story. With
supporting evidence from our literature study, we stress the importance of bringing Dutch and
Muslims in contact with each other. We believe that this will result in a more positive attitude
change between the Dutch and Muslims. We hope that this study makes people more aware of
being critical to the news information they perceive.
S.N. Jansen
References
Arends-Tth, J., & Van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2003). Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of
Dutch and Turkish-Dutch. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(2), 249266.
Berry, J. W., & Kalin, R. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the
1991 national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27 (3), 301320.
Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2001). Intergroup and interpersonal threats as determinants of prejudice:
The moderating role of in-group identification. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(3),
191196.
CBS (2012). Begrippen: autochtoon. Retrieved on August, 2nd 2012, from http://www.cbs.nl/nl-
nl/menu/methoden/begrippen/default.htm?conceptid=88
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). New York
Academic Press.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect
and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631648.
Dagevos, J., Gijsberts, M., & van Praag, C. (2003). Rapportage minderheden 2003, onderwijs,
arbeid en sociaal-culturele integratie. Rijswijk: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau.
de Vreese, C.H. (2004). The effects of frames in political television news on issue interpretation
and frame salience. J&MC Quarterly, 81(1), 36-52.
de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal+
Document Design 13(1), 51-62.
de Vreese, C. H., Peter, J., & Semetko, H. A. (2001). Framing politics at the launch of the euro: A
crossnational
de Vreese, C.H., Boomgaarden, H.G. & Semetko, H.A. (2010). (In) direct Framing Effects: The
S.N. Jansen
Effects of News Media Framing on Public Support for Turkish Membership in the
European Union. Communication Research 38(2), 179-205.
Devroe, I. (2007). Gekleurd nieuws? De voorstelling van ethnische minderheden in het nieuws in
Vlaanderen. Universiteit van Gent. Vakgroep Communicatiewetenschappen.
Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign
policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Entzinger, H. (2003). The Rise and Fall of Multiculturalism: The Case of the Netherlands.
In C. Joppke & E. Morawska (Eds.), Toward Assimilation and Citizenship:
Immigration in Liberal Nation-States (pp. 59-86). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Esses, V.M., Dovidio, J.F., Jackson, L.M., & Armstrong, T.L. (2001). The immigration dilemma:
The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of
Social Issues, 57(3), 389-412.
Gaertner, S. L., & McLaughlin, J. P. (1983). Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of
positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46(1), 23-30.
Gonzlez, K.V., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J. & Poppe,E. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the
Netherlands : Testing integrated thread theory. British journal of Social Psychology, 47(4),
667-685.
Fishman, M. (1978). Crime Waves as Ideology. Social Problems, 25(5), 531-543
Greenberg, J., Pysczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S. & Lyon, D.
(1990) Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on
reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 58 (2), 308-318.
Hall, S. (1996). New Ethnicities. In Morley, D. & Chen, K. (Eds.), Stuart Hall. Critical
Dialogues in Cultural Studies (pp. 441-449). London, New York: Routledge.
S.N. Jansen
Ibroscheva, E., & Ramaprasad, J. (2009). Do media matter? A social construction model of
stereotypes of foreigners. Retrieved from
http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr16/ibroscheva.htm
Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety,
perceived out-group variability and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19 (6), 700710.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, J.H, Farrell, W.C & Guinn, C. (1997) Immigration Reform and the Browning of America:
Tensions, Conflicts and Community Instability in Metropolitan Los Angeles. International
Migration Review, 31(4), 1055-1095.
Lubbers, M., Scheepers, P., & Wester, F. (1998). Ethnic minorities in Dutch newspapers 1991-5,
Gazette, 60, 415-431.
McCombs, M. F., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176187
McLeod, J.M., Becker, L.B. & Byrnes, J. E. (1975). "Another Look at the Agenda Setting Function
of the Mass Media." Communication Research, 1, 131-66.
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Rijksoverheid (2011). Integratienota
Integratie, binding, burgerschap. Retrieved from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-
enpublicaties/notas/2011/06/16/integratienota.html
Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2011, juni 17), Waarden Nederlandse
samenleving centraal in integratiebeleid. Rijksoverheid. Retrieved from
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/persberichten/2011/06/16/waarden-
nederlandse-samenleving-centraal-in-integratiebeleid.html
Mullan, B. (1997). Consuming television. Oxford: Blackwell
S.N. Jansen
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
Pettigrew TF. 1997. Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23(2),173-85
Phalet, K. & Ter Wal, J. (2004). Moslim in Nederland (Deelstudie de publieke discussie over de
islam in Nederland: een analyse van artikelen in de Volkskrant 1998-2002. Den Haag:
Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau
Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: the impact of news
frames on readers cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24(5), 481-506
Riek, B. M., Mania, E.W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and out-group attitudes: A
meta analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336353.
RMO. (2003). Medialogica. Over het Krachtenveld Tussen Burgers, Media en Politiek.
Den Haag: SDU Publishers.
ROB. (2003). Politiek en Media, Pleidooi Voor Een Lat-Relatie. Den Haag: ROB.
Schalk-Soekar, S.R.G., van de Vijver, F.J.R. & Hoogsteder, M. (2004). Attitudes toward
multiculturalism of immigrants and majority members in the Netherlands. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(6), 533-550
Scheffer, Paul (2000) Het multiculturele drama; NRC Handelsblad, 29 januari 2000.
Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication. 49(1),
103-122.
Scroggins, D. (2005). The Dutch-Muslim cultural war. Nation, June, 27, 2125.
Shahid, W. (2009). Verwrongen beeld in islamdebat. Openbaar bestuur, September, 14-20
Shahid, W. (2005). Berichtgeving over moslims en de islam in de westerse media: Beeldvorming,
oorzaken en alternatieve strategien. Tijdschift voor Communicatiewetenschap, 33(4), 330-
346.
S.N. Jansen
Sheafer, T. Dvir-Gvirs, S. (2010). The spoiler effect: Framing attitudes and expectations toward
peace. Journal of Peace Research, 47(2), 205-215. DOI 10.1177/0022343309353110
Smith, S. M., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Need for cognition and choice framing effects. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 9, 283-290
Sniderman, P., L. Hagendoorn en M. Prior (2003). De moeizame acceptatie van moslims in
Nederland. In: Mens en Maatschappij (78) 3, p. 199-217.
Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, L. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. Mackie &
E. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social
groups (pp. 265283). New York: Psychology Press.
Stephan, W.G. & Stephan, C.W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 20(3/4), 409-426.
Stephan, C. W., Stephan, W. G., Demitrakis, K. M., Yamada, A. M., & Clason, D. L. (2000).
Womens attitudes toward men: An integrated threat theory approach. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 24 (1), 63-73.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants: An integrated
threat theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 22212237.
Stephan, W.G., Ybarra, O., Martnez Martnez, C., Schwarzwald, J. & Tur-Kaspa (1998). Prejudice
toward immigrants to Spain and Israel an Integrated Threat Theory Analysis. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 559-576.
Tausch, N., Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J., & Cairns, E. (2007). Individual-level and
grouplevel mediators of contact effects in Northern Ireland: The moderating role of social
identification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(3), 541556.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of risk,
Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
S.N. Jansen
University of Texas (2012). Frequency Distributions. Retrieved from
http://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CGYQFjAB
&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.utexas.edu%2Fcourses%2Fschwab%2Fsw388r7_spring_2006
%2FSolvingProblems%2FAssumptionOfNormality_spring2006.ppt&ei=tnIpUPaxFYj64QT
RmoDgDw&usg=AFQjCNFACJx6TjNH_k_LPZLc2y66pVrOiQ
Van Dijk, T.A. (2000). New(s) racism: a discourse analytical approach. In: Cottle, S. (Ed.),
Ethnic minorities and the media (pp. 33-50). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1983). Minderheden in de Media. Een analyse van de berichtgeving over
etnische minderheden in de dagbladpers. Amsterdam: SUA
Van Gorp, B. (2005). Where is the Frame? Victims and Intruders in the Belgian Press
Coverage of the Asylum Issue. European Journal of Communication 20 (4): 484-507.
Van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Bunk, B. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority
members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28(6),
9951013.
Verkuyten, M. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and
majority groups: Testing the multicultural hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88(1), 121138.
Verkuyten, M. (1997). The structure of ethnic attitudes: The effect of target group, region, gender
and national identity. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 123(3), 261
284.
Verkuyten, M., & Zaremba, K. (2005). Interethnic relations in a changing political context. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 68(4), 375386.
Vliegenthart, R. (2007). Framing Immigration and Integration: Facts, Parliament, Media and Anti-
Immigrant Party Support in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit
S.N. Jansen
Ward, C., & Masgoret, A. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes toward immigrants.
International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30(6), 671682.
S.N. Jansen
Appendix I
Codebook Frames
Multiculturalism
1. Does the news item suggest that diversity in the Netherlands is has negative/positive effects
on the Dutch culture (Devroe, 2007, p.191).
2. Does the news item refer to a diverse Dutch culture, with diverse ideas, norms and/or
values? (Devroe, 2007, p.191).
3. Does the story illustrate a negative picture, a negative evaluation of cultural differences,
especially the differences between Dutch and people with Islamic beliefs? (de Vreese et al.,
2010, p.199) (catholic/christian religion vs. Islam, religious customs, such as; five times
praying per day, wearing a headscarf are discussed and compared to the Dutch customs)
(Devroe, 2007, p.191).
4. Does the news item discusses the differences between people with Islamic beliefs and Dutch
concerning social roles? (equal rights, emancipation, rights of women, rights of children,
attitude towards homosexuals compared to the Dutch) (Devroe, 2007, p.174).
Symbolic threat
1. Does the news item suggest that the Dutch cultural life is challenged or under threat due to
people of Islamic beliefs? (de Vreese et al., 2010, p.199)
2. Does the news item refer to a unique Dutch culture, with shared ideas, norms and/or values?
The news item discusses explicit differences between (greetings, social lifestyle, interior
design) (de Vreese et al., 2010, p.199)
3. Does the news item mention that the (present/future) immigrants with Islamic beliefs have
to adapt to Dutch culture and way of life? (de Vreese et al., 2010, p.199)
S.N. Jansen
4. Does the news item mention that immigrants with Islamic beliefs have to learn and speak
the Dutch language? (de Vreese et al., 2010, p.199)
5. Does the news item explicitly discuss the differences between people with Islamic beliefs
and Dutch in clothing style? (wearing a veil, burqa, headscarf compared to the Dutch)
(Devroe, 2007, p.174).
Realistic threat
1. Does the news item mention that people with Islamic believes in the Netherlands pose a
threat to the security situation in the Netherlands? (de Vreese et al., 2010, p.199)
2. Does the news item mention that people with Islamic believes contribute to problems related
to crime in the Netherlands? (de Vreese et al., 2010, p.199)
threat to housing in the Netherlands? (Devroe, 2007, p.191).
threat educational development in the Netherlands. (Devroe, 2007, p.191).
5. Does the news item mention that people with Islamic believes increase the likelihood of
foreigners living in the Netherlands are involved in terrorist activity? (de Vreese et al., 2010,
p.199)
6. Does the news item mention that people with Islamic believes tent to be religiously
fundamentalist? (de Vreese et al., 2010, p.199)
7.
8. Does the news item mention that having people with Islamic believes in the Netherlands
brings terrorism closer to the Dutch citizens? (de Vreese et al., 2010, p.199)
Stereotypes (Nelson et al.1997)
1. Does the news item pose a good or bad image of the Muslim
S.N. Jansen
2. Does the news item pose an unreliable/ reliable image of Muslims
3. Does the news item pose a dishonest/honest image of Muslims
4. Does the news item suggest that Muslims are violence/unviolence
5. Does the news item pose an unfriendly/friendly image of Muslims
6. Does the news item pose an unintelligent/intelligent image of Muslims
7. Does the news item pose an inferior/ superior image of Muslims
S.N. Jansen
Appendix II
Stimuli
Negative frame
De discussie over islamitische scholen is al enkele jaren onderwerp van debat. De opkomst
van de islamitische scholen ging gepaard met de vestiging van Turkse en Marokkaanse
immigranten. Door de toeneming van het aantal islamieten in Nederland groeit het aantal
islamitische scholen. Er vindt uitbreiding plaats naar islamitische middelbare scholen en hoger
onderwijs.
De groei van islamitische scholen in Nederland leidt tot ontbinding van Nederlands
belangrijkste kernwaarden: vrijheid, verantwoordelijkheid en gelijkwaardigheid, doordat het
onderwijs uitgaat van de heilige bronnen van de Islam: de Koran en Soenna. Moslims zijn nog
steeds laag vertegenwoordigd in het hoger onderwijs. Dit leidt tot achterstand in de ontwikkeling en
zorgt dat Moslims minder goed kunnen integreren in de Nederlandse cultuur. Daarnaast ontstaat er
onbegrip tussen Nederlanders en Moslims door het hebben van islamitische scholen in Nederland.
De verwachting is dan ook dat de islamitische normen en waarden een steeds grotere invloed zullen
hebben op de Nederlandse samenleving. De dreiging van fundamentalistische kernwaarden, waar
veel over gesproken wordt, zal hiermee ook toenemen. Het hebben van een diverse samenleving,
waarbij mensen met een hoofddoekje geaccepteerd worden is niet langer een teken van een
tolerante maatschappij, waar Nederland zo trots op is, maar reflecteert naar de invloed van de Islam.
Positive frame
De discussie over islamitische scholen is al enkele jaren onderwerp van debat. De opkomst
van de Islamitische scholen ging gepaard met de vestiging van Turkse en Marokkaanse
S.N. Jansen
immigranten. Door de toeneming van het aantal islamieten in Nederland groeit het aantal
islamitische scholen. Er vindt uitbreiding plaats naar islamitische middelbare scholen en hoger
onderwijs.
De groei van islamitische scholen in Nederland leidt tot versterking van Nederlands
belangrijkste kernwaarden: vrijheid, verantwoordelijkheid en gelijkwaardigheid, doordat dit ook
belangrijke waarden zijn in de heilige bronnen van de Islam: de Koran en Soenna.
Op islamitische basisscholen wordt gewerkt met dezelfde lesprogrammas als op alle andere
Nederlandse scholen, alleen worden deze uitgebreid met vakken over de Islam, dit zorgt voor een
brede opleiding. Moslims zijn daardoor steeds breder vertegenwoordigd in het hoger onderwijs. Dit
leidt tot diversiteit in de samenleving en zorgt dat Moslims beter kunnen integreren in de
Nederlandse cultuur. Het volgen van lessen aan een islamitische school zorgt ervoor dat het gevoel
van eigenwaarde groeit bij islamieten. Daarnaast ontstaat er begrip tussen Nederlanders en Moslims
door het hebben van islamitische scholen in Nederland. De verwachting is dan ook dat de
islamitische normen en waarden een steeds grotere invloed zal hebben op de Nederlandse
samenleving, wat leidt tot multiculturele leefomgeving. Het hebben van een diverse samenleving,
waarbij mensen met een hoofddoekje geaccepteerd worden is een teken van een tolerante
maatschappij, waar Nederland zo trots op is.
Neutral frame
Islamitisch onderwijs valt in Nederland onder het bijzonder onderwijs. De leerlingen op een
islamitische school krijgen naast standaard onderwijs als taal en rekenen, onderwijs dat aansluit bij
de Islam. De islamitische scholen laten zich leiden door de heilige bronnen van de Islam: de Koran
en Soenna. In het onderwijs worden de Soenna en de Koran toegankelijk gemaakt voor de
leerlingen en worden ze ingeleid in de islamitische geloofstraditie. Het islamitisch onderwijs wordt,
net als al het onderwijs, gefinancierd door de centrale overheid. Nederland telde in 2008, 43
S.N. Jansen
islamitische basisscholen en twee islamitische scholen voor voortgezet onderwijs. Daarnaast
bestaan er ook 5 Islamitische scholen voor hoger of universitair onderwijs.
Op islamitische basisscholen wordt net als op alle andere Nederlandse scholen gewerkt met vaste
lesprogramma's en leer- en kerndoelen. Vakken waarvoor kerndoelen vanuit de overheid gelden
zijn: Nederlandse taal, Engels, rekenen, aardrijkskunde, geschiedenis, natuuronderwijs, techniek,
kunstzinnige orintatie en gymnastiek. Hiervoor wordt gebruikgemaakt van Nederlandse
onderwijsmethodes en worden alle lessen in het Nederlands verzorgd.
S.N. Jansen
Appendix III
Distribution
S.N. Jansen
S.N. Jansen
Appendix IV
Codebook survey
Vraagcode Vraag Antwoordcategorie Variabelenaam Label Indien
in SPSS-savfile omgep
ooled
M Multiculturalism 5 puntsschaal
M1/M10A Nederlanders moeten Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre1/ Nederland X
erkennen dat de Nederlandse eens- Helemaal mee Mult_post1 ers,
samenleving bestaat uit eens positief
groepen met verschillende
culturele achtergronden
M10/M5A Een samenleving die een Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre2/Mult Samenlevi
verscheidenheid aan culturele eens- Helemaal mee _post2 ng,
groepen heeft, heeft meer eens negatief
problemen met nationale
eenheid dan samenlevingen
met een of twee culturele
groepen
M6/ M1A Als Moslims hun eigen Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre3/Mult Moslims,
culturele afkomst willen eens- Helemaal mee _post3 negatief
behouden moeten zij dit voor eens
zichzelf houden.
S.N. Jansen
M2/M6A Een samenleving die een Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre4/Mult Samenlevi
verscheidenheid aan culturele eens- Helemaal mee _post4 ng,negatie
groepen heeft, is beter in staat eens f
om nieuwe problemen aan te
pakken.
M3/M7A Allochtone ouders moeten Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre5/Mult Moslims X
hun kinderen aanmoedigen eens- Helemaal mee _post5 positief
om hun cultuur en tradities eens
van hun vaderland te
behouden.
M8/M3A Het is het beste voor Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre6/Mult Nederland
Nederland als alle mensen eens- Helemaal mee _post6 ers
hun verschillende culturele eens negatief
achtergrond zo snel mogelijk
vergeten.
M7/M2A Moslims moeten worden Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre7/Mult Moslims X
geholpen om hun cultureel eens- Helemaal mee _post7 positief
erfgoed te behouden In eens
Nederland.
M9/M4A De eenheid van dit land wordt Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre8/Mult Moslims
verzwakt doordat mensen van eens- Helemaal mee _post8 negatief
verschillende culturen zich eens
vast te houden aan hun oude
leefwijze.
M4/M8A Mensen die komen wonen in Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre9/Mult Nederland
S.N. Jansen
Nederland zouden hun gedrag eens- Helemaal mee _post9 ers
moeten aanpassen aan de eens negatief
Nederlanders.
M5/M9A Nederlanders moeten meer Helemaal niet mee Mult_pre10/Mu Nederland X
doen om te leren over de eens- Helemaal mee lt_post10 ers
gewoonten en gebruiken van eens positief
verschillende culturele
groepen in dit land
Stereotype (Q1) (Q1A)
Geef aan in hoeverre de
onderstaande kenmerken
Moslims in Nederland
beschrijven
Q1/q7 Slecht-goed Stereotype_pre1 X
/ Stereotype
_post1
Q2/q2 Oneerlijk-eerlijk Stereotype_pre2 X
/ Stereotype
_post2
Q3/q4 Onbetrouwbaar-betrouwbaar Stereotype_pre3 X
/ Stereotype
_post3
Q4/q5 Onvriendelijke- vriendelijk Stereotype_pre4 X
/ Stereotype
_post4
S.N. Jansen
Q5/q3 Onintelligent-intelligent Stereotype_pre5 X
/ Stereotype
_post5
Q6/q6 Ondergeschikt- superieur Stereotype_pre6 X
/ Stereotype
_post6
Q8/q1 Gewelddadig-geweldloos Stereotype_pre7 X
/ Stereotype
_post7
Intergroup contact 4 puntsschaal SPSS Label Indien
omgep
oold X
I1 Hoeveel Moslim vrienden Geen- Alleen Intergroup1
heeft u? Moslim vrienden
I2 Heeft u veel contact met Nooit- Veel Intergroup2
Moslims op uw werk/studie
I3 Heeft u contact met Moslims Nooit- Veel Intergroup3
in uw buurt
I4 Heeft u ergens anders contact Nooit- Veel Intergroup4
S.N. Jansen
met Moslims (bijvoorbeeld in
sportclubs)?
In-group identificatie 5 puntsschaal SPSS Label Indien
omgep
oold X
G1 Mijn Nederlandse identiteit is Helemaal niet mee Identification2
een belangrijk deel van wie ik eens- Helemaal mee
ben. eens
G2 Mijn Nederlandse identiteit is Helemaal niet mee Identification4
een zeer belangrijk onderdeel eens- Helemaal mee
van hoe ik mezelf zie eens
G3 Over het algemeen is het Helemaal niet mee Identification1
behoren tot een groep in de eens- Helemaal mee
samenleving een belangrijk eens
onderdeel van mijn zelfbeeld
G4 Over het algemeen heeft mijn Helemaal niet mee Identification3 X
groepsdeelname zeer weinig eens- Helemaal mee
te maken met hoe ik me voel eens
over mezelf.
Realistic threat 5 puntsschaal SPSS Label Indien
omgep
oold X
S.N. Jansen
R2/R2A Moslims verhogen de Helemaal niet mee Realistic_pre1/ negatief
hoeveelheid criminaliteit in eens- Helemaal mee Realistic_post1
Nederland. eens
R4/R4A Moslims vormen een gevaar Helemaal niet mee Realistic_pre2/ negatief
voor de gezondheid van de eens- Helemaal mee Realistic_post2
Nederlander. eens
R3/R3A Moslims nemen banen van Helemaal niet mee Realistic_pre3/ negatief
Nederlanders in. eens- Helemaal mee Realistic_post3
eens
R1/R1A Moslims zouden geen sociale Helemaal niet mee Realistic_pre4/ negatief
bijstand moeten ontvangen eens- Helemaal mee Realistic_post4
dat bestemd is voor eens
Nederlanders.
Symbolic threat 5 puntsschaal SPSS Label Indien
omgep
oold X
(S1) De Nederlandse identiteit Helemaal niet mee Symbolic_pre1/ negatief
(S1A) wordt bedreigd doordat er eens- Helemaal mee Symbolic_post1
teveel Moslims zijn eens
(S2) Nederlandse normen en Helemaal niet mee Symbolic_pre2/ negatief
(S2A) waarden worden bedreigd eens- Helemaal mee Symbolic_post2
door de aanwezigheid van eens
Moslims
(S4) Onze manier van leven wordt Helemaal niet mee Symbolic_pre3/ positief X
(S4A) niet gewijzigd door de eens- Helemaal mee Symbolic_post3
S.N. Jansen
integratie van Moslims in eens
Nederland
(S3)(S3 Moslims zijn bedreigend voor Helemaal niet mee Symbolic_pre4 negatief
A) de Nederlandse cultuur eens- Helemaal mee Symbolic_post4
eens
Distractor pre-test
Nederlanders moeten Helemaal niet mee
erkennen dat culturele eens- Helemaal mee
groepen hun eigen scholen eens
mogen ontwikkelen (F1)
(F2) Het hebben van islamitische Helemaal niet mee
scholen zorgt voor een betere eens- Helemaal mee
integratie eens
(F3) Islamitische scholen dragen Helemaal niet mee
bij aan de identiteit van eens- Helemaal mee
Nederland eens
(F9A) Islamitisch onderwijs draagt Helemaal niet mee
bij aan een multiculturele eens- Helemaal mee
samenleving eens
bij aan de eigenwaarde van eens- Helemaal mee
Moslims doordat ze hun eens
tradities en cultuur behouden
(F5) Islamitische scholen Helemaal niet mee
S.N. Jansen
benvloeden de Nederlandse eens- Helemaal mee
normen en waarden eens
(F6) Islamitisch onderwijs draagt Helemaal niet mee
bij aan een betere integratie eens- Helemaal mee
eens
(F7) Als ik kinderen heb dan zou Helemaal niet mee
ik deze op een islamitische eens- Helemaal mee
school plaatsen eens
eraan bij om Nederlander te eens- Helemaal mee
worden eens
Distractor post-test
(F8A) Islamitisch onderwijs zorgt Helemaal niet mee
ervoor dat Moslims mee eens- Helemaal mee
kunnen komen in de eens
Nederlandse maatschappij
(F1A) Islamitisch onderwijs zorgt Helemaal niet mee
ervoor dat Moslims hun eens- Helemaal mee
cultuur en tradities binnen de eens
eigen kring houden
(F6A) Islamitische scholen dragen Helemaal niet mee
bij aan een onveilige eens- Helemaal mee
omgeving eens
(F13A) Geef aan in hoeverre
S.N. Jansen
onderstaande kenmerken
islamitische scholen
beschrijven
(F13A) Negatief-positief
(F13A) Onbelangrijk belangrijk
(F13A) Niet nuttig-nuttig
(F13A) Bedreigend-niet bedreigend
(F2A) Islamitisch onderwijs draagt Helemaal niet mee
bij aan tolerantie binnen eens- Helemaal mee
Nederland eens
(F7A) Islamitische scholen zorgen Helemaal niet mee
voor scheiding tussen eens- Helemaal mee
Nederlanders en Moslims eens
(F3A) Met behulp van islamitische Helemaal niet mee
scholen zijn eens- Helemaal mee
integratiecursussen niet nodig eens
(F10A Islamitisch onderwijs moet Helemaal niet mee
alleen buiten de school eens- Helemaal mee
worden aangeboden) eens
(F4A) Islamitische scholen dragen Helemaal niet mee
eraan bij dat Moslims hun eens- Helemaal mee
oude leefwijze los laten eens
(F11A) Islamitisch onderwijs is gelijk Helemaal niet mee
aan ander religieus onderwijs eens- Helemaal mee
eens
S.N. Jansen
(F12A) Islamitische scholen bieden Helemaal niet mee
kwalitatief beter onderwijs eens- Helemaal mee
eens
Islamitische scholen Helemaal niet mee
beoordeel ik: zeer negatief- eens- Helemaal mee
zeer positief eens
S.N. Jansen

Shanook - Jansen - The Effect of News Framing On Prejudices Towards Muslims

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Shanook - Jansen - The Effect of News Framing On Prejudices Towards Muslims

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: THE EFFECT OF NEWS FRAMING ON PREJUDICES TOWARDS MUSLIMS IN THE

The Effect of News Framing on Prejudices Towards Muslims in the Netherlands

Shanook Nomi Jansen

Tilburg University, Tilburg

Master thesis, 714732

Communicatie en Informatie Wetenschappen

Supervisor: dr. A. el. Aissati

Second Supervisor: dr. M. J.W. Stokmans

Correspondence concerning this thesis should be addressed to Shanook Jansen, Department

Tilburg. Contact: s.n.jansen@tilburguniversity.edu

Theoretical Framework Negative Prejudices ..................................................................................... 10

Endorsement of Multiculturalism ................................................................................................... 11

Realistic threat ................................................................................................................................ 13

Symbolic threats ............................................................................................................................. 14

Intergroup anxiety .......................................................................................................................... 15

Demographic factors contributing to negative attitude towards immigrants ................................. 17

Theoretical Framework media effect on negative prejudices towards Muslims ............................... 19

News framing ................................................................................................................................. 19

The process of frame building ........................................................................................................ 20

Frame setting and the effect of frames on individuals ................................................................... 20

Simplification and Stigmatization of Islam in Western media....................................................... 23

Lack of reporting minority views in the media .............................................................................. 24

The effect of negative news framing .............................................................................................. 25

Framing journalists ......................................................................................................................... 26

Selecting the news frame ................................................................................................................ 26

The independent variable: news frames ......................................................................................... 28

Evaluation test of the frames .......................................................................................................... 29

Participants main study .................................................................................................................. 31

Dependent variables, measuring prejudices towards Muslims ...................................................... 32

Main effect of framing ....................................................................................................................... 42

Endorsement of Multiculturalism ................................................................................................... 42

Realistic threat ................................................................................................................................ 44

General Discussion ............................................................................................................................ 47

Main effect ..................................................................................................................................... 48

Limitations and future research ...................................................................................................... 51

Codebook Frames ........................................................................................................................... 60

Appendix III ....................................................................................................................................... 66

Codebook survey ............................................................................................................................ 68

positive condition) x2 (pre-measurement, post-measurement) between subjects design. Therefore,

positive in the Netherlands.

Keywords: news framing; social behavior; prejudices; Muslims in the Netherlands.

Netherlands. Journalist, Deborah Scroggins spoke of a Dutch-Muslim cultural war (Scroggins,

concerning Muslims in the Netherlands (Entzinger, 2003).

September 11 by a Muslim fundamentalist organization increased the negative discussions

Islam increased (Entzinger 2003).

Phalet, 2004; Lubbers, Scheepers & Wester, 1998).

makers and the Dutch government.

of this master thesis research attempts to answer is:

Theoretical Framework Negative Prejudices

that endorsement of multiculturalism, stereotyping, perceived symbolic threat (cultural threat),

Model 1. The structural model Gonzlez et al. (2008, p.676)

themselves (Berry & Kalin, 1995).

However, endorsement of multiculturalism would directly reduce negative prejudices, which

is explained by the Multicultural Hypothesis. This hypothesist proposes that endorsement of

between endorsement of multiculturalism and negative prejudices was confirmed by Verkuyten

the attitude towards the Turkish-Dutch minorities were less negative.

H1: Endorsement of multiculturalism directly predicts attitudes towards Muslims and

Stereotyping is an oversimplified mental believe, opinion or concept about groups of people,

in the next section.

indirectly mediated by realistic threat and symbolic threat.

than realistic threat (Tausch et al., 2007)

(Johnson, Farrel & Gunn, 1997).

when the perceived threat is higher.