Frame Switching and the Flag:

The Effects of Patriotic Images in the Mass Media

After the Election of Barack Obama

Paper Prepared for the American Political Science Association Meeting, Toronto,
September 2009

Laura Roselle & Brooke Barnett

Elon University

Draft: Please do not cite without permission

Abstract
Patriotic images such as the American flag have had a prominent place in news coverage
in the United States particularly since the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Previous research
suggests that patriotic images do not affect how viewers perceive journalistic norms
(Barnett and Roselle, 2008). However, our research conducted in 2007 suggested that
subgroups within the population respond differently to these patriotic images; liberals and
Democrats exposed to patriotic images, for example, were less likely to fear future
terrorist attacks than conservatives and Republicans who also saw these same images.
One plausible explanation is related to frame switching – or the activation of particular
frames associated with symbolic icons. Because the flag had come to be associated with
the Bush Administration’s War on Terror, perhaps Democrats and Liberals who viewed
news stories with the US flag were primed to be less fearful. This logic suggests that this
finding would no longer hold after the election of Barack Obama. The current research
analyzes the use of patriotic images (the American flag) in summer 2009. The study uses
an experimental model to test again whether or not patriotic images in news stories affect
the degree to which they consider the news objective, fair, and balanced. Results are
consistent with our 2008 findings. In addition, the frame switching explanation is
partially supported as now Conservatives who see the patriotic version of news stories are
more inclusive or egalitarian in some limited areas. This study serves as a probe for a
future large-n study.

Introduction

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the

United States. He gave his inaugural address in front of 5 magisterial American flags;

one modern 50-star flag, two 21-star flags symbolizing Obama’s home state of Illinois

(the 21st state) and two 13-star ‘Betsy Ross’ flags. The tremendous crowd that assembled

to celebrate this inauguration waved American flags proudly in spite of the cold day in
Washington, DC. Yet, only 15 months before presidential candidate Barack Obama had

refused to wear a small American-flag pin, declaring that "Shortly after 9/11, particularly

because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true

patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security,

I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest”

(Wright and Miller, 2008, http://abcnews.go.com/politics/story?id=3690000). In just

more than a year, some would claim that the American flag became a symbol that

Democrats and Liberals would be proud to wear and wave again (Egan, 2009,

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/capture-the-flag/?emc=eta1). It was no longer

solely associated with Republicans or the Bush Administration’s War on Terrorism.

Research done in 2007 before the 2008 presidential election (Barnett & Roselle,

2008) suggested that, for the most part, American flag images including anchor flag pins

and patriotic graphics during television news stories did not affect how viewers perceived

the objectivity, fairness, or newsworthiness of the stories. Flag graphics, however, did

affect how afraid Democrats and Liberals claimed to be of a future terrorist attack.

Among Democrats and Liberals, those who saw experimental news stories with patriotic

images were significantly less likely to be afraid of a future terrorist attack. The current

research is meant to follow-up on these previous findings and to see if and how flag

imagery affects viewers in a post-electoral context. Our working conceptual framework

focuses on frame switching and suggests that the effects of flag imagery in news stories

are complicated and contextual.

Literature and Hypotheses

The importance of political symbols is not lost on most people associated with

electoral politics and governance. Candidates use carefully crafted visuals during

campaigns and elected officials often construct or use images that will help to legitimize

their policies, thus making the visual political symbols ways to reinforce the desired

political image. Certain images may be specifically poised to prime audiences in

particularly important ways, and one of these images is the national flag (Ferguson,

Carter, and Hassin, 2009).

More assumptions about the effect of patriotic images, including the flag, have

been made in the scholarly literature than empirical analyses of responses to these

images. Yet, in recent years there has been a growing interest in the effects of flag

imagery on US citizens, especially in the aftermath of 9/11. Observers have suggested

that the American flag can affect perceptions of journalistic norms (Barton & Campbell,

2001), levels of fear (Barnett & Roselle, 2008), and activation of American nationalist

ideology or nationalism (Ferguson, Carter, and Hassin, 2009; Kemmelmeier and Winter,

2008; Butz, Plant, and Doerr, 2007). As Ferguson, Carter, and Hassin (2009) note,

“whereas people might consciously behave in line with their explicitly avowed political

ideologies and values, they may also be unintentionally and nonconsciously moved by

subtle political and ideological clues in their environment”(54). The US flag is one

image that may have unconscious effects on viewers (Billig, 1995).

The US Flag and Journalistic Norms

A study conducted in 2007 by the authors (Barnett & Roselle, 2008) was

particularly interested in testing whether patriotic images affected audience perceptions

of journalistic norms. Especially in light of the pervasive use of American flag imagery

in US news media in the post-9/11 context, it seemed important to investigate audience

perceptions of these images. We were interested in whether or not viewers would judge

news stories to be more or less in accord with traditional journalistic standards of

objectivity, fairness, and balance. As hypothesized, patriotic images did not seem to

affect the degree to which viewers reported the news story to be more or less fair,

newsworthy, biased, important, or balanced. So, first, the current research attempted to

replicate those results in a new political climate after a party change in the Presidency.

H1: Patriotic images will not affect perceptions of how objective, fair, or newsworthy

the news stories are.

The US Flag and US Values or Identity

Even as the previous research suggests that patriotic imagery within news stories

does not affect perceptions of journalistic norms, (and in fact in most cases the audience

does not even consciously recognize the imagery itself), there is evidence that patriotic

imagery can prime viewers in other ways. Past research suggests that patriotic images and

symbols can be important to building political support and ideological affinity. Before

the election of Barack Obama, our research showed that Democrats and Liberals exposed

to patriotic imagery reported being significantly less afraid of future terrorist attacks than

those who did not see the news stories that included patriotic images (Barnett & Roselle,

2008). The current study attempted to see if this relationship was still evident after the

election of Barack Obama.

This brings us to a more substantive consideration of what exactly is linked to

patriotic images. Research in this area suggests a number of possibilities. One of the
interesting areas of scholarly inquiry related to patriotic, and particularly flag imagery, is

research that suggests that exposure to flag imagery heightens nationalism or nationalist

ideology (Thorisdottir, Jost, and Kay, 2009, 12). Of course the central issue here is what

constitutes nationalist ideology. Ferguson, Carter, and Hassin (2009) associate three

constructs - power, materialism, and aggression - with American nationalist ideology.

They find that for one group of viewers - news-watchers - flag cues lead to more support

for power and materialism and more evidence of aggressive judgment and behavior (71).

Kemmelmeier and Winter (2008) argue that “American self-image” is made up of

nationalist superiority, at least in part. They distinguish between patriotism, or love of

country, and nationalism, or a sense of superiority over others, and find that the American

flag increased American nationalism and did not increase American patriotism.

Responses designed to assess patriotism included the degree to which participants were

proud to be an American. Responses chosen to understand nationalism included those

that assessed the US as a leader in the world and the degree to which US interests should

be pursued without consideration of the costs to other international state, for example.

A different group of scholars have argued that US identity is bound up with

another set of values. For example, some scholars suggest that egalitarianism is central to

American identity (Butz, Plant & Doerr, 2007; Devos & Banaji, 2005). Devos and

Banaji (2005, 448) argue that “[a]llegiance to universalistic values, especially equality,

appears to be the most important feature defining what it means to be American.” Butz,

Plant & Doerr argue that the flag is associated with being American and hence egalitarian

and less aggressive values. These scholars claim that “[b]ecause highly nationalistic

people tend to be more hostile toward outgroups but also are strongly identified with their
nation, exposure to national symbols that promote tolerance and egalitarianism may have

a particularly strong impact on the highly nationalistic”(Butz, Plant & Doerr, 398).

Most of the work in this area to date has assumed that the meaning of the US flag

is relatively static, that is that these relationships will hold over time and in different

contexts. However, Kemmelmeier and Winter (2008), in their concluding remarks

reviewing recent research, suggest that “an emerging literature on the exposure to the

U.S. flag suggests that for different people the flag may simultaneously activate very

different associative networks” (873).

Frame Switching

Our previous research showed that Democrats and Liberals who saw patriotic

news stories (in 2007) were less likely than those who saw a neutral version to be afraid

of a future terrorist attack. One plausible explanation for this involves a more dynamic

understanding of the meaning of the flag. Here we relate this to the concept of frame

switching discussed by Hong, Morris, Chiu and Benet-Martinez (2000). Hong, et. al.

argue that individuals can have, and switch between or among, multiple interpretive

frames and that these frames can be activated by particular symbols. In their experiments

they showed that Chinese-American bicultural individuals would switch interpretive

frames when certain cultural icons were introduced. One of the US icons was the US

flag. The authors primed different groups with different cultural icons and then asked

questions of the participants to assess “differences in the attributional weight accorded to

the dispositions of individuals versus groups” (713). Those who were primed with the

Chinese cultural icons were more likely to give weight to external or group social

pressure to explain behavior under question, while those primed by the American cultural
icons were more likely to give weight to internal or individual pressure. We argue that,

in studying the effects of patriotic images in news stories, it may be fruitful to look at flag

imagery as activating the political frames associated with the President’s national security

objectives and policies. This seems plausible due to the fact that news stories often

contain reporting about the political leadership (Iyengar and McGrady, 2007; Smoller,

1990; Berry, 1990; Lewis and Rose, 2002; Mauer, 1999). This could explain our finding

about Democrats and Liberals in 2007. Flag imagery could have activated associations

related to the war on terror and protection of the US population from terrorism specific to

the timeframe that the study was in the field.

Especially in the case of the change from President Bush to President Obama, we

argue that the flag should be associated with a differently weighted set of “American”

characteristics or values. Under President Bush, the flag was used by the Administration

to support that the war on terror provided clear protection from terrorism. Under Barack

Obama, we argue that the flag has come to represent a differently weighted set of US

values, including a more inclusive or egalitarian emphasis on foreign policy. If our logic

about frame switching is plausible, we would not expect to see the same results as found

in our 2008 study among Democrats and Liberals, and we would expect changes in how

Republicans and Conservatives perceived issues related to inclusion and foreign policy

after viewing news stories with flag imagery.

H2: Democrats and Liberals who are exposed to the flag imagery in news stories will

be no more likely than others to fear future terrorist attacks.

H3: Republicans and Conservatives who are exposed to the flag imagery in news

stories will be more likely to report inclusive or egalitarian views than Republicans and

Conservatives who viewed the neutral news stories.

Finally, previous studies have suggested that gender can affect public opinion on

national security in the United States (Holsti, 1997). Some studies suggest that men are

more nationalistic and/or aggressive in their views of national security (Goldstein, 1997,

329-330; see also Tickner, 2002 for an additional nuanced discussion). In accordance

with the logic of frame switching, we would expect that men who viewed the flag image

in the news would express more egalitarian preferences than those who watched the

neutral version in summer 2009 under President Barack Obama.

H4: Exposure to US flag images within news stories will be associated with

men expressing more egalitarian concepts.

Design

Rather than assessing individual expressions of patriotism, nationalism, or

egalitarianism, as previous scholars have done, we are interested in analyzing how

viewers of patriotic television news stories assess: 1) journalistic norms of balance,

fairness, objectivity, etc. and 2) US foreign policy and national security. To test viewer

perceptions after watching patriotic news stories, two newscasts, one patriotic and one

neutral, were created for the experiment. In this study, we focused on the use of the

American flag. Each newscast contained three identical news stories. Two scholars with

professional expertise in television wrote the script of the news stories adapted from

current news. The three segments were approximately 30 seconds long each and were
recorded by an advanced communications student who has had experience interning in a

local news station. To ensure the same anchor intonation and mannerisms, the same

recording was used for both patriotic and neutral versions and digitally manipulated by

the researchers to include the American flag in the second story.

The first news story covered the real estate market in the weak US economy. The

second story concerned the war in Afghanistan and covered fatalities of both Afghanis

and Americans. In the neutral version, a map of Afghanistan was positioned in a box

above the anchor’s left shoulder. In the patriotic version, an American flag was placed in

the box instead of the map. The third story concerned interrogation of prisoners by the

Bush administration and the Obama administration’s decision not to prosecute CIA

officials.

The study was conducted with 97 participants divided between college

undergraduates between the ages of 18 and 22 (n=59, 61%) and older adults (n= 38,

39%). Fifty-four percent were men and 46% were women. Caucasians made up 76%

(n=74) of the sample and African-Americans made up 16% (n=15). The participants

identified themselves as Democrats (56%), Republicans (21%), or Independents (14%).

We also asked them to rate themselves as liberal or conservative, and the sample included

61% self-identified liberals (1-5) and 39% conservatives (6-10). In this sample, 55% felt

the media to be liberal (1-5 on a 10-point scale), and 45% said the media were

conservative (6-10 on a 10-point scale). It is important to note that the sample was

skewed toward liberals and those with a high school diploma or higher, but the two

samples were not statistically different (see below). Participants reported their primary

source of news to be television (37%), the internet (33%), newspapers (15%), other
(10%), and friends (5%). News channels preferred were CNN (38%), local news (26%),

no TV news (15%), Fox (10%), other (8%), and MSNBC (3%).

The participants were placed into two different groups through a random

assignment. Analysis shows that the groups were not significantly different in

demographic characteristics, media usage and political affiliation. After the random

assignment to a group, approximately half of the sample watched and answered questions

about the patriotic newscast while the other half viewed the neutral broadcast. After each

30-second segment the tape was paused and the participants answered questions

regarding the bias, objectivity and fairness of the segment and two questions about the

anchor (see Appendix for questionnaire). These questions asked respondents to use a 10-

point scale to assess characteristics of news story and anchor. At the end of the three

segments, memory questions were posed about information presented in the broadcast.

The viewers were also asked open-ended questions about the anchor as well as the

graphics used in the newscast they saw in order to determine if viewers consciously

noticed the patriotic imagery. Demographic and political affiliation questions were

asked, including perception of media bias and frequency of news viewership.

Finally, viewers answered questions about 1) the effectiveness of the federal

government in fighting terrorism; 2) fear of future terrorist attacks; 3) factors that could

be perceived to enhance national security; and 4) willingness to fight or use military

force. (see Appendix A for coding instrument)

These questions were developed from polling questions used by Public Agenda

and the Pew Center. The polling questions addressed both the conventional wisdom

found in media reports and scholarly studies that suggest that there are two often
competing worldviews or perspectives on American identity and national security. One

worldview presents the world as competitive and zero-sum, and identifies American

national security goals as maximizing American interests even if this is done at the

expense of others. A second worldview sees the world as cooperative and American

security being bound up in the interests of other states. These worldviews are associated

with political self-identification and political leaders. An April 2009 Pew survey showed

a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats in a number of areas. For

example, 75% of Republicans agreed that the best way to ensure peace is through

military strength compared to 43% of Democrats agreeing with the same statement

(http://people-press.org/report/517/political-values-and-core-attitudes). The Pew survey

also showed that 68% of Republicans agreed that a person should fight for this country

right or wrong. “Only about half of independents (52%) and Democrats (47%) agree that

one has an obligation to fight even when the country is wrong” (http://people-

press.org/report/?pageid=1521). Nine different questions related to national security that

addressed a broad distinction between the two worldviews were used so that there would

be a range of possible ways to examine how flag imagery might prime views. A full list

of the questions used can be found in the appendix.

Results

Hypotheses 1 and 2

Based on our previous research, we expected that those who watched the patriotic

version of the news story would not perceive those stories to be less fair, newsworthy,

biased, accurate, important, or balanced (H1). This hypothesis was again supported.

Overall there was no statistically significant difference in how participants viewed the
news stories in terms of journalistic norms. This replicates the results from the 2007

sample. There was one exception to this result as Democrats and Liberals who watched

the Afghan War story (in which the flag was embedded) were less likely to rate the story

as balanced and reported that it made them feel less confident than Democrats and

Liberals who saw the neutral version. A similar result was found in the earlier study

among those who viewed the patriotic version of the news story on terrorism. One

explanation for this is that Democrats and Liberals have a particularly strong likelihood

to be wary of flag imagery when it is associated with conflict or war. This requires much

further study, however.

We expected that the flag imagery would not affect how fearful Democrats and

Liberals were of a future terrorist attack after the 2008 election of Barack Obama (H2)

and this hypothesis was supported. There was no significant difference in the levels of

fear of future terrorist attacks reported by Democrats and Liberals who saw the patriotic

and neutral news in the 2009 sample.

Table 1
Fear of Future Terrorist Attack – Democrats and Liberals Across Versions

How afraid are you of a future terrorist attack happening in the United States?
Not at all afraid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Afraid

Version Mean t value Significance

Dems Neutral 4.12 -0.675 .502

n=54 Patriotic 4.54
Liberals Neutral 4.15 -0.611 .544
n=57 Patriotic 4.50

Hypothesis 3

For the most part, our national security questions did show the expected

differences between the self-identified Democrats and Republicans. Overall, across the

two versions and within the neutral and patriotic samples, Democrats were significantly

less likely to fear a future terrorist attack than Republicans, and more likely to say that

showing more respect for the views and needs of other countries would enhance security.

In addition, Republicans were significantly more likely to answer that tighter immigration

controls would enhance security and that the best way to ensure peace was through

military strength. Republicans were more likely to agree with the statement that we

should all be willing to fight for our country whether it is right or wrong and more likely

to agree that the best way to ensure peace is through military strength. These differences

correspond to patterns found in previous research and polling discussed above. (See

Tables 2 and 3)

To assess H3 (Exposure to US flag images within news stories will be associated

with conservatives and Republicans expressing more egalitarian concepts), we look at

differences between respondents’ responses within neutral and patriotic versions and

between the two versions. For those viewers who saw the neutral version (without flag

imagery), 6 of the 9 questions showed significantly different responses between self-

identified Democrats and self-identified Republicans. The only responses that did not

show significantly different responses by party affiliation were:

• Do you think the government in Washington D is doing a good job

of preventing future terrorist attacks?
• To what degree would the following enhance our security?
Becoming less dependent on other countries?
* To what degree do you agree with the following statements?
It’s best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.

For those viewers who saw the patriotic version, 4 of 9 questions showed significantly

different responses by party affiliation. In addition to the questions above, there were no

statistically significant differences in the following questions for those who viewed the

patriotic version (See tables 3 and 4):

* To what degree would the following enhance our security?

Tighter controls on Immigration
* Thinking about things the government must do to fight terrorism, in your
opinion, should the government (Choose one):
1. Put more emphasis on military efforts
2. Put more emphasis on diplomatic and economic matters
Table 1
Neutral Version – National Security Questions by Political Affiliation
N= 37

Pol. M t p value
Affiliation
Wash DCi Dem 6.35 1.19 .243
(n=37) Rep 5.45
futureii Dem 4.12 -3.86 .000*
(n=37) Rep 7.18
depiii Dem 4.81 -0.48 .632
(n=37) Rep 5.27
immigiv Dem 5.69 -3.08 .004*
(n=37) Rep 2.64
respectv Dem 3.04 -2.07 .046*
(n=37) Rep 5.18
fightvi Dem 8.15 4.87 .000*
(n=37) Rep 3.45
militaryvii Dem 8.06 5.34 .000*
(n=37) Rep 4.09
activeviii Dem 3.42 -1.58 .126
(n=37) Rep 4.91
terrorismix Dem 1.92 2.90 .006*
(n=37) Rep 1.55
Table 2
Patriotic Version – National Security Questions by Political Affiliation

Pol. M t p value
Affiliation
Wash DCi Dem 6.43 0.72 .479
(n=37) Rep 5.89
futureii Dem 4.54 -2.67 .012*
(n=37) Rep 6.89
depiii Dem 5.50 -0.06 .955
(n=37) Rep 5.56
immigiv Dem 6.11 1.66 .105
(n=37) Rep 4.22
respectv Dem 2.50 -2.68 .011*
(n=37) Rep 4.89
fightvi Dem 7.82 2.16 .038*
(n=37) Rep 5.67
militaryvii Dem 8.21 5.48 .000*
(n=37) Rep 4.11
activeviii Dem 3.39 -0.36 .726
(n=37) Rep 3.78
terrorismix Dem 1.96 1.75 .116
(n=37) Rep 1.67

i
Do you think the government in Washington D is doing a good job of preventing future
terrorist attacks?
Not a good job at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very good job
ii
How afraid are you of a future terrorist attack happening in the United States?
Not at all afraid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very Afraid
iii
To what degree would the following enhance our security?
Becoming less dependent on other countries?
A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all
iv
To what degree would the following enhance our security?
Tighter controls on Immigration
A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all
v
To what degree would the following enhance our security?
Showing more respect for the views and needs of other countries.
A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all
vi
To what degree do you agree with the following statements?
We all should be willing to fight for our country whether it is right or wrong.
Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely disagree
vii
To what degree do you agree with the following statements?
The best way to ensure peace is through military strength.
Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely disagree
viii
To what degree do you agree with the following statements?
It’s best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs.
Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely disagree
ix
Thinking about things the government must do to fight terrorism, in your opinion,
should the government (Choose one):
1. Put more emphasis on military efforts 2. Put more emphasis on diplomatic
and economic matters

To further assess H3 (Exposure to US flag images within news stories will be

associated with conservatives and Republicans expressing more egalitarian concepts), we

used the sub-samples of respondents who identified themselves as conservative (n=35)

and as Republican (n=20). Conservatives who saw the patriotic version of the news story

identified tighter control on immigration as less important to enhancing security than

those who saw the neutral version. The Republican sample did not show the same

results.

To what degree would the following enhance our security?

Tighter controls on Immigration
A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all

Version Mean t value Significance

Conservatives Neutral 3.00 -2.161 .038*
Patriotic 4.63

Republicans Neutral 2.64 -1.560 .136

Patriotic 4.22

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 4 suggested that exposure to US flag images within news stories

would be associated with men expressing more egalitarian concepts. First, responses to

some questions by participants who watched the neutral version were significantly
different by gender. For example, women who watched the neutral version ranked the

Afghanistan and terrorism stories significantly more important than men did. In addition,

women were significantly more likely to answer that to fight terrorism more emphasis

should be placed on diplomatic and economic matters (M=7.52, p=.019). Women were

also significantly less likely to agree that the best way to ensure peace is through military

strength.

However, different results are evident in the group that viewed the patriotic

version of the news stories. There is no statistically significant difference between men

and women who watched the patriotic version for any of the questions on security. This is

only suggestive, but this lends support for future analysis of whether exposure to the flag

affects how men view security. Across versions there are no statistical differences

between men who watched the neutral versus those who watched the patriotic version.

To what degree do you agree with the following statements?

The best way to ensure peace is through military strength.
Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely disagree

Gender Mean t value Significance

Neutral version Male (n=23) 5.87 -2.130 .039***

Female (n=23) 7.52

Patriotic version Male (n=23) 6.86 -.770 .445

Female (n=23) 7.45
Thinking about things the government must do to fight terrorism, in your opinion, should the
government (Choose one):
1. Put more emphasis on military efforts 2. Put more emphasis on diplomatic and
economic matters

Gender Mean t value Significance

Neutral version Male (n=23) 1.70 -2.431 .019***

Female (n=23) 1.96

Patriotic version Male (n=23) 1.86 -1.164 .281

Female (n=23) 1.95

Conclusions

The current research is only a preliminary study designed to replicate some

previous findings and to test the plausibility that certain relationships may hold in a larger

n-study. It attempted to explore how flag imagery may affect perceptions of journalistic

norms, fear of future terrorist attacks, and US national security. The results suggest that

the conceptual framework associated with frame switching warrants further research.

The limitations of the small experimental size are clearly evident here. First, the

low average age and the high educational level of the participants are limitations. Some

of the subgroup sizes are small and hence the t-test results should be interpreted with

care. In addition, more sophisticated statistical analyses would be needed (with a larger

total sample size) to more clearly disentangle relationships. In addition, the economy

story was not an optimal control story. There were differences in responses to this story

across the samples that could not be accounted for, for example. One reason for this

could be the highly emotionally-charged nature of economic stories in the midst of the

current economic downturn. Information on the whether or not participants had been
directly affected by the economic situation was not collected. We plan to work further on

developing more appropriate control stories.

Overall, the study points to some interesting conclusions. First, this study

reiterates that viewers do not tie the inclusion of patriotic images such as the flag to the

compromise of journalistic norms. Viewers seem to accept that news within the United

States will contain patriotic images. This raises questions for journalists and others about

the audience’s understanding of objectivity in news reporting and also the attention paid

to graphic bells and whistles in news.

Second, the studies on the effects of flag imagery, taken together, suggest that the

simple image of the US flag can affect viewers and this is particularly true of certain

groups under certain circumstances. This is at least some support for studying frame

switching more thoroughly. In order to do this we need a much clearer assessment of

what values the US flag triggers across different groups and in different issue areas. The

fact that Democrats and Liberals who saw the news story about the war in Afghanistan

with the US flag were less likely to view that story as balanced suggests that perhaps for

war stories embedding the flag can affect perceptions of the story.

As expected, the flag did not trigger changes in any of the national security

questions for Democrats and Liberals, but changes were evident in responses to some

questions by Republicans and Conservatives. There is some evidence, although

statistically weak, to suggest that men were also affected in this way. This suggests that

perhaps the presence of the US flag in news stories can trigger viewers to shift

interpretive lenses to more closely resemble some of those of the President if those

viewers do not normally associate their own views with that of the leader. Further
research is needed on clarifying what views, values, or policies come to be associated

with the flag.

Bibliography

Barnett, Brooke and Laura Roselle. 2008. Patriotism in the News: “Rally Round the
Flag.” Electronic News 2:1, 10-30.

Barton, Gina and Beverly. 2001. Patriotism and the News. Quill 98(10), 18-21.

Berry, Nicholas O. 1990. Foreign Policy and the Press: An Analysis of the New York
Times’ Coverage of US Foreign Policy. New York: Greenwood Press.

Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.

Butz, David A., E. Ashby Plant and Celeste E. Doerr. 2007. Liberty and Justice for All?
Implications of Exposure to the U.S. Flag for Intergroup Relations. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin. 33:396-408.

Devos, Thierry and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2005. American=White? Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 88, 447-466.

Egan, Timothy. 2009. Capture the Flag. The NY Times. July 1, 2009.
http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/capture-the-flag/?emc=eta1

Ferguson, Melissa, Travis J. Carter, and Ran R. Hassin. 2009. On the Automaticity of
Nationalist Ideology: The Case of the USA. . In John T. Jost, Aaron C. Kay and
Hulda Thorisdottir, eds. Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System
Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 53-82.

Goldstein, Joshua. 2001. War and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Holsti, Ole R. 1997. Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy: Analytical
Perspectives on Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Hong, Ying-Yu, Michael W. Morris, Chi-Yue Chiu and Veronica Benet-Martinez. 2000.
Multicultural Minds: A Dynamic Constructivist Approach to Culture and
Cognition. American Psychologist 55(7): 709-720.

Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era Trends in Political Values and Core
Attitudes: 1987-2009. 2009. Pew Center for the People & the Press. May 21,
2009. http://people-press.org/report/517/political-values-and-core-attitudes

Iyengar, Shanto and Jennifer A. McGrady. 2007. Media Politics: A Citizen’s Guide. NY:
W. W. Norton Co.

Kemmelmeier, Markus and David Winter. 2008. Sowing Patriotism, But Reaping
Nationalism? Consequences of Exposure to the American Flag. Political
Psychology 29(6): 859-879.
Lewis, David A. and Roger P. Rose. 2002. The President, the Press, and the War-Making
Power: An Analysis of Media Coverage Prior to the Persian Gulf War
Presidential Studies Quarterly, 32(3): 559-570.

Mauer, Paul J. 1999. Media Feeding Frenzies: Press Behavior During Two Clinton
Scandals Presidential Studies Quarterly 29(1): 65-79.

Smoller, Frederic T. 1990. The Six O’Clock Presidency: A Theory of Presidential Press
Relations in the Age of Television. Westport: Praeger.

Thorisdottir, Hulda, John T. Jost, and Aaron C. Kay. 2009. On the Social and
Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification. In John T. Jost, Aaron
C. Kay and Hulda Thorisdottir, eds. Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology
and System Justification. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3-23.

Tickner, Ann J. 2002. Feminist Perspectives on 9/11. International Studies Perspectives,

3(4): 333-350.

Wright, David and Sunlen Miller. 2008. Obama Dropped Flag Pin in War Statement.
October 4, 2008. http://abcnews.go.com/politics/story?id=3690000
Appendix A
Coding Instrument

These questions relate to the report you just saw about the economy.

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STORY:

How fair was this report?

Not at all fair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very fair

How newsworthy was this report?

Not at all newsworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very newsworthy

How biased was this report?

Not at all biased 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very biased

How important was this report?

Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very important

How balanced was this report?

Not at all balanced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very balanced

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REPORTER:

How objective was the anchor/reporter?

Not at all objective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very objective

How trustworthy was the anchor/reporter?

Not at all trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very trustworthy

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS:

How upset did this report make you feel?

Not at all upset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very upset

How confident did this report make you feel?

Not at all confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very confident

--STOP-- Please do not turn the page until you are told to do so.
These questions relate to the report you just saw about Afghanistan.

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STORY:

How fair was this report?

Not at all fair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very fair

How newsworthy was this report?

Not at all newsworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very newsworthy

How biased was this report?

Not at all biased 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very biased

How important was this report?

Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very important

How balanced was this report?

Not at all balanced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very balanced

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REPORTER:

How objective was the anchor/reporter?

Not at all objective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very objective

How trustworthy was the anchor/reporter?

Not at all trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very trustworthy

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS:

How upset did this report make you feel?

Not at all upset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very upset

How confident did this report make you feel?

Not at all confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very confident

--STOP-- Please do not turn the page until you are told to do so.
These questions relate to the report you just saw about interrogations.

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STORY:

How fair was this report?

Not at all fair 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very fair

How newsworthy was this report?

Not at all newsworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very newsworthy

How biased was this report?

Not at all biased 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very biased

How important was this report?

Not at all important 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very important

How balanced was this report?

Not at all balanced 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very balanced

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REPORTER:

How objective was the anchor/reporter?

Not at all objective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very objective

How trustworthy was the anchor/reporter?

Not at all trustworthy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very trustworthy

PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS:

How upset did this report make you feel?

Not at all upset 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very upset

How confident did this report make you feel?

Not at all confident 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very confident
PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESITONS BASED ON THE INFORMATION
PRESENTED IN THIS BROADCAST:

The average price of a house continues to fall in the United States.

True False

American troops have killed civilians in Afghanistan.

True False

The Taliban has planted roadside bombs in Afghanistan.

True False

No criminal charges are planned for Bush administration lawyers said to approve
harsh interrogation against terror suspects.
True False

The CIA had a role in interrogating terrorist suspects.

True False

Please describe the following qualities of the news broadcast to the best of your
ability:

What were the prominent colors used?

Describe the graphics

Describe the anchor

Please answer a few questions about yourself.

Age: ________

Gender: Male _______ Female _______

Race (Circle One):

Asian/Pacific Islander African-American Hispanic American Indian

Caucasian Other: ______________

Level of education: please circle one

Some high school

High school graduate
Some college
College graduate
More than a bachelor’s degree

Political Affiliation (Circle One):

Democrat Republican Independent Other: ______________

Politically I am (Circle One):

Very Liberal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very conservative

I think the media are (circle one):

Very Liberal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very conservative

How many hours of news coverage (local and national) do you watch daily?

_____________________

What is your primary source for news information (CIRCLE ONLY ONE)?

Television Newspapers (print or web) Internet/blogs Friends Other

When you watch the news which channel do you prefer (CIRCLE ONLY ONE)?

Local news network CNN Fox MSNBC I don’t watch the news Other
Do you think the government in Washington DC is doing a good job of preventing
future terrorist attacks?

Not a good job at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very good job

How afraid are you of a future terrorist attack happening in the US?

Not at all afraid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Very afraid

To what degree would the following enhance our security?

Becoming less dependent on other countries

A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all

Tighter controls on immigration to the US

A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all

Showing more respect for the views and needs of other countries

A great deal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not at all

To what degree do you agree with the following statements:

We all should be willing to fight for our country whether it is right or wrong.
Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely disagree

The best way to ensure peace is through military strength.

Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely disagree

It's best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs
Completely agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Completely disagree

Thinking about things the government must do to fight terrorism, in your opinion,
should the government (Choose one):

Put more emphasis on military efforts Put more emphasis on

diplomatic and economic
matters