<%BANNER%>

I am & #34;I & #34;

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022272/00001

Material Information

Title: I am & #34;I & #34; Independent Identity and the Effects of Framing
Physical Description: 1 online resource (60 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: framing, independent
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to learn more about Independent candidates and citizens. The study had three specific aims: to learn more about the nature of Independent identity; to study the connection between ideology and Independence; and to measure the effect of framing on attitudes towards Independent candidates. The study used an experimental design and brief survey, distributed to college students, to meet these goals. The experiment presented students with one of three mock news articles, each of which presented three candidates for Congress. The articles varied in their descriptions of the Independent candidate, who was framed either as valuing his own political autonomy or as disliking the two major parties. After reading the article, participants completed a survey on their attitudes towards the candidates and basic demographic information. Results of the study suggest that Independence is a multi-dimensional concept; frames of the Independent candidate that echoed separate dimensions of Independence produced distinct effects in the sample population. Thoughts on future research, especially regarding Independents, are presented.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Cleary, Johanna.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022272:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022272/00001

Material Information

Title: I am & #34;I & #34; Independent Identity and the Effects of Framing
Physical Description: 1 online resource (60 p.)
Language: english
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: framing, independent
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to learn more about Independent candidates and citizens. The study had three specific aims: to learn more about the nature of Independent identity; to study the connection between ideology and Independence; and to measure the effect of framing on attitudes towards Independent candidates. The study used an experimental design and brief survey, distributed to college students, to meet these goals. The experiment presented students with one of three mock news articles, each of which presented three candidates for Congress. The articles varied in their descriptions of the Independent candidate, who was framed either as valuing his own political autonomy or as disliking the two major parties. After reading the article, participants completed a survey on their attitudes towards the candidates and basic demographic information. Results of the study suggest that Independence is a multi-dimensional concept; frames of the Independent candidate that echoed separate dimensions of Independence produced distinct effects in the sample population. Thoughts on future research, especially regarding Independents, are presented.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Cleary, Johanna.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022272:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101203_AAAAAY INGEST_TIME 2010-12-03T10:10:31Z PACKAGE UFE0022272_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1051959 DFID F20101203_AAALUR ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH hannan_j_Page_14.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
62eee5e5ab34c4ff1efeddf7b9158e89
SHA-1
19082ca465dccff8f4a2692baa373ab211b6e65e
1051982 F20101203_AAALPU hannan_j_Page_48.jp2
1dd2b88d9c8ece40836f870b4d116500
98e929d895a079eb4b4693796807894fe1d9b29e
26317 F20101203_AAALZP hannan_j_Page_31.QC.jpg
d5a6f142da543edd2f61da850d06d639
31191753b0f37d1957e2277527504999dd785cb3
1051919 F20101203_AAALUS hannan_j_Page_15.jp2
88a10efef260acee538b83bfdfea2a3b
b14403007d9548582972bfc5a11cf83caf32ea29
100785 F20101203_AAALPV hannan_j_Page_52.jpg
f33c8d17687720e9ec0f762afa757df6
fa9ecab23f164b72052c902496b20f0591029573
7353 F20101203_AAALZQ hannan_j_Page_31thm.jpg
bd8d4e7d3bd72321e5c4a3fbdcc4db3c
825ebdbffbc60018e9cb4ce62c5a571c878488ae
1051885 F20101203_AAALUT hannan_j_Page_16.jp2
e9f6365860430ba99c83cb79f1a02237
a5a041c86505084e3be8030259fcb3f9ca47c6d1
82124 F20101203_AAALPW hannan_j_Page_42.jpg
5a353520f8027bdf2c562ec6a435f9b5
5f54dd4c2bc969754896de5dfcfb4e1c615c9604
27614 F20101203_AAALZR hannan_j_Page_32.QC.jpg
db4edf2b35e87775bb6d8baee4758c40
fe83a3628f90ac7022c528a8d52a333f2aabcfd0
1051984 F20101203_AAALUU hannan_j_Page_17.jp2
3a654ac3b5cadc1f60fc7073bf57bf11
512bb34767504a0c866e95d06100ddbed7a86a9a
1051949 F20101203_AAALPX hannan_j_Page_34.jp2
c85b3cc2280cc6cbbae459a8ea9c180a
9de4d60288b7e84fb863a1e1a45434d0d37feb9e
7359 F20101203_AAALZS hannan_j_Page_32thm.jpg
847e5fe1316970805ed1b24aa6fc9811
3aa61ba15eddf2894b080aea36c87388af3fd2b5
1051955 F20101203_AAALUV hannan_j_Page_18.jp2
24b9db7fdb580e95fa07b0157b8a18e3
b452ec257418a0d0dcc846bb16f274c02a22ee13
25271604 F20101203_AAALPY hannan_j_Page_53.tif
56f3c45d1c7d38ccda34fd63c430641a
6218b087c0d8b26b97c7557a93a0dea761850be6
26744 F20101203_AAALZT hannan_j_Page_33.QC.jpg
8fd312d202873fcd137fd527eccea205
a1400a6db0caabaa3f58a5091078136d8b14ed09
1051954 F20101203_AAALUW hannan_j_Page_20.jp2
3f01d91928627e5c1f847974b87e2752
703230ae9636ec0aa2464271fbf7990a660d2f83
28659 F20101203_AAALPZ hannan_j_Page_14.QC.jpg
d5a43ca306b34b75f34f1a8b2613d879
17d81d01dfebff7875371b8405d30394ab561605
7592 F20101203_AAALZU hannan_j_Page_33thm.jpg
e83c9b09c30a1b4d0c669578d0be8423
6818d6b457dd8d7aaf0dc6cc627287b1cb7c06ac
1051967 F20101203_AAALUX hannan_j_Page_21.jp2
5bbd81d39a24c53ae0e52752fd9646a7
980fd4409b324c9362cedae87f4eb5ef08e0be41
25723 F20101203_AAALZV hannan_j_Page_34.QC.jpg
ed5cdb5e9febf6e003d8d19fe04ce6ad
d1a448b1fd95778b13a93803f3df591ec224ac57
1051979 F20101203_AAALUY hannan_j_Page_22.jp2
a1e9dfdeb2b71740303046805ac9f26d
2284eae90691a1114c0d5f385a51858b09297663
6896 F20101203_AAALSA hannan_j_Page_27thm.jpg
36a57afb7f608e79c5def79fa5f6a5e5
fb3405d1500ac852a3e645587941af7c4ad5f503
1051986 F20101203_AAALUZ hannan_j_Page_24.jp2
bf89c70bf8dd6370ab2322c29bb0b76b
783ada16952e8ad84d4ce1aebbc363a4c1514b7a
7191 F20101203_AAALZW hannan_j_Page_34thm.jpg
582b3fa153472d8b940f1b29287177e4
62c2a5cdc040bb64e176193af5686032c05d6ab0
6196 F20101203_AAALSB hannan_j_Page_50thm.jpg
0a64c4e28fa2ea849b51bde5897b54ef
eb292ec815d0cbe095a31d179fd5012c2c9471d2
16912 F20101203_AAALZX hannan_j_Page_35.QC.jpg
ee7e6768b8d8933226657e942bc8cf24
aecefdbb666184e37eb1747429ddd62f748f6015
7835 F20101203_AAALSC hannan_j_Page_21thm.jpg
704150df14abd56169c7d95e7005b8e4
1b0fcc986de08a6ff20b6b42deacb64be529ff7f
F20101203_AAALXA hannan_j_Page_34.tif
afbe1354bc20bc8ac962b04bdc95a91a
044c2203c6028276037879ff70470b584caa4828
4700 F20101203_AAALZY hannan_j_Page_35thm.jpg
2b4ab1e24ed9741a00a91e32503b89f5
1161508063401e47dab5a7722772bfa7edd4f124
6561 F20101203_AAALSD hannan_j_Page_57thm.jpg
fd67a5b46cb7d3cc2fc9052fe191fb41
68d810b0b003cdbe37fac90cd9aded269ae9f408
F20101203_AAALXB hannan_j_Page_35.tif
cef98aefbb7c6db38996d49f88e96439
cfae6f765374a7b9ca1de83f1c936b6abc29b6cb
19700 F20101203_AAALZZ hannan_j_Page_36.QC.jpg
5e9b2cf398538ebc126f130aeed3cabd
245d7d446390f16fd20364bc2d12ad8442f9c649
F20101203_AAALSE hannan_j_Page_19.jp2
3bc1a1117f314d8d5f755ae0789a9265
e6553ca7a86a4839a1ab54a470de256db157b7ef
1053954 F20101203_AAALXC hannan_j_Page_36.tif
4691038fae7a449757d40ec007b681f2
0a4043ef85e13590a95038cf8a74d839b9e7ac9e
F20101203_AAALSF hannan_j_Page_22.tif
659ad475be19d5b2ad14242c042e8bed
d383f8221e7dfa9ccc196015ff4fe88e4a23c4e4
F20101203_AAALXD hannan_j_Page_37.tif
4a7229acaf6ddc48ff77c99fbc0913dd
607fe8754e765c8d1277e514912d6c50bc95c698
81247 F20101203_AAALSG hannan_j_Page_56.jpg
dde6c30f66b32be6562a29da87fe90d1
a57ffc72b8da15e6dd1192fd1ec5b0a102aa9814
F20101203_AAALXE hannan_j_Page_38.tif
8028921f3ed0c60822daf3561d117b7a
4f230dc89f79d177414addd602e9f558ceb73747
67565 F20101203_AAALSH UFE0022272_00001.xml FULL
de63c46c5383014be18eac491f3fb98c
7bdce38f9c816f1cd3f95224d70c59939372e157
F20101203_AAALXF hannan_j_Page_39.tif
4366354177bde2783ad28cc0170cb5ed
17c772831c7316fdef2de16600d01f9b10fb8d4e
F20101203_AAALXG hannan_j_Page_40.tif
61b830cf538980e0de91b02814a59815
899d2f8d55c5abc4dad1f9beb3db70f7c3556492
F20101203_AAALXH hannan_j_Page_43.tif
7c7a9b59b66977f165f3b8cff704aaf7
7c0117b3e7868404e3b5be4ad894819d79b66271
24360 F20101203_AAALSK hannan_j_Page_01.jpg
d90acf02b516cb0a9a824728d654cc97
f0b8f7cde3302f2a692108cb924fa597d2cfde4b
F20101203_AAALXI hannan_j_Page_44.tif
da604b03793b5d1ac8978fa7c8e0693f
2995d7ea043d7ee0da1c9239998bec155b9fe1eb
10351 F20101203_AAALSL hannan_j_Page_02.jpg
1884ba59f436bf775b3b55d09ed49db9
86fc12d15845e4dc08cd581a4e494846d487b03e
F20101203_AAALXJ hannan_j_Page_45.tif
419246450a6695b9a1fdd05789aa0c16
463d6c422c17ed1a01289526a20d6354838461c1
82194 F20101203_AAALSM hannan_j_Page_03.jpg
5494d183407e3abc834bc054eb8226a8
0a55eaf66e611d49db0397f7d60810b207ef619b
F20101203_AAALXK hannan_j_Page_47.tif
5befc727e91406c55d5dfe461bc7137a
58fae3f84c937c9b6beae9c084f9e31770574ffb
37940 F20101203_AAALSN hannan_j_Page_04.jpg
a3d37c572823376e6bbc3733f2506b75
a77dcd101a121063f94388b9ed6d956c516b6773
F20101203_AAALXL hannan_j_Page_48.tif
66cd46f2cd07a7a13148cac6e1742c2e
a628b94a62f13b75f3ed1a3014f60930af54ee30
68132 F20101203_AAALSO hannan_j_Page_06.jpg
d936ceded7711e07118785ebffdaa4fb
390bafb4de63582a2b3c5bb719e4b9b7c505d762
F20101203_AAALXM hannan_j_Page_50.tif
5c640d88696be0c38e7640e2ab66d6ff
43335913cd0f6d11af3206cd608926ff9159f25f
F20101203_AAALXN hannan_j_Page_51.tif
fab344caca986020de8bc74e8d097bf2
ba24726d2ab37d60dd4406d450a648b4387c3ad9
83066 F20101203_AAALSP hannan_j_Page_07.jpg
1514913b50362c28daff7ad0cc0a326b
e37e036887acd309bd579f97cabb56c95b5605b5
F20101203_AAALXO hannan_j_Page_52.tif
50c7a7c24a0713a2236ec6da88de3e6f
86033a4e9e2e624a7b790e023343282455d4d267
81348 F20101203_AAALSQ hannan_j_Page_08.jpg
146a115d9d66dd97ef53d80963a2a3dc
ba4adda57c3778f4e47608516f5c46488fe5ab7d
F20101203_AAALXP hannan_j_Page_54.tif
7123f4e79820245cc978d878bd98d75f
296cff44a90fec7a83924b4ddcbd545f7fc82ff5
85198 F20101203_AAALSR hannan_j_Page_09.jpg
6f10f1a7ce5388cd8a42c305bf8244d4
2cc1f4ffa49b6dac1c3700e083760a07fde556ad
F20101203_AAALXQ hannan_j_Page_56.tif
13898617470c7c587222a590f0852ae3
cf28e3685190a4ba04ee94ad8c5b21d110cd4315
22223 F20101203_AAALSS hannan_j_Page_10.jpg
596a8d1573ca515b860b414f897dd48d
c4b70e466ddba533fb0feb5ec26ae50fad1507b4
F20101203_AAALXR hannan_j_Page_57.tif
5b83a8f35fee80452a540600232f0a81
dc3a38eaf7b77e4ff7c129aa493792bdf27c0469
75235 F20101203_AAALST hannan_j_Page_11.jpg
43fb2411ed9c6b1d3fc4233301134aba
e2109430cd7b38ad19ce1024a398ae2efb5cd241
F20101203_AAALXS hannan_j_Page_58.tif
3d1755f351085ab961ff8dab1b25e495
1f9db35273ffd20d4efeb9e3f601d37a130818d5
82336 F20101203_AAALSU hannan_j_Page_12.jpg
4abb307b1d8082bdfaf90537af138586
d88e5c7b4dcec47f42806c71929566843c145670
F20101203_AAALXT hannan_j_Page_60.tif
2987b0c1f229c1e5d1f7ccb8444a6254
ed8b3b799293d8ae5a161a9042dd39b9aada7d96
90144 F20101203_AAALSV hannan_j_Page_14.jpg
82b385e89964f178a127d93e4817b57d
d294cb76f49f03e7066444a546c939fe47caf374
81414 F20101203_AAALSW hannan_j_Page_15.jpg
c52d1cf1014a2d06b83a6a5c49dba4e7
f0e7e1235c5fc10b11040ec66a6b5c6b5ebddf7c
241655 F20101203_AAALXU hannan_j.pdf
32dd98adf5ced9148164709f216abb74
5ececf7047943b1822c7773de3b6979a5ba3ca20
79477 F20101203_AAALSX hannan_j_Page_16.jpg
eb03c1dbb80474bbaca645db4e1dcc7c
463cc738d96325bd319398afcd5507f263c9f6f5
7397 F20101203_AAALXV hannan_j_Page_01.QC.jpg
71b2c4ed41e50e0334f047f6c686071e
7e15336b73ae605afc0c875570dd2e6a0a1730da
F20101203_AAALQA hannan_j_Page_59.tif
1cf9f88a8cd34cd33d8271dfb46d5345
ea3c2954a1a3896323fb2522d2814caf2b192888
85577 F20101203_AAALSY hannan_j_Page_17.jpg
efb5cc260a12069a0efe5b03e3f2ec6d
dabd3ae85a1e70a74ade6936ce9e1ecd32e31c45
3163 F20101203_AAALXW hannan_j_Page_02.QC.jpg
a75a1f2de0245b96eee64244f6fdff5c
dbafb71275d3ba0461d72b9fc1feef63e8ef1fff
76056 F20101203_AAALQB hannan_j_Page_26.jpg
653907d46df41d847db3e48cff957e12
2500226db7c46c21a1200e88544ac6696a17c86a
87574 F20101203_AAALSZ hannan_j_Page_18.jpg
ff5350487be8819270d666e3e5b8b77c
4381307e4e100222fb375dadc0f45592c7764833
1401 F20101203_AAALXX hannan_j_Page_02thm.jpg
08c09a4552418632a1c1132638ffcd53
6ad40bf96f7b1ea50ea5252e35c5f36b386c38cd
85894 F20101203_AAALQC hannan_j_Page_43.jpg
ae8e68c9c6c9bc77012d88bb1965dfef
8a7721cbc6ea8891a70d2074a530e2194ee6dbd8
21024 F20101203_AAALXY hannan_j_Page_03.QC.jpg
6ccb6fc070a4abdca8f6c7ab499711c1
8bf4a027cd95909939cc3a06e19b3eab35e2b53a
26313 F20101203_AAALQD hannan_j_Page_07.QC.jpg
15b30107f1a4fede415acec99caca9cd
5f46831e05dece3a1324fb367a7643c8c429b0e2
528382 F20101203_AAALVA hannan_j_Page_25.jp2
4567bce6b05bc99024e340cf17d9666b
af337da676f0d8c9db971a1370dd1f742f19c65e
5497 F20101203_AAALXZ hannan_j_Page_03thm.jpg
684c9c08c0e92a58e8dd1f6bbbaa7eef
a972093b515c4e4cd8d14c8dc7a63140871ed57b
1051921 F20101203_AAALQE hannan_j_Page_44.jp2
c51b7eca73b462847f2407e334e7172e
c129d31580e69e394dd67353c3d6c25a21f219d2
1051948 F20101203_AAALVB hannan_j_Page_26.jp2
cce65817e479f7a4ec1fee76b69e4380
34b5e547b736029221ded6eaa16fe6b7e2864497
F20101203_AAALQF hannan_j_Page_49.tif
a328cfa3ca49c7057504e0861d1555e6
8a463fd52df4d54e25fb4ee8357df231ce66622f
1051941 F20101203_AAALVC hannan_j_Page_27.jp2
c6e016349268ffabe299f04dcceae8be
8790d63606c566a3dbf37610dc7100f559a9c2ab
F20101203_AAALQG hannan_j_Page_42.tif
a73a389b47991c3ceb272d9853d4afad
e39af02cdaefe25999d0fba93e5f4cf18adeece6
900665 F20101203_AAALVD hannan_j_Page_30.jp2
4f0b683417607dfbe807f9681739d645
c58a8e41d4091ca1be57e11b06c742ac34c5ae5a
16601 F20101203_AAALQH hannan_j_Page_45.QC.jpg
888667c9faba6ef6ba56f75414c0b0b6
4f1f1ab695b871659e4edb9d45a085883526caa7
1051951 F20101203_AAALVE hannan_j_Page_32.jp2
2d3ad28af9d8d93a726187bc4946542a
2b95ede98ca91cda1199b22308617bb36217e3a8
F20101203_AAALQI hannan_j_Page_19.tif
9f7672509719ec805425f54c5f8c11f3
00069a428302745ef46720b2e9be9e8cd968c784
1051962 F20101203_AAALVF hannan_j_Page_33.jp2
1de91cbb92c1702535546ddd2046839f
1fedc7a66eb47140db40fbe3ada8aa350cd1292c
7330 F20101203_AAALQJ hannan_j_Page_43thm.jpg
12da3ec8ffd8b47745cde2341f1a4fe2
e5f9ac64dc2513b94374063cfc88bf3c4d70b14e
700506 F20101203_AAALVG hannan_j_Page_35.jp2
61a2fdcab833473e6eb5d07bc3a42565
5ebb8bf31e53a274c923d4eaa4f411ca22cce163
27652 F20101203_AAALQK hannan_j_Page_23.QC.jpg
8e3c71b55384209f4f01b16c18dea730
24e2ae113a35199be4e7c62a65282e5c2f8c9732
73975 F20101203_AAALVH hannan_j_Page_37.jp2
b265d36fc308c06fc31bf76d6c64a689
101d822bb3c2aa517f665b5827b89d357a12a41d
1051981 F20101203_AAALQL hannan_j_Page_29.jp2
773745124e20d52110b32778408e9a4d
78a506c9ac9e205ace87dac6e45a5e7fafb6e032
1051978 F20101203_AAALVI hannan_j_Page_39.jp2
aaf2d80731c67082cb0eb1a1b3aff584
f3f1ace25e87e71b381dec925e588fd85e5e125e
659799 F20101203_AAALQM hannan_j_Page_54.jp2
7115ae86ac14bcb1310ff531f3b95768
600db2a81b0a43f49c366bf02e585b51e135bacb
1051945 F20101203_AAALVJ hannan_j_Page_40.jp2
73aeb6d046d6c834174eb6aa8264ddfc
f9824e37a23fb9fdb44aa96f03770387ff87a64a
F20101203_AAALVK hannan_j_Page_41.jp2
cd2b1e61554a050159302aa47f56428b
e570e40af8daac60acf04b67e3e402105c86922b
1051972 F20101203_AAALVL hannan_j_Page_43.jp2
1f18fa8fe0d4f33fe4f4b1e2fcd132b3
8ac88fd59ba13e7192532e40afc84b98e73faf3a
80722 F20101203_AAALQN hannan_j_Page_46.jpg
a2624ef0fb200cfd0671e3756fb5f559
eed37e80d3fefd9b21db1cf795cc2ac750739934
685334 F20101203_AAALVM hannan_j_Page_45.jp2
f8a7837ee25d09dd2261318c4d3c334c
89dcc62eb123e8ce32ff59579284205356b202bd
F20101203_AAALQO hannan_j_Page_28.jp2
4d29d238b13d72a9869f4fb1f15d976c
a5a0d41d094eaa077ec4e388d170202eae2ee0fb
F20101203_AAALVN hannan_j_Page_46.jp2
6790e6b930537d9538d527a66de44faa
1b80cd69cbc0050a0ae87aeac6426072e0f1b763
2345 F20101203_AAALQP hannan_j_Page_01thm.jpg
02dc7f4620bb70c5e694cbd4fcd364a7
95cca45887a1818e5c73ed11c1783ca91fe6262b
1051963 F20101203_AAALVO hannan_j_Page_47.jp2
78da6a6ab2f93c8e6e31e9b9823fdba3
ac3d5e9d9a44f9fbd66b9c1c03e9497e3806a634
1051929 F20101203_AAALQQ hannan_j_Page_23.jp2
07b5bc935263085f8426e562a53c1364
ca2f8ff7f2b0aa61c11a51996aa0f02e2cc693f4
F20101203_AAALVP hannan_j_Page_49.jp2
2a8459dde5955577c88d0ffbc18d86ba
412aa15cc7880270f0a7c493d4abb800522da3ba
7037 F20101203_AAALQR hannan_j_Page_10.QC.jpg
14f020104dfbc360996a646d972b9a98
0a7e3ea8cace5c6d1948c3403ac80dc43a5a8914
F20101203_AAALVQ hannan_j_Page_51.jp2
932462c6dc4f50ad855f2b9369ee8176
4cd26d00dfec681c337dc0c1f6029aed814f4186
7108 F20101203_AAALQS hannan_j_Page_29thm.jpg
a27683a48d694e0264caeaae99b42246
bd67193a47c68cbd72f79c1889b1ca26682cd04b
1051985 F20101203_AAALVR hannan_j_Page_52.jp2
a9205bbbaf50b7550a7309e95f06dee5
07e3a5cf43c40d00998c643bc0485e3c75f1d4e0
10259 F20101203_AAALQT hannan_j_Page_38.QC.jpg
f1b4fdc5a041dfd6b5a86aba3a47b40e
a54a4cf5995839e0955ae241a12393bcf67fc916
F20101203_AAALQU hannan_j_Page_58.jp2
acd140d0d7ba832bf44bc8787ba2d5f4
7d8e1e77e3431bbae92c8eacb71b46547914b295
F20101203_AAALVS hannan_j_Page_53.jp2
e9bee310dd796db38eafcd79196f1d23
4f4a6cd3391a5f0069430d8a393da98a913ddd86
26940 F20101203_AAALQV hannan_j_Page_44.QC.jpg
e4b7434f5aa3cd36a1cb4cd641ec6d19
ac5bf6e6082e103f8dd9541226e19f0b01cda142
629386 F20101203_AAALVT hannan_j_Page_55.jp2
bf68af572858840bdcde0349064ac9ac
5f14cf688fdaa9fba11045177c0a01e608053b27
27161 F20101203_AAALQW hannan_j_Page_17.QC.jpg
54d4510dbd441dcb3c4f425c02db5fa3
85aba6ede22aa218b669f0fbd769770767d53609
1051976 F20101203_AAALVU hannan_j_Page_56.jp2
e3d0cc84ff9a647afcf37b3d3b430901
84de81cf4c82866dce6ccc742421f17eb0615b87
F20101203_AAALQX hannan_j_Page_23.tif
4388b12569d5ce75248c358aa546e930
834846894ba85926b1fefbab29748171eb0bcf2a
F20101203_AAALVV hannan_j_Page_57.jp2
ce09a0b429364f8ffbd54042946216d6
1e6e51f67f5a95b0e546cf161c5b74aa69ed51b3
F20101203_AAALQY hannan_j_Page_15.tif
698f7578d431ca768e1ac7f511449914
0f36a8f57841313068eba8bda96973b04cd73d97
F20101203_AAALVW hannan_j_Page_59.jp2
35cabf1d29667c486daca9886efb289b
241f0f723629c597447cae132c78876327bddd66
1051939 F20101203_AAALQZ hannan_j_Page_31.jp2
eca3f88bbeabc8239c10d9e20ac8de57
e02aa5fd7bafe7b2ac1147a51b0cbbcb3ce4afbf
436456 F20101203_AAALVX hannan_j_Page_60.jp2
703229fbf6912d5b318059c69a45ebcb
b8031e9d3efb32f285314e0f4209bce6ff073bdc
81503 F20101203_AAALTA hannan_j_Page_19.jpg
79b2f8b312519c364caffa6ec2278798
3b7f632c4c95edeb86b5e09b82e4b1de2add2984
F20101203_AAALVY hannan_j_Page_01.tif
30846a2493642319588259f01c9573b0
87935a1b32f3600f6e7a7308574f8d584ffd5092
87439 F20101203_AAALTB hannan_j_Page_20.jpg
f99ba5e1f5e1fa015068d71a6f9a8890
a2294289521278fb81dc4f738ae60f5d24726473
F20101203_AAALVZ hannan_j_Page_02.tif
cb62bea24811313d1c4b27bffb84203e
44604e754343a5d0f78a874e4d3f05fb31456611
91089 F20101203_AAALTC hannan_j_Page_21.jpg
ca324152669af695d0ed65bcc1beb1c0
c4b35b9f87db9c8655d3c1499307841b981caaa3
85781 F20101203_AAALTD hannan_j_Page_23.jpg
c6d0bcd4ac2a18b81e6ee07c9ccc5865
dc64590a6780225be4bb5b1872b053bd79d7bdd8
10921 F20101203_AAALYA hannan_j_Page_04.QC.jpg
bf315a588a00697487eb5d958ff3fd8f
45c48563fef8a8b9d475afbb2602bca45fdc7db1
5788 F20101203_AAAMAA hannan_j_Page_36thm.jpg
3df35db74ffd084deb4fcb065c346de8
d12011f7500e8be0c6de747a03b06f11e59e11ca
84696 F20101203_AAALTE hannan_j_Page_24.jpg
89408066ab90f2bd6e95200d61f2d4ea
0effd56c714e65f8fa29d0dcc6d021b4d6207ba5
3340 F20101203_AAALYB hannan_j_Page_04thm.jpg
77d47dee7cae05669cfa119c84ae0994
26e8e624b4cccc56c0d6ccdbd7e5e5a14348c3c1
18483 F20101203_AAAMAB hannan_j_Page_37.QC.jpg
009b0d71e475f761ddb660a58f659e9b
a221c508bcba25e3ab790f88116e03b64990f48e
41779 F20101203_AAALTF hannan_j_Page_25.jpg
f67a6d7397aeaf88475f7e4357c021cc
3e6a8bb0254f9d8a59166eeb8b536ddfa1fc551d
11363 F20101203_AAALYC hannan_j_Page_05.QC.jpg
6c4d2b9b91a20dfd503d69290807dfef
d7aadd94f61b81eaacfc7c42933f74c07fd84bc3
5625 F20101203_AAAMAC hannan_j_Page_37thm.jpg
bac08b8c87e0c43c10d933712ce417d0
677432281eff1fb5e3de488127d01510a658d325
80828 F20101203_AAALTG hannan_j_Page_27.jpg
252c47aa43f7db8dba15abce8ad4c3f9
e012e032bcbb189605314f11b25a9c1b8170b622
3256 F20101203_AAALYD hannan_j_Page_05thm.jpg
5df2e1e82067c1b65e763a99bb1849ab
47d117f279bb513df6a2b8aa69c1367dddbf6bc8
3219 F20101203_AAAMAD hannan_j_Page_38thm.jpg
f14486e3995f5cd95d82730a391973ce
7801e89ebca60a15225d9275f3948634b41c902e
79816 F20101203_AAALTH hannan_j_Page_28.jpg
181407bafe164add99bcdc05cf8625e1
a2b5fcd98e2c8b3816f617174eff5bb5012d999a
20677 F20101203_AAALYE hannan_j_Page_06.QC.jpg
0106edbd20a37173989c7be8d94cf4cc
bd47b1a9a035eea5e73f67e7eb3ed4e2c70f9990
24401 F20101203_AAAMAE hannan_j_Page_39.QC.jpg
224f4ee23d86eec0645ff4c8a3ccc387
987841cba2ff3476392859d5f5943dd609632a4f
81924 F20101203_AAALTI hannan_j_Page_29.jpg
f5066a76137a12bbcd8aa6a3fcd24d52
3da50b75c78663a67afe38f52e1aea5ad61cc2bb
5898 F20101203_AAALYF hannan_j_Page_06thm.jpg
7cde81576a70289aa91280b1b22161c3
c5bf70d29b2aec8d544801169583a208749a036b
7056 F20101203_AAAMAF hannan_j_Page_39thm.jpg
81cad49bcca8482360bd62bb15654b54
1e05ada4d65227feb760b95d81742e5281426e40
64719 F20101203_AAALTJ hannan_j_Page_30.jpg
6fb96831e66dd751b5c0d1e203a16c30
b9d27a492b70353908d3a9926267029522dfb5af
7132 F20101203_AAALYG hannan_j_Page_07thm.jpg
276eeffc73f5d801ffc91e8d72ad6369
f77f21eff2d95245635361062ffa316316f58531
26714 F20101203_AAAMAG hannan_j_Page_40.QC.jpg
4c2a848f47a00b89e88fe1e7b10dc48c
3867d3ba2e57fc8b066a720b59d441c0937e9aca
25950 F20101203_AAALYH hannan_j_Page_08.QC.jpg
e53170297d2edafac38b6938a46a8f05
e43b1a04fe720982c74f121c184e766625bc24e1
7325 F20101203_AAAMAH hannan_j_Page_40thm.jpg
d1a49e94b06033c06cd5d5b9b24ac83d
f3131fffe7b93b0fda5408620580c1e72a41a96c
84025 F20101203_AAALTK hannan_j_Page_31.jpg
9a3a1456d88235fee37e7ab78c0288bc
8713b7f0f47409c49eb1462acee9606f6fe37a5c
6897 F20101203_AAALYI hannan_j_Page_08thm.jpg
496187f79dcbbf4dcbb6339996fe613e
986ab390b274e1c1294d80c8e632987f54a4ff38
26871 F20101203_AAAMAI hannan_j_Page_41.QC.jpg
63fad7592a33646ef508d2cc6e516b13
195062dd116fc23a5700c463fb40e4b4867a0bc3
87086 F20101203_AAALTL hannan_j_Page_32.jpg
433fee5b501e423ddba0be601ced84a9
58466cc7c4c32e78451df3a12b36a2652edef762
26777 F20101203_AAALYJ hannan_j_Page_09.QC.jpg
9c6f7f16bbe0f7fd5c1910053a86467f
501b9c0b749d5d0f4e7debb2735e86f6401bf415
7461 F20101203_AAAMAJ hannan_j_Page_41thm.jpg
cd65b9589df6958db8e3acf43f85fdd9
d14e3628974e9aee662f02226dd2e1a9239563e1
84201 F20101203_AAALTM hannan_j_Page_33.jpg
8ec168119a4c680f5ae8c33fd634b052
bddd4d89841721cf63aafb0c6ea6c5c7d80f7bf4
7356 F20101203_AAALYK hannan_j_Page_09thm.jpg
9f5c4743f1deb8d4637e1c5abec951e5
df7ec9d7606e0c48bd4f4d32fddc6a344290b2c7
25806 F20101203_AAAMAK hannan_j_Page_42.QC.jpg
2ae5b77c816e82af3342f8a586d89ea7
4eb88e0f832ddea7af9c357a4c8e2e24931cba7e
82136 F20101203_AAALTN hannan_j_Page_34.jpg
8d731f53e9dfdd7dafbf54b05a61100f
b2fb2812417d5bc45b6033fe44b30d46b9b0c30b
2398 F20101203_AAALYL hannan_j_Page_10thm.jpg
ca7167e88cb70cae6aabc12dc00a69d6
40f507d67c06160e6ecf343b8c3c33d8045dd058
7105 F20101203_AAAMAL hannan_j_Page_42thm.jpg
ad2ffd9332c1c40d2f7e61bab94e1d79
ef7236adb21418ca33330b8199e2c5ce5ad36928
52937 F20101203_AAALTO hannan_j_Page_35.jpg
c115606e34c4a6f9804c0e192df73a71
33ed5d933880b6227299f150d852a5b0695e6018
23943 F20101203_AAALYM hannan_j_Page_11.QC.jpg
74205723d5fe90522e249c99b5e56153
85e174dc90af59c352a4dc726dcd7e9832be532c
27566 F20101203_AAAMAM hannan_j_Page_43.QC.jpg
e136e3c0c3bf2034053731df87943a26
be182a315798eaecfa50f42055edf76f8810facd
58340 F20101203_AAALTP hannan_j_Page_36.jpg
c8e8b949f1921814cb1284477c91c03e
df70ea411d012dc5808246b93d30dc9ca440ddb9
6608 F20101203_AAALYN hannan_j_Page_11thm.jpg
a7241365fa572820270c489f6fb19550
c82d8aa0e6e8b8dc70d2b0156ca0350c6b379102
7200 F20101203_AAAMAN hannan_j_Page_44thm.jpg
9aad84a42236d4a7d8df37d13ea20d97
5f3cb1faef2c0a5d62c128d6c11d672de82d49d8
25267 F20101203_AAALYO hannan_j_Page_12.QC.jpg
d569271dd42a721badd6a099333e718c
bd4dbcf93ca5adcb34d62d7909370d28968bc45c
4852 F20101203_AAAMAO hannan_j_Page_45thm.jpg
ba2d1f97b4c96d785b96f869f2f28e47
3c60cc975c2f1de44620f06c4a8a10ee8f0aa7d9
59337 F20101203_AAALTQ hannan_j_Page_37.jpg
3e146e8955295a4711309cd0416d14bf
00bbc63b813ba01da0c1af6a19f6ad2ab2641c20
7232 F20101203_AAALYP hannan_j_Page_12thm.jpg
3b3f352950bc69ca181ae94c808979ca
58c52e2fe1d611fb61b9e88297fcd332ba4c1eda
25219 F20101203_AAAMAP hannan_j_Page_46.QC.jpg
79c905c35be8e20e68f852b40394ebfa
9193fcfa30b04481d2cd3fd9aba0b4be1a900192
33671 F20101203_AAALTR hannan_j_Page_38.jpg
ab688fbc3ae5dd0a7ac47366bc04db7b
ad53b94aa53bbd810e76022192c1e8f78855dd4c
27224 F20101203_AAALYQ hannan_j_Page_13.QC.jpg
9656b010b3a7a6f395928c3d69f35f60
89d846047f03fe96d578c38383d039e49faf7037
7145 F20101203_AAAMAQ hannan_j_Page_46thm.jpg
88bbe7833818583b683fe8765f63f26d
771b1996c410cd14a704558b08504ae0ae15275b
78548 F20101203_AAALTS hannan_j_Page_39.jpg
21d98b2b3ad6e340b52dfb4161ecd161
822ef9200b9c09dbe211741916fafe6483f74e92
7401 F20101203_AAALYR hannan_j_Page_13thm.jpg
df4acf725eab7b74ad5e37d9d3eed39b
e4b85c9c414f99032ac0553d75981253a5155853
25553 F20101203_AAAMAR hannan_j_Page_47.QC.jpg
f15cd96fb5877e07934889c3e4903e97
9c6a00299ce066b699ff4e7eda5e7a77368cbbb8
84775 F20101203_AAALTT hannan_j_Page_41.jpg
833944f6229284fd3b3ffa9986d6aab0
cd42fee738d54443848bf292410cd2adc4f9880a
26096 F20101203_AAALYS hannan_j_Page_15.QC.jpg
ac9e38c00be5055b9151734cd970d892
ba11d68efd1451005f67208ea3d9ddbf2f86fd82
F20101203_AAAMAS hannan_j_Page_47thm.jpg
b500b6dbb0523e202d8a166960745410
7eb029b2e621aa5ae8d45621b62180e181ae4892
85008 F20101203_AAALTU hannan_j_Page_44.jpg
ce2f2fbfa44540308e7332da770edad0
f449c694ee336809cb9a85f88413b79a236ca976
7275 F20101203_AAALYT hannan_j_Page_15thm.jpg
f2ffd27b27b36b93d16a77326c81e4e8
230346047223d9f172bb30b672ef340d201b2959
26261 F20101203_AAAMAT hannan_j_Page_48.QC.jpg
2557517499b901b6c425ac1ac03ff3c0
43f7b3d9a62afdecfe961d35cb4f830a3014373a
52492 F20101203_AAALTV hannan_j_Page_45.jpg
8527505088aa1cc39cc540e439382c79
047a4a40584f6e6f77f41a18aa7a449d9b319567
25637 F20101203_AAALYU hannan_j_Page_16.QC.jpg
d9ff382b05a02ee3b374bfbbaffce342
87e8d3b43e1e5fcf4f5ea9c89a2e5e64166c6b2a
7157 F20101203_AAAMAU hannan_j_Page_48thm.jpg
e17b530fc967fa993ba237f464e2e000
9aa2f51ce0f9b975d00ae86001465ff542b40f87
80328 F20101203_AAALTW hannan_j_Page_47.jpg
97a0eefde62269f88c19a3c6468868d3
cbf84fd7fa11f20053dee678a8f6a2b6fabb99d8
24482 F20101203_AAAMAV hannan_j_Page_49.QC.jpg
34c7b0cc481409b3879ad77b3bba3319
fbc5133fd45ebc7ebb2f9f41a9af5f0aa90ffc14
82647 F20101203_AAALTX hannan_j_Page_48.jpg
74840792489f338f0b040bcfacca157d
1ec1a213b9fcacd831945d9dc21aeaa5186c9575
7151 F20101203_AAALYV hannan_j_Page_16thm.jpg
bfa5ddea7a14624e4f13bd7a675e65e3
c11cbf8d85c2f0d1a16f6b327f4bfa4f3c23f3a4
23418 F20101203_AAAMAW hannan_j_Page_50.QC.jpg
fdd9813dcb8e61736b39a0b36c77a0c9
327e6fa585dfe46281bc35fc99a67f759e1e90fb
5199 F20101203_AAALRA hannan_j_Page_54thm.jpg
a1f19f1d7847c1ff592ea0f6c0636010
4697fe044ced1307c9305815829bd08b8940481f
79418 F20101203_AAALTY hannan_j_Page_49.jpg
66e347acf99796e7d0068c127fe881cf
3cce7d98a48f46c5f40ca91dcda50e56fbcc2cd8
27571 F20101203_AAALYW hannan_j_Page_18.QC.jpg
2bd23f4d22818de10f30d30f4afe2497
7faadf356b857b8d680247a39b9515196262d300
6933 F20101203_AAAMAX hannan_j_Page_51thm.jpg
6bb062f3815e1db68e53203b9542e6d3
ece7f421566b2d277385b20d404b91cc61ee5a93
F20101203_AAALRB hannan_j_Page_46.tif
863fb844a0ebbb43249e98e53d36b190
6cd008ca9eac8b9920b02d8cb833736131c535a5
71341 F20101203_AAALTZ hannan_j_Page_50.jpg
e0ccfdb0b2037f2e747f3bb2b8c8ce9e
031e0ac17d7628720e6c4344896df79d88517de1
7399 F20101203_AAALYX hannan_j_Page_18thm.jpg
b6fe3c8ae18cd97ca44d7191f3961e24
d615a79fcb820877054b39d14a439cfc97c6b1b1
28196 F20101203_AAAMAY hannan_j_Page_52.QC.jpg
d5fd77d5baa2b55fa9ba8aa4fb1c2e6d
dfe981ce40a29d971c18852a64eae4943948df95
7017 F20101203_AAALRC hannan_j_Page_49thm.jpg
6f92d3664bdeb801ff7b74f02f03738d
77e64831511f99fd9c3f03bc15cebfdba2f2fb72
F20101203_AAALWA hannan_j_Page_04.tif
7b6ac1d89215e1cb67a2ad873ad8d7a5
94dcc747617c95aa3a25ad917f20f65e583ac855
25280 F20101203_AAALYY hannan_j_Page_19.QC.jpg
42ab6bf2ff7b63bf050e00094f350bfc
828a4f9e14c3840a262d9e8f6e76dcb57fc5eca8
7320 F20101203_AAAMAZ hannan_j_Page_52thm.jpg
2dadc0a49b741458761e29b299b97812
d32968da830ebaf80f4c366bc50843a48eb35ad5
29031 F20101203_AAALRD hannan_j_Page_21.QC.jpg
816ee82d891b8058e0066a548fcac34c
a54a67f4734217dbf5e5400b25dab7cd6ceb8124
F20101203_AAALWB hannan_j_Page_05.tif
f4d1aead906ae05f4fc13e515fd8d4e5
0fa4fe29f2e937bcae63707755d1197b421a1274
7179 F20101203_AAALYZ hannan_j_Page_19thm.jpg
6ed1b2087c1209108c2c7a1c9c108541
8bbed1cbdff5b3c16747f3f2c2d95a07ca7d53f8
83160 F20101203_AAALRE hannan_j_Page_40.jpg
66767aa891a7c410140c9365a3bccb8c
9881a99d174bf41446cfad129595565981d19ded
F20101203_AAALWC hannan_j_Page_06.tif
819449d0ae7b061740aa63b7c8ac7eea
a3bd3b70e85c92d59dfddf86e337c926731f6b7c
11101 F20101203_AAALRF hannan_j_Page_60.QC.jpg
014a3463cc760e60231e2777ea8f84ee
cabc174081929d509858ca727825c5e487251493
F20101203_AAALWD hannan_j_Page_07.tif
bb4859404b4d35ce323477ba6515dad3
0ff59dd7d28c750e628473d71aa0f6de75ba5d2a
F20101203_AAALRG hannan_j_Page_41.tif
d17980269d4e6457a52c6a4adfcf2519
2201b41a16f4ad4f7157b33eadfb73f90f75f31b
F20101203_AAALWE hannan_j_Page_08.tif
9adac845dee6a25363f00b01b0e6747f
9006a116c4e715b486ec029249d3ed8b016ba6ff
96024 F20101203_AAALRH hannan_j_Page_51.jpg
2cb1f5e7b56e916bdf9682c0ae58a76f
3ee46b09c40d70461d3d8e1124aabbd6958eeb7a
F20101203_AAALWF hannan_j_Page_09.tif
51a53a19d01a367d56c0b49a9d0942b4
e38f4d462d2ee742eea842e02974ebdc268341a1
7761 F20101203_AAALRI hannan_j_Page_14thm.jpg
046931ce417c1b84477a09150d442b3f
35d9813a666a4e5bfe63e9b3a4509943b652b43f
85439 F20101203_AAALRJ hannan_j_Page_22.jpg
e97edd3fdc5d68de8e5e5bcc0a7cfdab
4b854a07881a6f7de6c02c75daa8f3c1d972abe7
F20101203_AAALWG hannan_j_Page_10.tif
6644e4d854a7b82a48370bcf8577f041
e654fe645bbf0810c9a778e99c155bbab55f1fc5
F20101203_AAALRK hannan_j_Page_42.jp2
ffebf2e381ea26d48c0e2b8b45fbde98
b0aee7b1a64a8584af58b0fef9d9cdf2c40ac9e4
F20101203_AAALWH hannan_j_Page_11.tif
ff4b638c908ca27657d7cc2da32242ac
87ea4cf5cb3577e9a426126644662b4a030c5f22
1044200 F20101203_AAALRL hannan_j_Page_11.jp2
9e3604f99ecb0dba88c1d09205ac142d
764c9f50987279c675892e4482540211da2dc9a2
F20101203_AAALWI hannan_j_Page_12.tif
dcd2200ff440218ff92bf782014a784d
f765597b9ac6ffb62bc06b7d54930793857a4915
7390 F20101203_AAALRM hannan_j_Page_22thm.jpg
6894c04dbf5389f188330a9df01fec5d
89e0d1507eae1c5cc4a16b95ce0cbbd3424a7148
F20101203_AAALWJ hannan_j_Page_13.tif
b67acf2263e0c95a8c918e27be57ac84
5160a26e115308aa183a5e4e9178032ecae7c760
26492 F20101203_AAALRN hannan_j_Page_51.QC.jpg
73024d504e9a96b50e9ab6bee9eee7b1
1e6b311a8b654cc2bd020fe97cbafc66d14453b6
F20101203_AAALWK hannan_j_Page_14.tif
e0b016e2dc10ce556de2a99ccac7173a
3b8fdc2672737ff0efababb3fb8d837ae500c969
F20101203_AAALWL hannan_j_Page_16.tif
6bbbda8c8fd789288025f061dd344760
dfc2f5889ac3a860c5fe8833933c10ceefc39a4c
36225 F20101203_AAALRO hannan_j_Page_60.jpg
57bc2ee9f6029710612d871ee4aa215e
eed6413dbc55db2084f1df3cdba92731d09fb292
F20101203_AAALWM hannan_j_Page_17.tif
b95381f57ff7323bd67c5aad6cdebc90
275942342fb518543ad153a129833dea291e91d4
997694 F20101203_AAALRP hannan_j_Page_50.jp2
f2d72f7719e9fbfd625216d2c9f70b27
591ef23b8642bba4e7beb5a4e836c48ee27933c1
F20101203_AAALWN hannan_j_Page_18.tif
91c72fc97253a4362d150c52865dd0e3
0ef516b5cf2b6ffbe7addbcc5138b4abf2bf2fbf
38959 F20101203_AAALRQ hannan_j_Page_05.jpg
464cfeae984c78296aa2dbc7f57d66de
46cd7f8da138e81f11d0d6ceeac00e207db9b9e0
F20101203_AAALWO hannan_j_Page_20.tif
249214c719944330be0f177a3208ed0c
860664f23941e3ac371e6b4e2821421be0989461
84909 F20101203_AAALRR hannan_j_Page_13.jpg
93451e7cbed31da32d2eb870fcc13c80
c1e619efdd9621b0e53542eb42652512b2d40156
F20101203_AAALWP hannan_j_Page_21.tif
be604ca11e3611319c991ff75cea4a0b
fc07bf0024fbebd7659192c1f1cd392f780f9dd2
20140 F20101203_AAALRS hannan_j_Page_30.QC.jpg
561335313f0204ae37a301569bc1a575
49e0317d182a6a75593992efec4a4e504204a4a0
F20101203_AAALWQ hannan_j_Page_24.tif
5d151eac957f06a72cfce2b48f6e8f37
688e3c19788a9c72389ba82778c7c87dce3980c4
44249 F20101203_AAALRT hannan_j_Page_38.jp2
931344376a543b94a258f8196403d78a
bcf3dfee8c22e5f360fb25350d4e11f30627299d
F20101203_AAALWR hannan_j_Page_25.tif
e08abbfa6f8018cceacfd15ec12bba43
f29f2d6eed0f61c5bc3ffc7d184d34f0375c4bd3
70190 F20101203_AAALRU hannan_j_Page_36.jp2
98b713cf42ab6ed189a1b1dd1afbc543
0ff0f5b04bdd6ec05de4f4cb2e7fd9e10f608e16
F20101203_AAALWS hannan_j_Page_26.tif
351a2255a37d2d4709b0be6486918989
eefbc2955a960a4da7faf6f4539b03ecd7e54794
F20101203_AAALRV hannan_j_Page_03.tif
838f6fb771025d8ffcdbbab68fcfd1b6
b3bee83bef8d3dc06924773db49e50d95434486d
F20101203_AAALRW hannan_j_Page_55.tif
e2ebffda9961b4738d52122a1841cb44
f8b164abc98117e3188144b18b32962311124448
F20101203_AAALWT hannan_j_Page_27.tif
b909884f72af3d8f15f7da106d9c3ef1
42d623cbbd0a7c00bc5918d042087050e11f6e2e
7471 F20101203_AAALRX hannan_j_Page_17thm.jpg
81376c1d3e3a41c0e309d8a342aff258
e5552cd578afa1625b63ebe7820905ceb769f237
F20101203_AAALWU hannan_j_Page_28.tif
5662a1976eabeb2bd10a2cac4df20471
508051fc420d82f9f926ebb8f4eb83c8dec58e43
1051983 F20101203_AAALRY hannan_j_Page_13.jp2
a5a2043526ae6262146f1cd3a62513dd
bb399620f2d875f9c913832382943255d234f26b
F20101203_AAALWV hannan_j_Page_29.tif
73e8b4e364ca03cb5c0d027cfa779bb1
0fba1cf8714ab746bf02ddadc6885d8fe0a438e9
15619 F20101203_AAALRZ hannan_j_Page_55.QC.jpg
861d09de8bf3b18caca7f4f2449b04ba
d8cb93f9ca5c7f16e935737ec80733541ed16ada
F20101203_AAALWW hannan_j_Page_30.tif
94cb8860872af33c543e99e72a7f5f5a
a4ea23c524e47b132ed433aa8b32df1058ea4b15
F20101203_AAALWX hannan_j_Page_31.tif
c18db8d8593c6563d8ab76bfab870a10
b63bdfc9aeb9596a85e4a8fc9b31477830f34e4f
105757 F20101203_AAALUA hannan_j_Page_53.jpg
e398834ac994dea9c802c214f10ab8f8
86d119f7047422a50746172e3c911babe3a5ca3f
F20101203_AAALWY hannan_j_Page_32.tif
583e05d66a2b3bdb62ff89c532249d43
505eb90d444e96dab3f1c96fc8b5179de5ed0962
50962 F20101203_AAALUB hannan_j_Page_54.jpg
d50326346e79588676d958c5493508b1
6b04f2657749d4fa39611d5482490d6eab254035
F20101203_AAALWZ hannan_j_Page_33.tif
c37c67862acfe3460bbbba06f01f746b
a0475cb0d7f54d9019c999f043aa8c159146b2e1
49370 F20101203_AAALUC hannan_j_Page_55.jpg
29df6819c06a8587b9dd54e395546e76
0d01c533df6779c599865c6a168b5e7a405a5494
27516 F20101203_AAALZA hannan_j_Page_20.QC.jpg
42c02097f4523237d6b609b27ce07548
2338893adffa679d31c287cac566521eee1514b3
29281 F20101203_AAAMBA hannan_j_Page_53.QC.jpg
b2ca6cd700bf70ba574f9a093d46af2a
3ca9b3716b001ca9b3abf3c88deaf17d0d58d651
76536 F20101203_AAALUD hannan_j_Page_57.jpg
6ec98ecf94d19d0c477fdaa614e05a76
c520b72b12c4b9d0a0c5f155a56a70e5e7be1353
7367 F20101203_AAALZB hannan_j_Page_20thm.jpg
86bec1f85b59eafc50389bca0d2312bb
552fc47e1d80f99ee453c18249cdfd5f1f0d24e1
7444 F20101203_AAAMBB hannan_j_Page_53thm.jpg
fc257f3ed414bb8a0e4360b1e95b04c0
099ab7e3283e1940a37291a590e47f61f114ccc0
93808 F20101203_AAALUE hannan_j_Page_58.jpg
c96b96361e6835a68003bbf22b991746
280de345289725f521ed633b5427cad5e5611a75
16218 F20101203_AAAMBC hannan_j_Page_54.QC.jpg
cf4fb481535c7d74597052b34915b01f
f5c11f5a7454712b36036ea62365face4a81abe2
84743 F20101203_AAALUF hannan_j_Page_59.jpg
e07eeefbd710adb1e7c3f37cb7a75b0e
1b4ebb668532b4f7e2c6186a4bae623cdff07c49
27018 F20101203_AAALZC hannan_j_Page_22.QC.jpg
21e6e6027e44042fc8618d9e9ad7490d
8490a2b636a47feae6ecf94f964384eb8dc1767e
4798 F20101203_AAAMBD hannan_j_Page_55thm.jpg
c48aaa7595f6a89d8d07d2a793582900
3abf88771a47817037f62a18d68f1efb144106db
238797 F20101203_AAALUG hannan_j_Page_01.jp2
c8318f4f76fece6928a866bf7d014bd5
f2105ca3fe638b3a09e84b6e46c31cb611b00bbc
7426 F20101203_AAALZD hannan_j_Page_23thm.jpg
d2fa122e5967b2af6ff2d8445f6dcc21
3d812ec601d340c934eb088ae83ccc64dbae17e3
23914 F20101203_AAAMBE hannan_j_Page_56.QC.jpg
49200b0fe7da376c9ad4ecd2a866b683
45fdbf82125c8f2bf3592f028d80354117d8230d
30641 F20101203_AAALUH hannan_j_Page_02.jp2
c88e63292235c8536f186e2e44819cad
f9832d64c94038c7f123980b9d206e2e4c98e1ee
26814 F20101203_AAALZE hannan_j_Page_24.QC.jpg
672a9057e7d034448412d3157f9d70a8
5cf821850f12a031aebc9fa3eecf9a87ea5234a7
6689 F20101203_AAAMBF hannan_j_Page_56thm.jpg
9443acc58fcccd60af6573297c24115e
284982c2a73138f71d3dafce71d77c55945aca9c
1051953 F20101203_AAALUI hannan_j_Page_03.jp2
c8b63b40f5ab7a3b573443a67081397a
1af185ab42ad8591a336262c3a4db481c737f193
7263 F20101203_AAALZF hannan_j_Page_24thm.jpg
c95252f81343880aef7428937cc9c3ee
cda8e2dae8b523b30e9426f163dab9e88fa8f46d
22188 F20101203_AAAMBG hannan_j_Page_57.QC.jpg
3a4b5ac003425c94ba30b0744bc6b1c0
afff218e13f4df4a07faf43463b7c8fa9e1959d2
907956 F20101203_AAALUJ hannan_j_Page_04.jp2
ca5ab6d03a6a8e6d8b82c24ca57591b5
e82b33e4c72ec33bf7ec3e1fef3dfa59ed3c1e8d
13266 F20101203_AAALZG hannan_j_Page_25.QC.jpg
5ddeb3c996619e37c436f55d854eb760
4c4759351291526baefd1af3a2a1674f6671a8db
6950 F20101203_AAAMBH hannan_j_Page_58thm.jpg
2f56f7e537f33398a5b78b806e8cfb9f
0380d3260a4f8102da3e86031da925310719fb88
960122 F20101203_AAALUK hannan_j_Page_05.jp2
e621ed1235542c9e4be511d9f6c57d6b
a456b5f2390ca90d2ba69d431726101bf2b5c12b
4036 F20101203_AAALZH hannan_j_Page_25thm.jpg
61ae18c03c97619854aa5d76ee67b0bf
e3c1b1df6040dbcbf34a65ec15eed2a5f14357f6
24821 F20101203_AAAMBI hannan_j_Page_59.QC.jpg
7ba2dba53b666346767ada8cea9e6cb6
9a0ac572865725b70c22437b843b760e6b356728
903273 F20101203_AAALUL hannan_j_Page_06.jp2
907da742863db1dfc0480d0565c12543
0fd05c4567a6c42dbcc55bdfbe43644c35249203
23245 F20101203_AAALZI hannan_j_Page_26.QC.jpg
b38a4a0fc0ed191c4421fe88e1003713
6aad97b5f05cf6e303cb72414c232379644f81d6
F20101203_AAALUM hannan_j_Page_07.jp2
c5bb17c18c2bf2463ea7248c845ba122
0929427b00548492907fd32d93b6ba8180677f2d
6821 F20101203_AAALZJ hannan_j_Page_26thm.jpg
392ace0e026deb45e43cce5cc10d3251
a1366352917a12a6ea7b5edcce8daaa1cb29537d
6741 F20101203_AAAMBJ hannan_j_Page_59thm.jpg
66ccad5c475cdfa6547dad18eeeb6c6b
f64c2bfad51a7ccd48b296004b81b93d90d7f878
F20101203_AAALUN hannan_j_Page_08.jp2
4dbf281cdfd6e97594cb36bac58acd0d
48b8c2f8e7db8cfc82b894967466a1092744208e
25612 F20101203_AAALZK hannan_j_Page_27.QC.jpg
0868193bdd57c5e0e3666562f34648f4
26e2578f37d658538281e818866c06370a1f2727
3473 F20101203_AAAMBK hannan_j_Page_60thm.jpg
9bc3fb3ff217c8a044f68abf7adacd28
306a5d8b5c44b7c5c9fbdf3ef9a5997358b94e8a
1051913 F20101203_AAALUO hannan_j_Page_09.jp2
4572b50cc43c03ef9b5494a887f4280f
a72850cd61bdf63da9f9b8997050930a93b5b235
24739 F20101203_AAALZL hannan_j_Page_28.QC.jpg
2afa18e272b36c27da07a965ca493d91
a606859f71c7ee6a15b3c78c5024a59a07053f53
46935 F20101203_AAAMBL UFE0022272_00001.mets
eb0861d88e288ccb2c84c850cb1603ca
781f51fd4e7cb9694ff0e76f4e01e85d4eb4a042
217911 F20101203_AAALUP hannan_j_Page_10.jp2
4b383da5b908f568fb92f83a1a48d625
4d1cdec029b0512a5f4c4c938bdcd345a0d05112
7047 F20101203_AAALZM hannan_j_Page_28thm.jpg
0292338782a5332046e86f74a5fae5c4
879aca703c05d4fa31f566dd341e4f83f079b6f2
1051930 F20101203_AAALUQ hannan_j_Page_12.jp2
afa0024cf8934860832188266b7d9955
9ade37e80a22c34c0c302417601a1ce513c7f3d7
25803 F20101203_AAALZN hannan_j_Page_29.QC.jpg
474e54c799113eac40a829cfefbb8237
23c994e2e88ae07d670c0affa346dff2850b65c3
25782 F20101203_AAALPT hannan_j_Page_58.QC.jpg
9e57633a3a0dc33bb004c02eec6c653d
e806067c030045879a7c0b41e149c02a9e34b00d
5737 F20101203_AAALZO hannan_j_Page_30thm.jpg
7baf0cb46b4d17bce4aea1894ab59970
b234c4eadc4e2ea831470220c200323187cedad4



PAGE 1

I AM I: INDEPENDEN T IDENTITY AND THE EFFECTS OF FRAMING By JEFFREY ANDREW HANNAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2008 1

PAGE 2

2008 Jeffrey Andrew Hannan 2

PAGE 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................5 ABSTRACT .....................................................................................................................................6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ ....7 The Rise of the Independent .....................................................................................................7 Studying the Independent .........................................................................................................8 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................11 Explaining the Rise in th e Number of Independents ..............................................................11 The Psychology of Independence ...........................................................................................13 The Multidimensionality of Independence ......................................................................14 The Impact of Independence on Political Behavior ........................................................15 Why Do People Choose Independence? ..........................................................................16 Ideology and Independence .............................................................................................18 College Students and Independents ........................................................................................20 Second-Level Agenda Setting and Framing ...........................................................................21 3 Methodology ................................................................................................................. ..........26 Research Questions .................................................................................................................26 Framing Independent Candidacies ..................................................................................26 Methods and Survey Instrument ......................................................................................27 Coding and the Handling of Data ...........................................................................................30 4 FINDINGS .................................................................................................................... ..........31 Frequencies and Sample Characteristics ................................................................................31 Question 1: Do Independent Students Respond to Specific Frames of Independent Candidates that Echo the Dimensions of Independence Outlined Above? .........................32 Question 2: Does Ideological Confusion or Neutrality Result in Independent Identification? .....................................................................................................................33 Question 3: Do Different Frames of Independent Candidates Produce Different Responses from Students Generally? ..................................................................................33 5 DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. .......39 Independent Voters .................................................................................................................39 Ideology and Independence ....................................................................................................41 Independent Candidates ..........................................................................................................42 3

PAGE 4

Regarding College Students ...................................................................................................43 Theoretical Implications .........................................................................................................44 6 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. .....46 Potential Applications .............................................................................................................47 Limitations and Suggesti ons for Future Research ..................................................................48 APPENDIX A NEUTRAL GROUP MO CK ARTICLE TEXT .................................................................51 B AUTONOMY GROUP MOCK ARTICLE TEXT .............................................................52 C PARTY ANTIPATHY GR OUP MOCK ARTICLE TEXT ...............................................53 D SURVEY INSTRUMENT......................................................................................................54 LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................56 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................60 4

PAGE 5

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4-1 Distribution of respondent s into experimental groups .......................................................36 4-2 Distribution of respondents by gender ...............................................................................36 4-3 Distribution of respondents by race ...................................................................................36 4-4 Distribution of respondents by religion .............................................................................36 4-5 Distribution of respondents by partisan affiliation ............................................................36 4-6 Vote totals for each candidate by group ............................................................................37 4-7 Indicated candidate pref erences by Independent students .................................................37 4-8 Mean ideology scores between groups ..............................................................................37 4-9 Distribution of ideology across partisan identification ......................................................37 4-10 Mean scores for attitudes towards Independent candidate ................................................38 5

PAGE 6

6 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Mast er of Arts in Mass Communication I AM I: INDEPENDEN T IDENTITY AND THE EFFECTS OF FRAMING By Jeffrey Andrew Hannan May 2008 Chair: Johanna Cleary Major: Mass Communication The purpose of this study was to learn more about Independent candidates and citizens. The study had three specific aims: to learn more about the nature of Independent identity; to study the connection between ideolo gy and Independence; and to m easure the effect of framing on attitudes towards Independent candidates. Th e study used an experime ntal design and brief survey, distributed to college students, to meet these goals. The experiment presented students with one of three mock news articles, each of which presented three candidates for Congress. The arti cles varied in their descriptions of the Independent candidate, who was framed either as valuing his own political autonomy or as disliking the two major parties. After reading the article, participants completed a survey on their attitudes towards the candidates and basic demographic information. The results of the study suggest that Independe nce is a multi-dimensional concept; frames of the Independent candidate that echoed separate dimensions of Independence produced distinct effects in the sample population. Thoughts on future research, especially regarding Independents, are presented.

PAGE 7

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Rise of the Independent Over the latter half of the twentieth cent ury, the number of Americans who identified themselves as political Independents rose stead ily: from the 1950s to the 1980s, the number grew so high that Independents actually outnumbered Republicans for a time (Craig, 1985). This trend towards dealignment, or dissociation from political parties, was slightly reversed by the Reagan administration and accompanying Republican success, though the 1992 and 1996 elections demonstrated a persistent portion of the populat ion who still seemed to fall outside of the traditional partisan configurati on. In fact, more recent research confirms a widespread trend towards dealignment in Western societies such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (Clarke and Stewart, 1998) Individuals are increasingly distancing themselves from traditional partisan affiliations; even with the resurgence of part isanship in the last decade, approximately one third of the American population still identifies as Independent (Gallup finds increase in Independents, typical of off-years, 2007). Despite the obvious implications of dealignm ent for our democracy, many researchers in the past have treated Independent s as politically irrelevant. In The American Voter the Michigan researchers suggested that Independents are pr imarily those individuals who lack a positive attachment to one party or another (Campbe ll et al, 1960); because their study focused on partisanship, they spent little time expandi ng on this idea. They mention in passing that Independents may choose to identify as such because of a negative appraisal of existing parties, or perhaps because they place a high valu e on the idea of Independence itself. Some researchers have continued to disregard Independents: Keith et al (1986) have maintained that Independents, for the most part behave just as regular partisans do, sometimes 7

PAGE 8

even more so. They vote along party lines, they are surprisingly loyal to pa rties that they lean towards, and they have high levels of general political involvement. Since most Independents behave like partisans, we should treat them as such. Nevertheless, Independents do depart from their partisan counterparts in several important be havioral respects: they are more likely to split their tickets on election day, and th ey also are more likely to ch ange the party that they lean towards from one election to the next (Greene, 2000). Studying the Independent Understanding these behaviors is important, but political communicators must also learn how to influence these behaviors. Whether strivi ng to bring Independents back into the partisan fold, or encouraging Independents to resist partisan affiliation, how the media or political campaigns communicate to this importan t population is vital for many reasons. First, as Stephen Craig (1985) has su ggested, understanding the varieties of nonpartisanship is necessary to understanding the phenomenon of dealignment. If dealignment truly is a concern, then reve rsing that trend involves reac hing out to Independents. Second, many Independents are highly politic ally involved (Dennis, 1988). The fact that certain types of Independents are more involved than certain types of partisans suggests that, however they choose to be involved, this popula tion plays an important role in our democracy. For those interested in involving Independent voters in efforts to combat or resist the two-party system, understanding how to motivate Independents is very important. Third, Independents represent a potential swing vote, a group of citizens who do not firmly identify with either major party. Indepe ndents represent a centr al battleground on which the two parties will most certainly be meeti ng each other in coming years, and understanding how they make political decisions will be central to the outcome of that struggle. 8

PAGE 9

While it is clearly important to study Indepe ndents as a broad category, it is even more important to study college students who identify as Independent. First, college students, more so than the general population, tend to resist partis an affiliation (Abramowitz, 1983). Students are more flexible in their political affiliations, and often switch affiliations during college. Second, college students are more poli tically involved than their non-college peers (Bernstein, 2005). Finally, college students represent a significant portion of the future audience for political communication, and perhaps an even greater por tion of our future elected officials. Dealignment and disengagement from the part y system are serious concerns, and future solutions must be based on current research. How can political campaigns and the media, whatever their aims, effectively communicate to individuals who identify as Independent? Unfortunately, little effort has been made to an swer this question. Most research has focused on the different reasons that cause individuals to identify as Independe nt (See Dennis, 1988; Daalder, 1992; Greene, 2000); while this resear ch has been important and enlightening, it does not tell us much about how to practically co mmunicate to Independents. This study aims to understand how different messages regarding Independent candidates are received by college students, particularly Inde pendent college students. This study will follow an experimental design to test the effects of framing on voter support for Independent candidates. Participants will be exposed to newspaper articles on a fictional Congressional race; these articles will present a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent candidate. The Independent candidacy will be presented in different ways, designed to highlight various facets of Independence identified by previous literature. After exposure to these articles, participants will rate each candi date and indicate their willingness to support the Independent candidate specifically. 9

PAGE 10

10 Chapter 2 will evaluate existing literature on both framing theory and the current understanding of Independent voters. Chapter 3 will lay out the methodology for the current study. Chapter 4 will present the findings of this study, Chapter 5 will discuss those findings, and Chapter 6 will offer concluding thoughts and suggestions for future research.

PAGE 11

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Explaining the Rise in the Number of Independents As The American Voter (Campbell et al, 1960) suggested, Independents may actually have a number of different justifications for thei r choice of nonpartisanship: a lack of positive attachment to the parties, a nega tive evaluation of the parties, or a high regard for the idea of Independence. But which of these reasons, if any, explained the rise in the number of Independents from the 1950s to the 1980s? Miller and Wattenburg (1983), writing in the American Journal of Political Science argued that Independents were not so much tu rned off by politics (a negative evaluation of parties) as they were tuning out from politics. They delineated between two types of citizens: Independents, who were politica lly involved and may lean towards one party or another, and those individuals who were nonpartisan and expressed no preference between the parties (nonpartisan no-preferences, or NP Ns). According to Miller and Wattenberg, Independents were largely dissatisfied with the parties performa nce, and NPNs were simply indifferent to the choices offered them by the parties. This hypothesis, that citizens were moving away from preferences and towards a more neutral evaluation of the parties, was termed th e neutrality hypothesis in later literature; Wattenberg (1984) expanded these ideas, suggesting th at parties were less and less relevant to American citizens interested in political involv ement. For a number of reasons, parties were no longer the primary vehicle of invol vement for many citizens; as a result of the partie s decline in saliency, more individuals chose to identify as Independent rather than cling to the vestigial party system. 11

PAGE 12

But the American citizens attitude to wards the parties probably went beyond mere neutrality. There was also a sense of increa sed cynicism in the 1970s and 1980s, and this cynicism towards government often was redirect ed towards the parties (Craig, 1985). In his critique of Wattenbergs neutra lity hypothesis, Craig contended that a decrease in perceived saliency of the parties did not equate to neutral ity towards the parties. Rather, parties could grow less relevant to American politics while at the same time evoke negative responses and evaluations from American citizen s. If parties are no longer repr esentative of the public will, then the parties will be subject to increased criticism, while at the same time growing less salient to everyday politics. Craig (1985) also sugge sted that the major parties were growing indistinguishable from one another, and this also contributed to the public moving away from them. Dennis (1992) summarized this train of thought well, argui ng that the growth in the number of Independents was attributable to two fundamental f actors: indifference and hostility. These attitudes may be easy to understand for some, but others may ask specifically what turned so many citizens off to the major parties? Many factors could be cited, but Webb (2005) does an especially good job outlining the indictments against the parties: like many large institutions, they are often subject to corruption; they are sel f-interested, often to the point of seeming petty; and they are, in many cases, perceived to be incapable of effective governance. Furthermore, parties are often forced to aggregate many dive rse interests into singular or overly simplistic platforms, leading to a defection of many partic ular interest groups. In fact, Webb suggests that interest groups as political institutions offer an appealing alternative to many citizens: because parties are forced to represent ideological amal gamations, citizens with particular interests may 12

PAGE 13

elect more specialized institutions to represent th em and towards which to direct their political energies. For whatever structural reasons, citizens of ten find themselves less and less attached to political parties. This attitude ma nifests itself in a nu mber of ways (Daalder, 1992): first, citizens may adopt a normative position which rejects all parties. Individuals may perceive the party system itself to be detrimental to democracy, and t hus turn away from whatever system or set of options is presented to them. Second, citizens may se lectively reject parties that they perceive to be particularly bad. Parties with a history of corruption or ideological oversimplification may lose citizen support; and how ma ny parties can reasonably escape either of those criticisms? Third, citizens may reject specific party systems. Not quite an indictment of all party politics, and more broad than a criticism of a particular pa rty, this attitude represen ts dissatisfaction with whatever party system a citizen may be offered in his or her system of government. Fourth, citizens may simply view parties as increasingly irrelevant. This attitude does not necessarily entail a negative evaluation of parties or party performance, merely the belief that alternative forms of political involvement are mo re relevant and effective. The Psychology of Independence The authors and research discussed above help explain the aggregate movement of citizens towards Independence, but tells us very little about the psychology of Independence. We can understand why negative attitudes to wards parties, be they attit udes of indifference or hostility, can drive citizens away from partisan affiliation, but what exactly are they being driven towards? What does it mean to identify as an Independent? Unfortunately, the answer to this question is not very clear. Baste do and Lodge (1980), in a semantic analysis of what it means to be an Independent, Republican, or Democrat in America, found, not surprisingly, that to be a Republican or Democrat, or a partisan, is a much clearer 13

PAGE 14

concept than to be an Independent. The concep t of Independence is no t only semantically ambiguous, but it is difficult to di stinguish from the concept of Republican or Democrat. This means that the scale most commonly used to delineate political affiliation, the 7-point ANES scale, may actually conflate Independence with Republican or Democratic affiliation. The scale, which includes strong and weak partisans, Inde pendents leaning towards one party or another, and pure Independents with no stated preferen ce, assumes that partisanship operates along a unidimensional scale, and this concept has it self come under fire from various corners. Weisberg (1980) contends that the unidimen sional conceptualization of partisanship is entirely insufficient. It is especi ally flawed in regards to Indepe ndence, which the scale treats as a midpoint equally far from either partisan extreme. Instead, Weisberg argues for a multidimensional understanding of partisanship, sp ecifically a three-dimensional model which takes into account an individuals attitude toward s each party (on separate dimensions) as well as the individuals attitude towards Independence. These three dimensions, which are orthogonal, combine to comprise the partisan ch aracter of any given individual. The Multidimensionality of Independence This idea, that Independence is a multidimen sional construct, has received much support in the literature. Valentine and Van Wingen (19 80) demonstrated that Independents display a high association with what they consider Independent values su ch as autonomy, individualism, and rationality. Their analysis of ANES data reve aled at least two signi ficant dimensions of Independence: an individuals attitude towards th e two major parties and the individuals attitude towards Independence itself. However one charac terizes the makeup of attitudes concerning the major parties, be they unidimensional between th e two extremes or a composite of two separate dimensions each measuring attitude towards one pa rty, those attitudes only form one dimension of Independence. This finding was echoed by Crai g (1985), who labeled the partisan dimension 14

PAGE 15

saliency of the parties, while also recognizing a dimension of attitudes towards Independence. These two dimensions were empirically supported by Kamieniecki (1988) who conducted regression analysis of ANES data and found that the multidimensional approach yielded greater explanatory power. This point is important, and b ears explication. An individual, under this view, may identify as an Independent for any combination of two reasons: their attitudes towards the parties may lead them towards Independence, or their attitu des towards Independence itself may draw them towards it. So a citizen may be so turned off by the parties that he or she is forced to choose Independence as a form of protest (Dennis, 1988); alternatively, a citi zen may have positive evaluations of both parties, yet still feel strongly attracted to the idea of Independence (Greene, 2004). The Impact of Independence on Political Behavior Of course, political scientists (and political pa rties) are generally more concerned with the behavioral results of psychological attitudes, so how does this multidimensional concept of Independence affect indivi dual political behavior? According to Bruce Keith and his colleague s (1986), it doesnt. They contend that Independent leaners, or individuals who identify as Independent but then express a preference for one party or another, behave just like po litical partisans. The remaining, or pure Independents, are less politically active than the leaners, and so are paid less attention by Keith. Setting aside the important ques tion of why the pure Independents are less involved for a moment, we must deal with this weighty claim. That leaners ofte n behave like partisans has been confirmed already (Wattenberg, 1987; Dennis, 1992) which leads us to suspect that the label Independent in these cases is misleading, and the distinction between leaning Independents and partisans is a meaningless one. 15

PAGE 16

Greene (2000) has argued, however, that leaners do differ from partisans in two important behavioral respects: they are more likel y to engage in split-tic ket voting and they are more likely to change their affiliation (or lean) over time. Both of these behaviors suggest that leaners, despite some similarities to partisans, are still, to some degree, independent, and are more susceptible to persuasion. Moreover, Keith et al (1986) acknowledge the second dimension of Independence, the individuals attitude towards Independent values, though they disregard it as self-image and meaningless in the larger question of political behavior. Not only does this fence off fertile ground for research and a greate r understanding of the psychol ogy of Independence, it also ignores the fact that this s elf-image seems to be largely responsible for the behavioral differences cited by Greene. Other researchers have uncovered other di fferences between Independent leaners and partisans. Martinez and Gant (1990) demonstrated that for many I ndependents, it is particular issues that drive partisan behavi or. Unlike partisans, who tend to take a big picture approach to choices like voting, Independents tend to be dr iven more by particular issues when making political choices. Additionall y, Jack Dennis (1988 and 1992), who has conducted extensive studies of Independents and partisan behavi or, has found both important similarities and differences between the two groups. For instance, Independents behave like partisans in terms of commitment and political involvement, but differ in their high regard for political autonomy and their political mobility. Why Do People Choose Independence? Beyond the simple two-dimensional explana tion offered above, other authors, most notably Dennis, have provided more extensive explanations of why individuals choose to identify as Independent. 16

PAGE 17

In his article Political independence in Am erica, part II: Towards a theory, Dennis (1988) tests four hypotheses concer ning motivations for identifyi ng as an Independent. First, individuals may identify as an Independent because they highly value political autonomy. These citizens feel a sort of civic duty in their Independent identity; they believe that by being an Independent they are preserving their ability to act rationally and pragmatically despite partisan influences, that they are bei ng true individuals. Second, an individual may identify as an Independent out of a sense of what Dennis calls anti-partyism (p. 202). This sentiment may take any of the forms developed by Daalder (19 92), which were discussed earlier. Third, an individual may identify as an Independent becau se they are truly neutral towards the parties. They may perceive no discernible cost or benefit to affiliating with or supporting either party, and truly do default to the midpoint of Independence. Finally, an individual may identify as an Independent because, in evaluating their past pol itical behavior, they perceive themselves as being politically mobile. This group of individuals simply reflects on their voting history and, seeing that they have supported both parties at one time or another, conclude that they must be an Independent. Denniss regression analysis finds support for each of these four dimensions of Independence in ANES data, and his theoretical model is helpful to this inquiry. Another important researcher in this field is Steven Gr eene, who has explored the idea of Independence from a psychological perspective, and has produced intere sting and important re sults. In a recent study, Greene demonstrates that identifying as an Independent or partisan is a matter of social identity (Greene, 2004). While many theorists treat partisanship as an internal factor that often determines group membership and social identity, Greene contends that we identify as partisans or Independents largely because we perceive thos e social groups to be prestigious or otherwise 17

PAGE 18

attractive. In other words, if an individual positively evaluates Independents as a group, he or she will be more likely to identify as an Independent. Greenes research also confirms the multidimensionality of partisanship, suggesting that as our evaluations of partisan groups rise, our evaluations of Independents as a group falls, and vice versa. Nevertheless, we may identify as an Independent because of our evaluation of that social group, and yet still behave like a partisan for cognitive or strategic reasons. Greene (2000) has also conducted unique psyc hological surveys of Independent leaners, developing additional differences between them a nd partisans that helps us understand how the different dimensions of Independe nce contribute to the choice to identify as Independent despite partisan behaviors or tendencies. Greene has f ound that Independent lean ers are less affectedly attached to their partisan tendenc ies than outright partisans; instea d, their partisan behaviors are a result of cognitive attachment and strategic deci sions. Also, Independent leaners identify with other Independents as a social group before and above they iden tify with partisans. Ideology and Independence Now that we understand more about Independenc e and its relationship to partisanship, we must learn more about ideology and its inter action with Independence. From very early on, political scientists have noticed the inconsiste ncies associated with ideology and ideological identification. Converse (1964) noted that most citizens had very little ideological consistency among their issue positions: they might identify themselves as c onservative, but then indicate consistently liberal positions on pa rticular issues, or vi ce versa. Ideology did not seem to provide a clear mechanism for citizens to identify or make sense of their issue positions. Instead, according to Conover and Feldman (1981), ideology is actually more about symbolically self-labeling than it is about issues and attitudes. Like partisanship, people view themselves in certain ways, and then identify w ith the labels that come closest to their self18

PAGE 19

image. If a person feels closer to those people she considers 'lib eral', she is more likely to consider herself a liberal. But what happens if these ideological labels are insufficient? Or if they bear no close resemblance to the available partisan dimensions or identities? Ideol ogy is popularly conceived of in simple, 'left/right' terms. This is similar to the unidimensional model of partisanship that places Independence squarely between the 'left', th e Democrats, and the 'right', Republicans. But this unidimensional model may not sufficiently ca pture the complexity of ideology. Huckfeldt et al (1999) seem to support this idea, suggesting that if an individual does not conceive of the world in left/right terms, then it would be ex ceptionally difficult for them to place themselves on a left/right scale of ideology. In fact, very few Americans even understand the left/right scale to begin with (Kitschelt and Hellemans, 1990). With confusion about the very terms people are expected to identify themselves with, it is not surprising that they may be confused about their own identity. Why could this not lead to individuals "opting-out" of the left/right scale altogether, and identifying in terms that reject that fundamental dichotomy? Abramowitz (1983) has indicated that cl ear ideological convictions tend to produce changes in partisanship among college students; fo r instance, a student with a liberal ideology is more likely to adopt a liberal partisanship dur ing college. If ideology can pull an individual towards partisanship, couldn' t it also pull an individual away from partisanship? Now a clearer picture of Independents and th e various motivations for their choice of identity emerges. First, some Independents simply place a high value on the concept of Independence and related ideas of political autonomy a nd rationality. Even if they have clear partisan preferences, they choose the positive association as an Independent over a partisan 19

PAGE 20

association. Second, some Independents just choo se to avoid the partisan system. They may perceive the parties to be corrupt or ineffectiv e, and resort to identifying as Independent as a form of protest. They may also simply be neut ral towards the parties: they either perceive no meaningful difference between the parties, or what differences exist are irrelevant to their lives. Whether the attitude is negative or just ambi guous, some Independents identify as such because of distaste for the parties. Finally, some Independents are overwhelmed by ideological complexity, or perhaps underwhelmed by partisan simplicity. They may be confused by complex ideological options, or dissatisfied with the lack of ideological similarity between their position and that of the parties. Ideological complexity th at cannot be reduced to a simple left/right scale leaves individuals feeling politically homeless, unsure of where they belong. College Students and Independents Abramowitz (1983) has found that college students often change their partisan affiliation while in college. While Abramowitz is chiefly c oncerned with partisanship and partisan change, his research may have important implications fo r the study of Independents. Abramowitz argues that college students go through a period of rational evaluation, when they compare their ideology to their partisanship and often reconsid er their partisan affiliation if the two do not match up. A liberal student who was raised as a Republican will often switc h his affiliation to Democrat, and vice versa for a conservati ve student raised as a Democrat. The higher rate of Independence among college students is confusing in light of the relatively high level of political involvement am ong college students compared to their collegeaged peers (Bernstein, 2005). In th is case, at least, identifying as an Independent may not signify withdrawal from the political process, but instead a new way of engaging in it. If this is the case, it is especially important for us to understand ho w Independence can affect the political behavior 20

PAGE 21

and attitudes of college students, be they partisan or Independent themselv es. In order to explore these ideas, we will use the power of the media to set the political agenda and frame candidates. Second-Level Agenda Setting and Framing The process of agenda setting has been a s ubject of inquiry for communication scholars for several decades (see studies including Iy engar & Kinder, 1987; McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Wanta, 1997). Researchers studyi ng agenda-setting typically focus on the amount of coverage that a particular issue receives; the theory of agenda setting asse rts that the media has the power to influence what the audience thinks about (McCom bs & Shaw, 1972). Recent research, however, has begun to emphasize the pow er of the media to influence how the audience and public think about those issues (Benford & Hunt, 1992; Ghanem, 1997; Soroka, 2003). Modern agenda-setting theory includes a rather large subset referred to as second-level agenda setting (Ghanem, 1997; McCombs & Estr ada, 1997). Ghanem (1997) lays out a thorough explanation of second-level agenda setting: within a set agenda, media outle ts control the way issues are prioritized within a policy category, how causality is perceived and understood by the public, what relevance is assigned to different aspects of an issu e, and what policy options are pursued by activists and voters. These different el ements of an audiences reaction to an issue form a powerful foundation for social action: many scholars and researcher s have established the link between the effects of second-level agenda setting and audience attitudes towards candidates and political issues (McCombs & Reynolds, 200 2; Weaver, 1996). The media chooses to cover different aspects of a candidacy, a nd as a result the publics view of that candidate is influenced. Second-level agenda setting discusses the media or public agenda on, not surprisingly, two levels: objects and attributes (McCombs & Ghanem, 2001). Objects ar e issues or ideas on the media's agenda, such as the war in Iraq or the economy; attributes are particular characteristics or ways of thinking about those objects, such as looking at the economy from a 21

PAGE 22

middle-class perspective or a corporate perspectiv e. So a candidates place on the agenda is the first-level, the level of objects, and then the way that the candidate is trea ted is the second-level, or the level of attributes. Agenda setting is generally considered a f unction of the mass media; this study is more interested in the effects that th is process has on the attitudes of voters. The attributes that the media may present surrounding a give n object on the agenda contri bute to the public's perception of the object, and here is where second-level ag enda setting begins to look a lot like framing theory. In fact, second-level ag enda setting is so similar to framing theory as to cause many scholars to argue for their convergence (Yiout as & Segvic, 2003; McCombs & Ghanem, 2001). Framing theory is borrowed from sociology a nd psychology (Goffman, 1 974; Reese, 2001) and deals with the way people view the world around them. Many authors have used similar ideas in the past (Gamson, 1992; Graber, 1988; Riker, 19 86), but it was Entman (1993) that brought the framing literature together into a unified th eory. This application of framing to mass communication emphasized two primary processes: selection and salience. Media outlets frame issues by selecting what to incl ude in a story and then assigning varying levels of salience to those issues (Entman, 1993). That framing theory can make better sense of attitudinal or psychologi cal changes is just one reason why it is the appropriate framework for this study. Frami ng is also an important area of research for political communication because of its ability to direct action. This connection between framing and social acti on exists in three ways. First, when ideas are included or excluded from a frame, action is either prom pted or effaced (Sniderman, Brody, & Tetlock, 1991). This process of selection rela tes rather directly to the basi c process of agenda setting, and it is easy to see how the information included or excluded about a candida te would drastically 22

PAGE 23

affect how voters react to that ca ndidate. If there is a particular piece of information that a voter would find actionable, that information's inclusion in a frame would help lead to that voter taking action; but if the information is excluded altogeth er from a frame, then a voter or citizen would never have cause to act in the first place. The second way that framing directs action is through the creation and maintenance of phenomenological signifiers; the very names and titles we use to describe the world around us can determine our attitudes towa rds social action (Gamson, 1992) The political battle waged over partial-birth abortions shows how a politi cally charged name can have great influence over a public debate (Esacove, 2004). The signifiers we use to describe objects in the political landscape are a result of how those objects and thei r related issues are framed, and the names we end up with are a fundamental part of our political atti tudes. The term Independent is itself a semantically unclear term (Bastedo and Lodge 1980): its meaning is constantly undergoing changes based on the political landscape. How the media chooses to frame an Independent candidate goes to the very heart of what it means to be Independent at all. This element of framing relates to issue-ow nership theory. Petrocik (1996) demonstrates that each of the two main political parties 'o wns' a set of issues: th e general public strongly associates each party with certain issues, and co mes to view the parties as being most effective on those issues that they own. But there is no "I ndependent" party; choosing to identify as an Independent does not entail an affinity for a pa rticular set of issues, nor do Independent candidates 'own' issues in the same way that Democrats or Republicans do. This semantic ambiguity, perhaps due to a lack of issueownership, makes it difficult for Independent candidates to positively identify themselves. Issue-ow nership theory also contends that as issues are mentioned more frequently by candidates or by the media, the general public comes to view 23

PAGE 24

those issues as increasingly important (Petro cik, 1996). This positive connection between the framing of issues and issues saliency w ith the public also can encourage action. Finally, framing can direct so cial action by suppressing altern ative discourse and frames. When frames have taken hold of the public t hought process, alternat ive viewpoints find it remarkably difficult to build momentum for social action (Gamson, 1988). Because protests against the dominant discourse generally rely on language and t actics that fall beyond the scope of the dominant frame, the general populace ea sily discounts them. If the media treats an Independent candidate, or Indepe ndent candidates generally, one way, then it will be remarkably difficult for a candidate to shake that definiti on. Essentially, the general psyche of a population can only support one dominant frame at a time, a nd so all interpretation of new information is filtered through that frame. Encouraging action or protest against a dominant frame, such as the two-party system of politics, becomes increasingly difficult as the dominant frame becomes more deeply embedded in the publics mind. I ndependent candidates must combat not only partisan biases but also media frames that may misrepresent their motivations. These various factors and their interplay w ith the success or failure of frames all contribute to audience beliefs a nd behaviors, particularly in elections. The choice between competing candidates and ideas may be over-limited by the way those candidates and issues are framed (Zaller, 1992). Citizens and voters may be unaware of alternatives to the choices presented; Independent candidate s may be portrayed as out of the mainstream and rendered illegitimate by certain frames, and voters are left with fewer choices than may have originally been offered. Even the choices left for the voting populace may be illusory if the frame surrounding the choice has achieved dominance in the mass medi a (Entman, 1989). Choices may be so limited or 24

PAGE 25

25 framed in such a biased way as to render them meaningless. Voters may be left to choose between options that all favor one group or intere st; those groups and interests will have won by framing the question in such a way as to preclude adverse answers. Even if choices are not limited or mooted, th ey are still powerfully influenced by frames in the media (Kiousis, 2005). The power of frames to influence the public debate on issues is significant, which leads to intense competition between frames in society and the mass media (Entman, 1989; Riker, 1986; Benford & Hunt 1992). This competition can occur between diverse sources and diverse frames, and the re sults of the competition often determine the outcome of larger social discussi ons. One site of this competition that deserves greater study is the presentation and framing of Indepe ndent candidates for political office.

PAGE 26

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Questions In order to better understand dealignment (Cra ig, 1985), we must investigate the various dimensions of nonpartisanship. This study explored how college students react to different frames of Independent political candidates. Most research in this area ha s been conducted at the aggregate, survey-analysis level. While this is fine for understanding aggregat e political behavior, it proves inadequate for understanding the specific mechanisms that driv e individual behavior. Ga ining insight into the decisions of Independent voters and the way co llege students perceive Independent candidates can direct political communication and also test the theories of Independence already extant in the literature. We were interested in three general questions. Resear ch question one: Do Independent students respond to specific fram es of Independent candidates that echo the dimensions of Independence outlined above? Resear ch question two: Does ideological confusion or neutrality result in Independe nt identification? Research questi on three: Do different frames of Independent candidates produce diffe rent responses from students generally? We sought answers to these questions through an experimental design. Framing Independent Candidacies The literature suggests that Independence is a multi-dimen sional concept, and that individuals who identify as Independent do so fo r two basic reasons: they either place a high value on the concept of political autonomy, or they are dissatisfied with the two-party system. The literature on ideology suggests a possible third reason for Independent identification: ideological complexity. This study attempted to activate those be liefs through the use of framing. 26

PAGE 27

Independent candidates were presen ted, or framed, in different ways designed to resonate with those values. This study sought to test existing theory by exploring the effects of framing; an experimental design is appropriate for this sort of research, as it affords the greatest chance to understand the causal relationship between framing and individual assessment of candidates (Hakim, 1986). The study design had two experimental groups and one control group. Participants were drawn from public speaking classes at a large Southeastern university; participants were offered extra credit for their participat ion. Drawing from this population presents challenges to the external validity and generali zability of the results, though Kuhbe rger (1998), in a meta-analysis of framing effects research, has found that college students do not significantly vary from the general population. This suggests that the results of this study are still relevant to society as a whole; nevertheless, learning more about college students in particular is still a valuable goal. Methods and Survey Instrument Participants were told that th ey are participating in a study on media coverage of political races. They were given a mock news story abou t a Congressional race in the Midwest between a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent candida te. The mock story was modeled after a real Midwestern newspaper, so that the source credib ility was not called into question: this was done to prevent disengagement by pa rticipants (Druckman, 2001). The articles and surveys were bundled in packets, then collate d by experimental group, so that the packets cycled through each group. Each class that was used as part of the sample received p ackets from each experimental group, so that approximately one-third of each cl ass was placed into each group. Each group was only exposed to one story, with one version of the framing of the Independent candidate; this 27

PAGE 28

was done to prevent frame competition and a po ssible wash effect between contradictory frames (Riker, 1986). The control story presented id eologically neutral informati on about the three candidates: their names, basic personal information, their po litical affiliation, and their reason for running for office. This information was designed to be unobtr usive, unremarkable, and generic. The control group is important because it enables a more accurate estimation of the effects of the experimental manipulations. We are not just interested in the way respondents react to the frames of Independence; we also want to know how th ese frames compare to a neutral presentation of Independence, or, put another way, we want to know if these frames of Independent candidates improve or degrade the public's perception of those candidates. The two experimental stories differed only in their presentation of the Independent candidate. By limiting variation to this aspect of the story, we can be st control for confounding variables, one of the chief stre ngths of experimental design (Druckman, 2001). One story framed the Independent candidate as a politically autonomous individual who resists classification, a candidate who may agree with both major parties on certain issues, but nevertheless feels it is important to preserve his independence. The othe r story framed the Independent candidate as a challenge to the two-party system itself, a political outsider who feels that the major parties are too controlling and restrictive of the political system. These fram es were designed to resonate with the Independent values identified in the liter ature, which is one of the clearer ways that frames resonate with viewers (Pattillo-McCoy, 1 998). Frames that employ the cultural language of the target audience are more likely to be adopted, and these frames invoke the values developed by previous li terature on Independents. 28

PAGE 29

Before administration of the survey, these mock articles were pre-tested with associates of the researcher and a small nu mber of participants from public speaking classes similar to the classes that the studys sample was drawn from. These participants were asked to read the articles, and then asked several questions con cerning the information contained therein. These participants showed a consistent grasp of the relevant material in the articles, and gave the researcher confidence that the experimental manipulations were significant enough to register with respondents. Internal ma nipulation checks were not incl uded in the actual survey, both because of these successful pre-tests and to k eep the length of the survey to a minimum. After they read the news story, participan ts completed a questi onnaire regarding their attitudes towards the three candidates. Respondents were asked who they would be most likely to vote for in the race; they were also asked to rate their attitudes towards each candidate. Basic demographic and political affiliation informati on was also surveyed in the questionnaire. This post-test only design is well-suited for this study. A pre-test was not necessary, as the control and experimental groups were randomly distributed; this randomization allows us to control for rival hypotheses (Campbell, 1989). As with any experiment al design, the chief concern was internal and external validity. Campbell and Stanley (1963) lay out the primary dangers for validity, and this study was designed to avoid these pitfalls. Th e post-test only design eliminated concerns over instrument decay, ma turation, history, and dropout effects. Because there was no pre-test, and therefor e no delay between the pre-test and post-test phas es, an instant and internally sound measure of participant attitudes was obtained. The chief concern for external validity was that the sample was not representative of the larger population; this concern is addressed above. 29

PAGE 30

30 Coding and the Handling of Data The data from the respondents was sorted in to three groups, labeled according to the way that their article treated the I ndependent candidate. Group one receiv ed an article presenting only neutral demographic information, and was re ferred to as the "Neutral" group. Group two received an article presenting the Independent candidate as a political maverick who values political autonomy, and was referred to as the "Autonomy" group. Group three received an article presenting the Independent candidate as disliking the two ma jor political parties, and was referred to as the "Party Antipathy group. Respondents were asked, among other demographi c information, to identify their partisan affiliation. They could choose between Democrat, Republican, Independent, and Something Else. These Something Else responses were grou ped with "Independent" responses for most of the analysis. This was done because actual thir d-party identification, such as with the Green Party or the Libertarian Party, is rare; additionally, th ese two groups were statistically similar enough to merit grouping. Finally, respondents were asked to place them selves on an ideological scale ranging from one, for very liberal, to seven, for very conser vative. These values were inverted for data analysis, as all other questions in the survey assigned lower numerical values for conservative responses and higher numerical values for liberal responses, so each one became a seven, each two a six, and so on.

PAGE 31

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Frequencies and Sample Characteristics In total, 152 surveys were distributed a nd collected in six different public speaking classes at the Universi ty of Florida in February, 2008. Some specific demographic information on the students can be obtained below; the public speaking class that the sample was drawn from is required for most majors at the University, so the sample drew from most fields and from most age groups. Out of these 152 surveys, 14 were excl uded because they were either illegible or because the respondent had failed to answer more than half of the questions. The remaining 138 surveys constituted the sample for the study. The 138 respondents were nearly evenly divide d into the three experimental groups; this distribution can be found in Tabl e 4-1. To test the random distribution of respondents into the three experimental groups, chi-square test s were conducted on the major demographic characteristics of the sample. The chi-square test is appropriate for characteristics such as gender, race, religion, and partisan affiliation because th ese data recorded for these variables is nominal (or categorical). The sample for this study had a large gender gap, with ov er 60% of the sample being female. The distribution of males and female s into the three groups was very nearly even; Table 4-2 displays this distribution and the chisquare summary. The majority of the sample was Caucasian, though a sizable number of minority respondents were included in the survey. Christianity was the most frequent religious affiliation in the sa mple, with a sizable number of respondents also selecting "None" or "Other" as their religious a ffiliation. Both the race and the religious affiliations of responde nts were fairly evenly distributed throughout the three groups, as Table 4-3 (race) and Table 4-4 (religion) show. The sample had more Democrats than Republicans, followed by Independents and then those that chose to identify their partisanship as 31

PAGE 32

Something Else; despite apparent variation in the distribution of res pondents, Table 4-5 shows that the various partisan affiliations were distri buted within the realm of chance into the three experimental groups. Question 1: Do Independent Students Respond to Specific Frames of Independent Candidates that Echo the Dimensions of Independence Outlined Above? The first purpose of this research was to determine the ways Inde pendent voters reacted to the different frames of the Independent candi date. The first point of interest was who the Independent students would vote fo r. Before looking at the Indepe ndent students in particular, chi-square figures were obtained for the total number of votes for each candidate in the three experimental groups (Table 4-6). These vote to tals fell within the re alm of chance; crosstabulation and chi-square tests revealed no st atistically significant variation among the vote counts in each experimental group. The next step was to look specifically at those students who identified as Independent. Once we isolated thos e respondents, we found th at both experimental groups had higher voting incide nces for the Independent can didate among Independent respondents (Table 4-7). The tendency for Indepe ndent students to vote for the Independent candidate in the two experiment al groups is pronounced, and co mes very close to statistical significance. The next point of interest was the att itudes of Independent students towards the Independent candidates. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were conducted on each measure of respondent attitude towards the Independent candidate: general attitude, how qualified the candidate is to hold public office, how strong of a leader the candidate is, and whether or not the candidate shares the respondent's values. These tests all returned significance levels below 95%, indicating that there was no statistically significant impact on Independent respondents' attitudes towards the Independent candidates. How the entire population of 32

PAGE 33

respondents reacted to the Indepe ndent candidates and the ways they were framed is discussed under Question 3. Question 2: Does Ideological Confusion or Neut rality Result in Inde pendent Identification? The second area of interest in this research is the effect that ideology had on Independent identity. First, a one-way anal ysis of variance test was conduc ted on the measure of ideology; this test shows no statistically significant varia tion in ideology across th e three groups (Table 48). Ideology was not affected by the experimental manipulation, but did it play a role in the partisan affiliation of respondents? Table 4-9 displays the distribution of ideology across partisan affiliation: we notice in the first two columns that ideological conservatives tended to identify as Republicans and ideological liberals tended to iden tify as Democrats. Independents tended to be slightly more liberal than not, while the larg est number of those st udents identifying as Something Else placed themselves in the exact mi ddle of the ideological scale. Our interest here is not in comparing means, as we can plainly see the influen ce of ideology in the first two columns; additionally, because of the small numb er of Independent students, it is difficult to derive statistically sound conclusi ons from the data. It is notew orthy, though, that only in the fourth category of partisan affiliation, Somethi ng Else, did most respondents indicate a neutral ideology. Question 3: Do Different Frames of Independent Candidates Produce Different Responses from Students Generally? The third purpose of this research was to explore the attitudes towards Independent candidates and the effects that varying frames had on those attitudes. The first measure of these attitudes is the likely vote of th e respondents. An initial glance at Table 4-6 reveals higher vote counts for the Independent candidate in the two experimental groups ; the chi-square test on this variable, however, demonstrates that this variation is within the realm of chance (significance is 33

PAGE 34

indicated in the rightmost column of Table 4-6). Additionally, there ar e larger numbers of Independent voters in those two groups (Table 4-5), making it more difficult to conclude that the experimental manipulation was responsible for the variation in the vote c ount. To test this, chisquare tests were run on the vot e distributions in the three groups, controlling for partisan affiliation. These tests resulted in no statistically significant variati on in expected vote counts in the three experimental groups. Looking at the attitudes of respondents toward s the Independent candidates, there is some variation between the three groups. Table 4-10 di splays the mean scores for each measure of attitude towards the Independent candidate in the thre e groups. A one-way analysis of variance test was conducted on these means, and the signif icance values of this test are reported in the rightmost column of Table 4-10. The first two measures of attitude display ve ry little variation in the means among the three groups, and the corr esponding p-values (.705 and .445, respectively) suggest that what differences do exist are well within the limits of expected statistical variation. The p-values for the measures of whether the candi date would make a strong leader or shares the values of the respondent are also below the thresh old for statistical signif icance. It is noteworthy, however, that the Neutral group pr oduced the lowest mean scores on those two measures, and a pronounced difference exists between the mean scor es of the Neutral grou p at least one of the two experimental groups: on the measure of the candidate as a strong leader, the Autonomy group rated the candidate notably higher than the Neutral group; on the measure of the candidate sharing the values of the respondents, the Pa rty Antipathy group rated the candidate notably higher than the Neutral group. These results, with significance vales of .094 and .079, both approach the 95% threshold fo r statistical significance. 34

PAGE 35

To further test these relationships, independe nt sample t-tests were conducted for both the strong leader measure and the shared values meas ure. These tests looked at the two groups with the largest difference in means: for the strong lead er measure, the t-test compared the means of the Neutral group and the Autonomy group; for the sh ared values measure, the t-test compared the means of the Neutral group and the Part y Antipathy group. These tests were conducted because the one-way analysis of variance may be measuring a double-effect, or, in other words, because both experimental groups may be having an effect on the mean scores of these measures, which would obscure a statisti cally significant difference betw een one of the means and the control group. Both of these suppl emental t-tests revealed statis tically significant differences between the means. The difference between the Neutral and Autonomy group means on the strong leader measure returned a p-value of .027; the difference between the Neutral and Party Antipathy group means on the shared values measure returned a p-value of .020. These relationships will be further explored in the next chapter. 35

PAGE 36

Table 4-1. Distribution of responde nts into experimental groups Group Percent N = Neutral 32.6% 45 Autonomy 33.3% 46 Party antipathy 34.1% 47 Total 100.0% 138 Table 4-2. Distribution of respondents by gender N= Group Male Female Total Chi-square significance Neutral 18 27 45 .525 Autonomy 18 28 46 Party antipathy 14 33 47 Total 50 88 138 Table 4-3. Distributi on of respondents by race N= Group White Black Asian Hispanic Other Total Chi-square significance Neutral 30 6 3 2 4 45 .157 Autonomy 28 6 8 4 0 46 Party antipathy 31 6 5 5 0 47 Total 89 18 16 11 4 138 Table 4-4. Distribution of respondents by religion N= Chi-square significance Group Catholic Jewish Islamic Protestant Other None Total Neutral 15 3 1 7 12 8 45 .907 Autonomy 12 3 1 8 14 7 46 Party antipathy 13 4 1 12 13 4 47 Total 40 10 3 27 39 19 138 Table 4-5. Distribution of res pondents by partisan affiliation Republican Democrat N= Something else Totals Chi-square significance Independent Neutral 12 25 3 5 45 .141 Autonomy 18 18 8 2 46 Party antipathy 13 18 12 4 47 Totals 43 61 23 11 138 36

PAGE 37

Table 4-6. Vote totals for each candidate by group N= Group Rep. Dem. Ind. Chi-square significance Neutral 14 21 10 .130 Autonomy 17 15 14 Party antipathy 14 12 21 Total 45 48 45 Table 4-7. Indicated candidate preferences by Independent studen ts, layered by experimental group N= Affiliation Group Rep. Dem. Ind. Independent Neutral 1 2 0 Autonomy 2 1 5 Party antipathy 2 1 9 Something else Neutral 0 4 1 Autonomy 0 2 0 Party antipathy 1 0 3 Total independents Neutral 1 6 1 Autonomy 2 3 5 Party antipathy 3 1 12 Table 4-8. Mean ideology scores between groups. Group N= Mean Score ANOVA significance Neutral 45 4.5333 .101 Autonomy 46 3.9130 Party antipathy 47 4.0638 Total 138 4.1667 Note: Ideological scale ranges from 1 (v ery conservative) to 7 (very liberal). Table 4-9. Distribution of ideol ogy across partisan identification. Ideology Partisanship (N=) Republicans Democrats Independents Something else Totals 1.00 1 0 1 0 2 2.00 18 0 0 1 19 3.00 17 2 6 1 26 4.00 6 15 4 5 30 5.00 1 26 8 1 35 6.00 0 13 4 3 20 7.00 0 5 0 0 6 Total 43 61 23 11 138 Mean ideology 2.72 5.07 4.30 4.36 Note: Ideological scale ranges from 1 (v ery conservative) to 7 (very liberal). 37

PAGE 38

38 Table 4-10. Mean scores for attit udes towards Independent candidate. Measure of respondent attitude Group Mean ANOVA significance I like the independent candidate Neutral 4.4444 Autonomy 4.5870 .705 Party antipathy 4.6170 I believe the independent candidate is qualified to hold public office Neutral 5.3556 Autonomy 5.0435 .445 Party antipathy 5.1915 I believe the independent candidate would make a strong leader Neutral 4.5111 Autonomy 5.0435 .094 Party antipathy 4.7872 I believe the independent candidate shares my values Neutral 4.1556 Autonomy 4.3478 .079 Party antipathy 4.6809 Note: All four measures were on a scale of 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree).

PAGE 39

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION This study was conducted to discover more about Independent voters and Independent political candidates. The first aim was to learn more about how Independent voters form their opinions and attitudes, the second aim was to le arn more about the connection between ideology and Independence, and the third was to learn more about how Independent candidates might frame their candidacies and how these frames mi ght be received by the p ublic. In analyzing the gathered data, more can be learned about th e third question than th e first two, though some lessons are there to be had for all three areas of interest. Independent Voters Before looking at some conclusions, it should be noted again that those respondents who identified themselves as either Independent or Something Else are considered Independents for our purposes. This choice was made initially because those who identified as Something Else were unlikely to be actually affiliated with a third party (such as the Green Party or the Libertarian Party), and the data bore th is supposition out. Respondents identifying as Independent and those identifying as Something Else answered the survey in statistically similar ways. There is one notable exception to this statistical si milarity, which will be noted below. Otherwise, from here on, we will refer to both of these groups of respondents simply as Independents. The data collected here confir ms that Independents behave mu ch like traditional partisans when deciding which candidates to support. Most Independent respondents indicated that they would likely vote for the Independent candidate. These Independents came from both sides of the ideological scale, with si gnificant numbers registering as both conservative and liberal. Additionally, these respondents varied in their se cond preferences, as registered in their general 39

PAGE 40

attitudes towards the other two can didates: some seemed to prefer the Democrat as their second choice, others the Republican. So these Independ ent voters exist on both e nds of the ideological spectrum. The tendency among Independent respondents to vote for the Independent candidate was similar among partisan respondents; partisansh ip was easily the best predictor of voting preference. In the two experimental groups, however, Independent students were more likely to vote for the Independent candidate s. This tendency was not statis tically significant, but it was pronounced nonetheless. At the same time, there was much variation be tween the three groups separate from the experimental manipulation, so it would be difficult to say with any certainty that the manipulation was responsible for the tendency. Nevertheless, this suggestive finding may mean that Independent voters had their Independence triggered by the positive Independent frames, and thus were more likely to vote in line with their Independent identity. When comparing the data from the three groups of respondents, we find little other evidence of Independent-specific effects. The vo tes were not equally distributed in all three groups or among all different partisan affiliations, but this variation seems attributable to chance, not to the experimental manipul ation in the news article. There were also no specific changes in the attitudes of the Independent respondents towards the three candidates. T hough there were some statistical ly significant changes in the attitudes of the population as a whole, these changes were not specifi c to the Independent respondents, nor did they seem es pecially pronounced among that group. In summary, there were no statistically si gnificant effects on the I ndependents in this survey, but their voting tendencies suggest a relationship between the frames deployed in the articles and their decision to vote Independent. Beyond that, th eir attitudes seemed largely 40

PAGE 41

determined merely by their identification as I ndependent. A connection could still exist in two ways: either the Independent frames in the arti cle encouraged the respondents to identify as Independent in the first place, or perhaps it tr iggered their partisanship and encouraged an Independent vote. Ideology and Independence Some evidence suggests, but does not confir m, a relationship between Independence and voting behavior. Ideology, by contrast, was not very strongly correlate d with vote at all. In fact, there seemed to be a good d eal of confusion surrounding the question on ideology: several respondents indicated ideological affiliations th at, on the surface, seemed at odds with their partisan affiliation (i.e. a Republican identifying as very libe ral, or a Democrat as very conservative). While these choices are not unhear d of in the political landscape, and could actually represent the true ideologies of these re spondents, it seems more likely that they were merely confused by the question. Two respondents actu ally went so far as to ask what the word ideology meant, which suggests that othe rs may have been silently confounded. Whatever the source of the confusion, it seemed to have no effect on the other attitudes of these respondents. It was thought that ideologi cal confusion might incr ease susceptibility to frames, or that those respondent s who registered complex ideologies would be more likely to identify as Independent, but this was not the case: the ideological confusion was not limited to Independents, and seemed to occur throughout the sample. The one exception to this is another sugge stive finding, this time relating to those individuals who specifically iden tified as Something Else on the partisanship question. These individuals were more likely than others to choose neutrality when confronted with the traditional left/right scale of ideology. The numbe r of these responses was quite low (11), and so no real statistical analysis could be conducted on this particular populatio n, but it is worth noting 41

PAGE 42

that the largest number of them selected neutrality. This might suggest that individuals who find themselves outside of traditiona l partisan norms might also ha ve difficulty conforming to the traditional ideological classifications. This coul d prove fertile ground for future research that explores more fully the connection between ideological complexity or confusion and Independence. Independent Candidates The data gathered in this study show no si gnificant change to the predicted voting behaviors of the sample. Different frames of Independent candidates also do not seem to influence the general attitudes to wards those candidates, but they do seem to produce changes in particular attitudes as measured by questions about the candidates qualities. The one-way analysis of variance on measures of strong leadership and shared va lues revealed notable, but not statistically significant, differences in the mean scores of the th ree groups. We suspect that this may be due to both experimental groups produci ng a change in these evaluations. Independent sample t-tests returned statistically significant differences between partic ular groups. When the Independent candidate was presented as a maveric k, valuing his political autonomy over ties to particular parties, respondents we re more likely to say that he would make a strong leader. When the Independent candidate was presented as dis liking the two main parties, respondents were more likely to say that he shared their values. These two findings tell us several things. The first finding tells us about what college students are looking for in a leader: political autonomy and independence is considered a quality of a strong leader. It may not be the determining factor in a stude nts vote, but it undoubtedly pl ays into their conception of politicians and potential leaders. The second finding tells us some thing about at least one value that college students maintain: a dislik e for divisive partisan politics. 42

PAGE 43

Perhaps more importantly, the findings confirm, to some degree, that the different elements of political Independence do indeed register in different ways with college students. A unidimensional theory of Independence would pr edict a single way of viewing Independent candidates, but these findings suggest that th ere are at least two separate elements of Independence and that each resonate on different frequencies: one rela tes to the expected strength of leadership an d one to the values that a candidate holds. Neither, in this case, were able to independently influence voting behavior, but ne vertheless can influence voter attitudes. It should be noted again that though the initial focus of this study was on the attitudes of Independent voters, the findings reported here relate to the sample as a whole. No unique correlation was found between Independent voters and the changes in attitudes, but rather the influence on attitudes was registered throughout th e sample. This suggests that the dimensions of Independence register in all categories of partis an affiliation, and tend to have the same effects on many different t ypes of voters. One more observation should be made about the particular attitude data: in both experimental groups, the Independe nt candidate scored lower on the Qualified to hold public office measure than in the Neutral group. This difference was well within the margin of error, but it is still curious that both gr oups registered a lower mean on this measure. Perhaps there is a relationship between Independence and perceived readiness to hold public office; this is, of course, supposition, but again could be a valuable line of future research. Regarding College Students It should be noted that the researcher made several observa tions during the administration of the survey. As mentioned above two respondents went so far as to ask the meaning of the word ideology, which suggests that other stude nts may have been similarly, but silently, confused. In addition to these explicit indicato rs, participants in this study often seemed 43

PAGE 44

distracted or bored while completing the survey ; many gave the news article a merely cursory glance before moving onto the survey portion. This general disinterest regist ered in the form of neutral responses, where a re spondent would indicate a neut ral and uncha nging attitude towards all three candidates. Esse ntially, they would ju st circle or for every response. Whether this made the overall data more or less representative of the population is unclear. More thoughts on this phenomenon are incl uded in the next chapter. Theoretical Implications As noted in chapter one, political dealignm ent and the growing number of Independents in America has serious implicati ons for our democracy. Identifying as an Independent can be a form of protest against the dominant political system, and can lead to apathy or disengagement (Craig, 1985). This concern, when coupled with the seeming disinterest noted just above, can be quite troubling. At the same time, this type of protest can be a powerful force for change. The individuals who identify as "Something Else" and seem to register no dominant ideological affiliation may still be quite interested in pol itics, and Independents themselves can maintain high levels of political involvement (Dennis, 1988); this might suggest that Independents and those who have disengaged from the political parties might still be valid targets for political communicators or activists. Some of the findings noted above may point the way to more successful communication strategi es geared towards reincorpor ating Independents into the political fold. These strategies must take heed of the le ssons suggested by this study and the literature explored earlier. Some authors have suggested that Independen ce, among other partisan and political affiliations, are not unidimensional, but multidimensional. The findings of this study seem to confirm that different elements of I ndependence are received differently by students, that, indeed, Independence operates on more than one dimension of political salience. It is 44

PAGE 45

important to continue exploring th is issue from both an aggregate, sociological perspective, and also an individual, psychological perspective in order to develop adequate theoretical answers to these questions. Finally, as communicators in politics or any field, we must always take into account our audience and the way they conceive of and present their identities. If we attempt to tailor our communications to the identities of our audience, but do not unders tand the true nature of those identities, then we run two serious risks. Firs t, we are not likely to be successful in our communications if we do not truly understand our audience: whatever our goals may be, they can only be furthered by a more in-depth understand ing of our audience. Second, we actually may alienate our audiences if we misrepresent their identity through our communications. Communication should be a dialogi c process based in mutual re spect and understanding, and if we simplify or theoretically 'flatten our audien ces, then that process breaks down. This study shows the power of specifically tailored commun ication based in a s ound understanding of an audiences identity. 45

PAGE 46

CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION To summarize, different fr ames of Independent candidates produced changes in voters attitudes towards those candidates. The frames, presenting the Independent as either a political maverick who values autonomy or as a politician simply fed up with political parties, activated separate dimensions of political Independen ce and produced different effects on voters: one frame made the candidate appear as a strong leader, the other made the candidate appear to share the values of voters. These findings confirm the multidimensional nature of Independence, as well as the importance and power of framing in political communication. The findings of this study do not, however, demonstrate any statisti cally significant tendencies particular to Independent voters. The effects that the frames had on the popul ation were seen throughout the sample, leaving some questions regarding the behaviors and attitudes of Independent voters unanswered. The future of Independent voters and candidate s is of great importance to our society and democracy. Whether or not candi dates begin to court their vo te, large and possibly growing numbers of citizens will continue to identify as Independent and th ey could play si gnificant roles in regional and national elections (Clarke and Stewart, 1998). Bu t their Independence should not be viewed as a unidimensional phenomenon: th e literature suggests, and this study, to some extent, confirms that Independen ce contains at least two dimens ions. These two dimensions of Independence help us to measure the tendencies of all citizens, whether they label themselves as Independent or not. This study demo nstrates that differe nt frames of Independence resonate with students of all partisan and ideological identities. It also shows us that people label themselves as Independent for many reasons, just as they labe l themselves Democrat, Republican, or something 46

PAGE 47

else entirely for many reasons, a nd understanding these r easons is an important part of effective political communication. This study shows that the way Independent can didates are framed is important, that highlighting different dimensions of Independenc e produces different effects on voters attitudes. Hopefully, this is only the first step towards a more complete understanding of political Independence, an understanding which could, in time bring more citizens ba ck into the political fold. Potential Applications The findings of this study pres ent three potential av enues for practical application. First, this study adds to the already voluminous body of knowledge on framing and framing effects, enabling more focused communication using frames to resonate with a given audience. Even simple changes in the presentation of basic fact s can produce powerful cha nges in the audiences mind, and communicators, be they in a political campaign or otherwise, must pay particular attention to the way they frame their message. Second, the results of this study seem to i ndicate particular avenue s of communicating to college students in politics. The two dimensions of Independence explored in the study, the value of political autonomy and animosity towards poli tical parties, both produced changes in the attitudes of the sample population of college students. College students, and young people generally, represent the future participants in our democracy. Whether a candidate is an Independent or not, this study sugge sts that using these frames eff ectively might help to win the support of college students, or at least win their attention. Finally, the results of this study suggest im portant ways for Independent candidates to frame their candidacies. The relationships disc overed in this study between the different dimensions of Independence and voter attitudes c ould prove useful to Independent candidates. A 47

PAGE 48

politician seeking to establish herself as a str ong leader might do well to play up her political autonomy and sense of independence; if a candida te wants to connect with the values of young voters, then perhaps she should be clear about her distance from th e party-line. These values and traits are here shown to resonate with college students and Independent voters, and both themes could be important tools for pros pective Independent candidates. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research This study is both focused and limited in its scope. Its goal was to test the multidimensional nature of Independence and lear n more about framing effects, not to draw conclusions about the general popula tion. It was noted earlier that th is studys external validity and generalizability are suspect due to the lim ited sample: the focus on college students makes it difficult to draw conclusions for larger groups, and any theoretical clar ity or confirmation we may gain from the results may be reasonably limited to the college population alone. Future studies of this sort may do well to expand the sa mple to the general population, or perhaps to other particular segments of th e population that are of interest to communicators. Beyond that initial, and perhaps obvious, limitation, there are several other factors that make broad conclusions difficult. First, the study has a relatively small populat ion of students who identify as Independent (n = 34). This small sample makes it difficult to gather precise data on the Independent population as a whole, and also makes it difficu lt to find the effects of the experimental manipulation on the Independents. A larger sample size would both provide more data for more complex analysis in all respects and also serve the specific pur pose of increasing the pool of Independents. Though this study has yielded some insights into the phenomenon of Independence, more can be learned a bout Independent voters themselves. 48

PAGE 49

Second, the design of this study relies on a relatively small experimental manipulation: the differences between the three articles presented to respondents are admittedly small, and though pre-testing confirmed that respondents were able to percei ve the differences between the articles and comprehend the information presented, the overall effect may still be very weak. As a result, the potential for the ma nipulation to fail to register w ith many respondents is very real, meaning that a lack of statistic ally significant differences between the three groups could very well be due to a weak manipulation. Future studies should consider more extensive pre-testing, or perhaps include manipulations of varying inte nsities. This would reveal more about the link between the article and respondents attitudes. There might also be some sort of declining returns involved in framing Independents, and data from varying manipul ations would help illuminate that principle. The third limitation to the current study is the medium of manipulation. A single newspaper article describing a distant and relati vely unimportant Congres sional race may not be the most interesting material to present to a nybody, much less college students. Many of the surveys seemed to be filled out in merely the mo st painless way; for example, more than a few respondents indicated neutra l feelings about all three candidate s on all four measures of attitude. Though they may have been legitimately neutral towa rds the candidates, it is also likely that a newspaper article may not have aroused much intere st in the three candidates at all. If future researchers wished to further explore the di mensions of Independence through experimental manipulation, a different medium may yield better results. Mock televisi on news stories or political advertisements might more effectively communicate the various fr ames deployed in this study. 49

PAGE 50

Future research into this field might l ook more closely at the relationship between Independent candidates and Independent voters. This study included Independent voters, but yielded results relevant to the en tire college population. Larger sa mple sizes and greater focus on Independent voters might yield gr eater insights into the psychol ogy of Independence. A similar study that included follow-up in-depth interviews or focus groups might also be more revealing; using surveys to identify Indepe ndent voters who seem to respond to one of the dimensions of Independence could be just part of a study designed to plumb the depths of Independent political thinking. Finally, some of the findings of this study which were not statis tically significant nonetheless spark interesting ne w questions about Independence. First, the respondents who chose Something Else as their partisan affiliation were most likely to be neutral on the measure of ideology. Though it does not confirm our thinking on the link between ideology and Independence, it does give us additional cause to study it further. Future studies could investigate how individuals who are either confused by or fr ustrated with the existing left/right scale of ideology express themselves on measures of par tisanship. Second, the sli ght decrease in the perceived qualifications of the Independent candi date to hold office in the two experimental groups might suggest a link betw een Independence and percepti on of general qualifications. Future research could examine the possible conn ection between the two, and even investigate the link between perceptions of the two-party system and of governance in general. 50

PAGE 51

APPENDIX A NEUTRAL GROUP MO CK ARTICLE TEXT Democrat incumbent Nancy Boyda has announced that she will not seek reelection in 2008, leaving her seat in the House of Representa tives up for grabs. What was already going to be a tightly contested ca mpaign has now turned into an all-out battle. Boyda represented Kansass Second Congressi onal District, which covers the eastern quarter of the state and includes the capital, Tope ka. Her seat will be sought by at least three candidates: Republican Chester Mize, Democrat William Avery Jr., and Richard Bird, who will be running as an Independent. Chester Mize, a former state legislator, is th e Republican candidate. Mize comes from an agricultural background, and his family still owns several thousa nd acres of farmland south of Topeka. Mizes record in the state legislature has been productive, if unremarkable: he sponsored five bills in the last two sessions, though all five were supported by both side s of the aisle. Mize has given strong support for moderate Republican Governor Kathleen Sebelius in her past campaigns. William Avery Jr., the presumptive Democratic candidate for the 2nd District seat, comes from a similar background. Avery is the oldest son of Bill Avery, a common name in agricultural circles. Bill served as Kansas Commissioner of Agriculture, and William Jr. served for four years on the state house agriculture committee. Like most Kansan Democrats, Avery consid ers himself a moderate but nevertheless is fiercely loyal to his party. He has been an act ive member of the Democratic State Caucus for over twelve years. The third candidate in this ra ce is Richard Bird, who is r unning as an Independent. Bird has served two complete terms in the state Senate, after being nominated to fill a vacant seat six years ago. Bird is a former Lt. Governor with strong ties to both parties. Bird has worked on a number of different i ssues in the state Senate, rarely leading a charge but often making himself availa ble to support various initiatives. I think its going to be close, no matter who wins, said Clay Archer, a political consultant who has worked in the district before Theres not a lot to distinguish these three from one another, so the campaigns themselves will play a big role. The primaries will be held on August 26th, 2008. 51

PAGE 52

APPENDIX B AUTONOMY GROUP MOCK ARTICLE TEXT Democrat incumbent Nancy Boyda has announced that she will not seek reelection in 2008, leaving her seat in the House of Representa tives up for grabs. What was already going to be a tightly contested ca mpaign has now turned into an all-out battle. Boyda represented Kansass Second Congressi onal District, which covers the eastern quarter of the state and includes the capital, Tope ka. Her seat will be sought by at least three candidates: Republican Chester Mize, Democrat William Avery Jr., and Richard Bird, who will be running as an Independent. Chester Mize, a former state legislator, is th e Republican candidate. Mize comes from an agricultural background, and his family still owns several thousa nd acres of farmland south of Topeka. Mizes record in the state legislature has been productive, if unremarkable: he sponsored five bills in the last two sessions, though all five were supported by both side s of the aisle. Mize has given strong support for moderate Republican Governor Kathleen Sebelius in her past campaigns. William Avery Jr., the presumptive Democratic candidate for the 2nd District seat, comes from a similar background. Avery is the oldest son of Bill Avery, a common name in agricultural circles. Bill served as Kansas Commissioner of Agriculture, and William Jr. served for four years on the state house agriculture committee. Like most Kansan Democrats, Avery consid ers himself a moderate but nevertheless is fiercely loyal to his party. He has been an act ive member of the Democratic State Caucus for over twelve years. The third candidate in this ra ce is Richard Bird, who is r unning as an Independent. Bird has served two complete terms in the state Sena te, and is in the middle of his third term. A maverick since his first election, Bird resists political classification. In the state Senate, Bird has worked closel y with Republicans, but he is running as an Independent because he feels he can make better d ecisions without strict ties to party politics. I dont want to be tied down to one label or another, said Bird. I think being able to define your own politics is an impor tant part of our democracy. I think its going to be close, no matter who wins, said Clay Archer, a political consultant who has worked in the district before Theres not a lot to distinguish these three from one another, so the campaigns themselves will play a big role. The primaries will be held on August 26th, 2008. 52

PAGE 53

APPENDIX C PARTY ANTIPATHY GR OUP MOCK ARTICLE TEXT Democrat incumbent Nancy Boyda has announced that she will not seek reelection in 2008, leaving her seat in the House of Representa tives up for grabs. What was already going to be a tightly contested ca mpaign has now turned into an all-out battle. Boyda represented Kansass Second Congressi onal District, which covers the eastern quarter of the state and includes the capital, Tope ka. Her seat will be sought by at least three candidates: Republican Chester Mize, Democrat William Avery Jr., and Richard Bird, who will be running as an Independent. Chester Mize, a former state legislator, is the Republican candidate. Mize comes from an agricultural background, and his family still owns several thousa nd acres of farmland south of Topeka. Mizes record in the state legislature has been productive, if unremarkable: he sponsored five bills in the last two sessions, though all five were supported by both side s of the aisle. Mize has given strong support for moderate Republican Governor Kathleen Sebelius in her past campaigns. William Avery Jr., the presumptive Democratic candidate for the 2nd District seat, comes from a similar background. Avery is the oldest son of Bill Avery, a common name in agricultural circles. Bill served as Kansas Commissioner of Agriculture, and William Jr. served for four years on the state house agriculture committee. Like most Kansan Democrats, Avery consid ers himself a moderate but nevertheless is fiercely loyal to his party. He has been an act ive member of the Democratic State Caucus for over twelve years. The third candidate in this ra ce is Richard Bird, who is r unning as an Independent. Bird has served two complete terms in the state Senate and is in the middle of his third term. He has chosen to run as an Independent because he is dissatisfied with the two parties here in Kansas. Following a bitter gubernatorial race in 2006, many Kansans were upset with the political process, Bird among them. Neither party came out of that election clean, and Bird has indicated that he just would not feel comfor table running on either ticket. I dont feel particularly close to either party, said Bird. In fact, I think neither party really presents a good choice for our citizens. I think its going to be cl ose, no matter who wins, said Clay Archer, a political consultant who has worked in the district before Theres not a lot to distinguish these three from one another, so the campaigns themselves will play a big role. The primaries will be held on August 26th, 2008. 53

PAGE 54

APPENDIX D SURVEY INSTRUMENT 1. In the attached newspaper ar ticle, there are three candidate s running for a seat in the House of Representatives: Chester Mize, a Republican; William Avery Jr., a Democrat; and Richard Bird, an Independent. If you were a citizen of this Congressional district, who would you be most likely to vote for? A. Chester Mize (R) B. William Avery, Jr. (D) C. Richard Bird (I) 2. Please indicate how you feel a bout each candidate on a scale of 1 (strongly dislike) to 7 (strongly like). Strongly Dislike Neutral Strongly Like Chester Mize 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 William Avery, Jr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Richard Bird 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3-5: Please indicate how st rongly you agree with the following statements in regards to each candidate. 3. This candidate is qualifi ed to hold public office. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Chester Mize 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 William Avery, Jr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Richard Bird 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. This candidate would make a strong leader. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Chester Mize 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 William Avery, Jr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Richard Bird 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 54

PAGE 55

5. This candidate shares my values. Strongly Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree Chester Mize 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 William Avery, Jr. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Richard Bird 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. What is your gender? A. Male B. Female 7. What is your race? A. White B. Black C. Asian D. Hispanic E. Other 8. What year are you in school? A. Freshman B. Sophomore C. Junior D. Senior E. Other 9. What is your parents estimated annual income? A. $0 $25,000 B. $25,000 $50,000 C. $50,000 $75,000 D. $75,000 $125,000 E. $125,000 or greater 10. What is your religious affiliation? A. Catholic B. Jewish C. Islamic D. Protestant E. Other F. None 11. Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Repub lican, an Independent, or something else? A. Republican B. Democrat C. Independent D. Something Else 12. Please place yourself on the following scale from 1 (very liberal) to 7 (very conservative). Very Liberal Neutral Very Conservative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. How strongly do you identify with the ideology you just selected? Not very strongly Neutral Very strongly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 55

PAGE 56

LIST OF REFERENCES Abramowitz, A. I. (1983). Social determinism, rationality, and partisanship among college students. Political Behavior 5 (4): 353-362. Bastedo, R. W., and Lodge, M. (1980). The meaning of party labels. Political Behavior, 2 (3): 287-308. Benford, R., & Hunt, S. (1992). Dramaturgy and social movements: The social construction and communication of power. Sociological Enquiry, 62, 36-55. Bernstein, A. G. (2005). Gendered characteristics of political engagement in college students. Sex Roles 52 (5/6): 299-310. Campbell, D. T. (1989). Foreword, in R.K. Yin (ed.), Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills and London: Sage. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W., and Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. New York: John Wiley. Campbell, D. T., and Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Clarke, H. D., and Stewart, M. C. (1998). The decline of parties in the minds of citizens. Annual Review of Political Science 1: 357-578. Conover, P. J., and Feldman, S. (1981). The orig ins and meaning of liber al/conservative self Identification. American Journal of Political Science, 25: 617-645. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief sy stems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and discontent New York: Free Press. Craig, S. C. (1985). Partisanship, independe nce, and no preference: Another look at the measurement of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 29 (2): 274-290. Craig, S. C. (1985). The decline of partisansh ip in the United States: A reexamination of the neutrality hypothesis. Political Behavior 7 (1): 57-78. Craig, S. C. (1987). Neutrality, negati vity, or both? A reply to Wattenberg. Political Behavior, 9 (2): 126-138. Daalder, H. (1992).A crisis of party? Scandinavian Political Studies 15 (4): 269-287. de Vaus, D. A. (2001). Research design in social research. London: Sage. 56

PAGE 57

Dennis, J. (1988). Political independence in America, part II: Towards a theory. British Journal of Political Science 18 (2): 197-219. Dennis, J. (1992). Political independence in Amer ica, III: In search of closet partisans. Political Behavior, 14 (3): 261-296. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1041-1067. Entman, R. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American politics. New York: Oxford University Press. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clar ification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58. Esacove, A. W. (2004). Dialogic framing: The framing/counterframing of partial birth abortion. Sociological Inquiry 74, 70-101. Gallup finds increase in Inde pendents, typical of off-years. (August 2, 2007). Gallup News Service. Gamson W. (1988). Political discourse and collective action. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action : Comparing social movement research across countries. Greenwich, CT JAI Press, Inc. Ghanem, S. (1997). Filling in the tapestry: Th e second level of agenda setting. In M. McCombs, D. Shaw & D. Weaver (Eds.), Communication and democracy Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on th e organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Graber, D. A. (1988). Processing the news: How people tame the information tide. New York: Longman. Greene, S. (2000). The psychological source s of partisan-leaning Independence. American Politics Research 28: 511-537. Greene, S. (2004). Social identity theory and party identification. Social Science Quarterly 85 (1): 136-153. Hakim, C. (1986). Research design: Strategies and c hoices in the desi gn of social research. London: Allen and Unwin. 57

PAGE 58

Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., and Spra gue, J. (1999). Accessib ility and political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43: 888-911. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. (1987). News that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kamieniecki, S. (1988). The dimensionality of partisan stre ngth and political independence. Political Behavior 10 (4): 364-376. Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E., Westlye, M. C., and Wolfinger, R. E. (1986). The partisan affinities of independent leaners. British Journal of Political Science 16 (2): 155-185. Kiousis, S. (2005). Compelling arguments and attitude strength: Exploring the impact of second-level agenda setting on pub lic opinion of Presidential candidate images. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 10, 3-27. Kitschelt, H., and Hellemans, S. (1990). The le ft-right semantics and the new politics cleavage. Comparative Political Studies 23 (2): 210-238. Kuhberger, A. (1998). The influence of fram ing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75 (1): 23-55. Martinez, M. D., and Gant, M. M. (1990). Pa rtisan issue preferences and partisan change. Political Behavior, 12 (3): 243-264. McCombs, M., & Estrada, G. (1997). The news media and the pictures in our heads. In S. Iyengar & R. Reeves (Eds.), Do the media govern? Politicians, voters, and reporters in America. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. McCombs, M., & Ghanem, S. I. (2001). The co nvergence of agenda setting and framing. In S. Reese, O. Gandy, Jr., and A. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McCombs, M., & Reynolds, A. (2002). News infl uence on our pictures in the world. In J. Bryant and D. Zillman (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The age nda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176-187. Miller, A. H., and Wattenberg, M. P. (1983). Measuring party identification: independent or no partisan preference? American Journal of Political Science 27: 106-121. 58

PAGE 59

59 Pattillo-McCoy, M. (1998). Chur ch culture as a strategy of action in the Black community. American Sociological Review 63, 767-784. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in pr esidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40 (3): 825-850. Reese, S.D. (2001). Prologue-framing public life: A bridging model for media research. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our unde rstanding of the social world Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Riker, W. (1986). The art of politic al manipulation. New Haven: Yale University Press. Sniderman, P., Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Soroka, S. N. (2003). Media, public opinion, and foreign policy. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8, 27-48. Valentine, D. C., and Van Wingen, J. R. (1980). Partisanship, inde pendence, and the partisan identification question. American Politics Research 8 (2): 165-186. Wanta, W. (1997). The public and the national agenda. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wattenberg, M. P. (1984). The decline of American political parties: 1952-1984. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wattenberg, M. P. (1987). Do voters really care about political pa rties anymore? A response to Craig. Political Behavior 9 (2): 114-125. Weaver, D. (1996). What voters learn from the media. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546, 34-47. Webb, P. (2005). Political parties an d democracy: The ambiguous crisis. Democratization 12 (5): 633-650. Weisberg, H. F. (1980). A multidimensional c onceptualization of pa rty identification. Political Behavior, 2 (1): 33-60. Yioutas, J. and Segvic, I. (2003). Revisiting the Clinton/Lewi nsky scandal: the convergence of agenda setting and framing. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 567-582. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 60

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jeff Hannan was born and raised in Plantation, Florida. He graduated from Nova High School in 2000, then attended the University of Florida from 2000 until 2004, earning a bachelors degree in English and religion. Afte r graduation, Jeff worked as the Communications Director for Deborah Watts, candi date for Congress in Minnesota s third Congressional district. Following this experience, Jeff chose to return to school to study pol itical communication. Jeff works as an assistant debate coach for N ova High school, and also as an instructor at the Florida Forensics Institute. After graduation, Je ff plans to paint, write letters to his friends each Sunday, and coach high school volleyball. 60