286
R. Rosemary and D. Evensen
journalists and the journalism in Indonesia. Thus, this predictably influences how
the reporters present and frame news on national issues, including environment and
climate change.
Mass Media Coverage in ‘Green’ Risks
Communication scholars agree that for people to be better informed about important
societal issues, efficacy information of appropriate quantity and quality is a significant
aspect of useful mass media coverage. The concept of efficacy information has been
widely used by scholars to address the issue health and environmental risk as an
approach to help people to better respond to risks at both personal and societal levels
(Covello et al. 2001). Individuals who are more likely to effectively respond to risks,
for instance climate change, are those who perceive the dangers and feel self-assured
that they are able to mitigate them (Turner et al. 2006). Efficacy information can: (1)
inform people of actions to limit risk, (2) emphasize whether/how those actions are
effective at achieving desired outcomes, and (3) facilitate confidence that one can
perform those actions (Stryker et al. 2008).
We draw our approach to data collection and analysis from Feldman et al. (2017),
who constructed an approach examining efficacy information in mass media coverage
of climate change. They differentiate between negative and positive information
within media coverage of climate change in the related but distinct realms of self -
efficacy, external efficacy, and response efficacy (Feldman et al. 2017). In our content
analysis, we expand upon Feldman et al.’s work by adding the concept of group
efficacy (see definitions of the four efficacy types below).
We examine not only discussion of actions that individual readers can take to
reduce exposure or mitigate the effects of local and global environmental degradation (self-efficacy) but also the actions that organizations can and should take to
address environmental risks—a concept we call group efficacy, both in a negative and
positive tones/influences. We make no claims, however, about how audiences receive
efficacy information in print media; such understanding is essential for demonstrating
the importance of efficacy information empirically, but is beyond the scope of this
research. We assume, based on the literature reviewed in this paper, that increasing
provision of efficacy information is an important communication goal. Although
descriptive, our study extends existing research and serves as a foundation for future
work on mediated communication of efficacy information.
Types of efficacy information in our study:
1. Self-efficacy reflects one’s perceived ability to engage in a protective behaviour
(Floyd et al. 2000). Positive levels of self-efficacy can help people set goals
for attaining desirable outcomes, adopt and maintain recommended behaviour
changes, and persevere when problems arise (Rimal and Real 2003). Negative
levels of self-efficacy, in turn, can be a barrier against change, especially if people
perceive a risk but feel unable to respond to it. One may ignore it, downplay its
R. Rosemary and D. Evensen
journalists and the journalism in Indonesia. Thus, this predictably influences how
the reporters present and frame news on national issues, including environment and
climate change.
Mass Media Coverage in ‘Green’ Risks
Communication scholars agree that for people to be better informed about important
societal issues, efficacy information of appropriate quantity and quality is a significant
aspect of useful mass media coverage. The concept of efficacy information has been
widely used by scholars to address the issue health and environmental risk as an
approach to help people to better respond to risks at both personal and societal levels
(Covello et al. 2001). Individuals who are more likely to effectively respond to risks,
for instance climate change, are those who perceive the dangers and feel self-assured
that they are able to mitigate them (Turner et al. 2006). Efficacy information can: (1)
inform people of actions to limit risk, (2) emphasize whether/how those actions are
effective at achieving desired outcomes, and (3) facilitate confidence that one can
perform those actions (Stryker et al. 2008).
We draw our approach to data collection and analysis from Feldman et al. (2017),
who constructed an approach examining efficacy information in mass media coverage
of climate change. They differentiate between negative and positive information
within media coverage of climate change in the related but distinct realms of self -
efficacy, external efficacy, and response efficacy (Feldman et al. 2017). In our content
analysis, we expand upon Feldman et al.’s work by adding the concept of group
efficacy (see definitions of the four efficacy types below).
We examine not only discussion of actions that individual readers can take to
reduce exposure or mitigate the effects of local and global environmental degradation (self-efficacy) but also the actions that organizations can and should take to
address environmental risks—a concept we call group efficacy, both in a negative and
positive tones/influences. We make no claims, however, about how audiences receive
efficacy information in print media; such understanding is essential for demonstrating
the importance of efficacy information empirically, but is beyond the scope of this
research. We assume, based on the literature reviewed in this paper, that increasing
provision of efficacy information is an important communication goal. Although
descriptive, our study extends existing research and serves as a foundation for future
work on mediated communication of efficacy information.
Types of efficacy information in our study:
1. Self-efficacy reflects one’s perceived ability to engage in a protective behaviour
(Floyd et al. 2000). Positive levels of self-efficacy can help people set goals
for attaining desirable outcomes, adopt and maintain recommended behaviour
changes, and persevere when problems arise (Rimal and Real 2003). Negative
levels of self-efficacy, in turn, can be a barrier against change, especially if people
perceive a risk but feel unable to respond to it. One may ignore it, downplay its