News ID

Unique code assigned to each article. This field will be generated automatically and does not need to be filled in.

Date

Generated automatically. No manual entry required.

Link

Generated automatically. No manual entry required.

Title of the Article

Short text containing the exact headline.

Newspaper

Single selection:

Framing theory defines frames as organizing principles that select and make certain aspects of reality more salient in order to promote specific interpretations and solutions.

Primary Frame Single choice

Identify the dominant frame:

Secondary Frame

Options: Yes / No

If “Yes,” select one additional frame from the list above. Secondary frames must be relevant but not dominant.

Overall Level of Dramatization

Dominant Source Type Single choice

Predominant Emotional Tone

Definitions (adapted):

• Alarmist: emphasizes urgency, danger, or dramatic consequences.
• Neutral: factual and descriptive, with no clear emotional charge.
• Reassuring: emphasizes control, containment, or stability.
• Explanatory: prioritizes contextualization and clarification.

Threat appraisal encompasses the perceived severity of and vulnerability to a threat.

Perceived Severity

Coding question: How does the article describe the magnitude of losses or damages?

Scale: Absent | Weak | Moderate | Strong

Criteria:

• Absent: no mention of damage.
• Weak: minimal reference to damage.
• Moderate: clear but non-dramatic description of damage.
• Strong: strong emphasis on destruction or severe impacts.

Perceived Vulnerability

Coding question: Does the article suggest that the population is at imminent risk?

Scale: Absent | Weak | Moderate | Strong

Criteria:

• Absent: no reference to people being at risk.
• Weak: vague or generic reference to risk.
• Moderate: identifiable social or territorial risk.
• Strong: direct, imminent, and localized threat.

Coping appraisal includes response efficacy and self-efficacy, both of which are central concepts in PMT.

Protective Recommendation?

Options: Yes / No

Type of Recommendation Multiple choice

Response Efficacy

Coding question: Are the recommended actions presented as effective?

Scale: Absent | Weak | Moderate | Strong

Criteria:

• Absent: no protective action mentioned.
• Weak: action mentioned but not presented as effective.
• Moderate: action appears useful but limited in effectiveness.
• Strong: article clearly states that the action reduces risk.

Self-Efficacy

Coding question: Does the article suggest that an average person is capable of taking the recommended action?

Scale: Absent | Weak | Moderate | Strong

Criteria:

• Absent: no indication that the public can act.
• Weak: action appears vague or difficult to implement.
• Moderate: action appears feasible but lacks detail.
• Strong: clear steps or concrete guidance are provided to enable action.

This variable summarizes how threat and efficacy cues interact, consistent with PMT and fear appeal literature.

Threat–Efficacy Balance Single choice

Coding rules:

• High Threat / High Efficacy: high severity and/or vulnerability combined with strong efficacy or self-efficacy cues.
• High Threat / Low Efficacy: strong threat cues combined with weak or absent guidance.
• Low Threat / High Efficacy: low threat emphasis combined with strong practical guidance.
• Low Threat / Low Efficacy: minimal emphasis on both threat and coping capacity. Articles present wildfires in a descriptive or routine manner, with limited dramatization and little or no practical guidance, preventive recommendations, or efficacy cues.
• Informative / Neutral: low dramatization and limited protective guidance.

Notes / Observations Open field

Use this field to record:

• Ambiguities
• Difficult coding decisions
• Excerpts supporting coding choices
• Issues for team discussion