Conflict framing is key in political communication. Politicians use conflict framing in their online messages (e.g., criticizing other politicians) and journalists in their political coverage (e.g., reporting on political tensions). Conflicts can take a variety of forms and can provoke different reactions. However, the literature still lacks a systematic and theoretically-grounded conceptual framework that accounts for the multi-dimensionality of political conflict frames. Based on literature from political epistemology, political communication, and related fields such as psychology, we present four conceptual dimensions of political conflicts: (1) the style (civil/uncivil); (2) the subject (personal/substantive); (3) whether it is about underlying moral/epistemic principles or not (deep/superficial conflict); and (4) whether it concerns a normative or factual issue. Results of a content analysis of newspaper articles and politicians’ tweets confirm the usage of these conflict dimensions in the Netherlands during a non-election period. Interestingly, most of the conflicts are civil, substantive, and do not highlight deep fundamental clashes. In light of the current societal concerns about the lack of respect in political debates and the deepening of our political divides, these findings can be considered encouraging.

中文翻译：

---

线上线下对战：不同政治冲突框架的运用

冲突框架是政治沟通的关键。政治家在他们的在线信息中使用冲突框架（例如，批评其他政客）和记者在他们的政治报道中（例如，报道政治紧张局势）。冲突可以采取多种形式，并会引发不同的反应。然而，文献仍然缺乏一个系统的、有理论基础的概念框架来解释政治冲突框架的多维性。基于政治认识论、政治传播以及心理学等相关领域的文献，我们提出了政治冲突的四个概念维度：（1）风格（文明/非文明）；(2) 主题（个人/实质性）；(3) 是否与潜在的道德/认知原则有关（深层/表面冲突）；(4) 是否涉及规范问题或事实问题。对报纸文章和政客推文的内容分析结果证实，荷兰在非选举期间使用了这些冲突维度。有趣的是，大多数冲突是民事的、实质性的，并不突出深刻的根本冲突。鉴于当前社会对政治辩论中缺乏尊重和政治分歧加深的担忧，这些发现可以被认为是令人鼓舞的。