SCOPE MISMATCH: EXPLAINING THE EXPANSION OF ANTI-MILITARY INFRASTRUCTURE-SITING CAMPAIGNS^*

While scholars agree that frame bridging contributes to movement expansion, this article identifies the underinvestigated concept of frame-movement scope mismatch—the phenomenon where the scope of movement frames and the scope of the movements that employ such frames do not match, such as a movement that adopts internationalist rhetoric yet remains local. This study investigates this mismatch based on cases of anti-U.S. military siting campaigns where similar frame bridging strategies resulted in movements of different scales. Findings show that movement scope expansion depended on the politicization of siting disputes that provided siting opponents with political opportunities for coalition building and qualified the causal influence of frame bridging. Varying external political circumstances, in other words, interacted with the invariant feature of frame bridging to determine frame resonance and coalitional mobilization.