Framing

“The recent proliferation of scholarship on collective action frames and framing processes in relation to social movements indicates that framing processes have come to be regarded, alongside resource mobilization and political opportunity processes, as a central dynamic in understanding the character and course of social movements. this review examines the analytic utility of the framing literature for understanding social movement dynamics. we first review how collective action frames have been conceptualized, including their characteristic and variable features. we then examine the literature related to framing dynamics and processes. next we review the literature regarding various contextual factors that constrain and facilitate framing processes. we conclude with an elaboration of the consequences of framing processes for other movement processes and outcomes. we seek throughout to provide clarification of the linkages between framing concepts/processes and other conceptual and theoretical formulation…”

“■ abstract we review the meaning of the concept of framing, approaches to study-ing framing, and the effects of framing on public opinion. after defining framing and framing effects, we articulate a method for identifying frames in communication and a psychological model for understanding how such frames affect public opinion. we also discuss the relationship between framing and priming, outline future research directions, and describe the normative implications of framing.”

“Research on framing is characterized by theoretical and empirical vagueness. this is due, in part, to the lack of a commonly shared theoretical model underlying framing research. conceptual problems translate into operational problems, limit- ing the comparability of instruments and results. in this paper i systematize the fragmented approaches to framing in political communication and integrate them into a comprehensive model. i classify previous approaches to framing research along two dimensions: the type of frame examined (media frames vs. audience frames) and the way frames are operationalized (independent variable or depen- dent variable). i develop a process model of framing, identifying four key processes that should be addressed in future research: frame building, frame setting, individual- level processes of framing, and a feedback loop from audiences to journalists.”

“Communication must bring ideas together in one location in order to enhance communication scholarship and make the field a master discipline capable of synthesizing information. the ‘framing’ of communication theory is discussed.”

“The modern theory of decision making under risk emerged from a logical analysis of games of chance rather than from a psychological analysis of risk and value. the theory was conceived as a normative model of an idealized decision maker, not as a description of the behavior of real people. in schumpeter’s words, it ‘has a much better claim to being called a logic of choice than a psychology of value’ (1954, p. 1058).”

“The psychological principles that govern the perception of decision prob- lems and the evaluation of probabilities and outcomes produce predictable shifts of preference when the same problem is framed in different ways. reversals of prefer- ence are demonstrated in choices regarding monetary outcomes, both hypothetical and real, and in questions pertaining to the loss of human lives. the effects of frames on preferences are compared to the effects of perspectives on perceptual appear- ance. the dependence of preferences on the formulation of decision problems is a significant concern for the theory of rational choice”

“Accentuate the positive or accentuate the negative? the literature has been mixed as to how the alternative framing of information in positive or negative terms affects judgments and decisions. we argue that this is because different studies have employed different operational definitions of framing and thus have tapped different underlying processes. we develop a typology to distinguish between three different kinds of valence framing effects. first we discuss the standard risky choice framing effect introduced by tversky and kahneman (1981) to illustrate how valence affects willingness to take a risk. then we discuss attribute framing, which affects the evaluation of object or event characteristics, and goal framing, which affects the persuasiveness of a communication. we describe the distinctions, provide a number of examples of each type, and discuss likely theoretical mechanisms underlying each type of framing effect. our typology helps explain and resolve apparent confusions in the literature, ties together studies with common underlying mechanisms, and serves as a guide to future research and theory development. we conclude that a broader perspective, focused on the cognitive and motivational consequences of valence-based encoding, opens the door to a deeper understanding of the causes and consequences of framing effects. © 1998 academic press.”

“This special issue of journal of communication is devoted to theoretical explanations of news framing, agenda setting, and priming effects. it examines if and how the three models are related and what potential relationships between them tell theorists and researchers about the effects of mass media. as an introduction to this effort, this essay provides a very brief review of the three effects and their roots in media-effects research. based on this overview, we highlight a few key dimensions along which one can compare, framing, agenda setting, and priming. we conclude with a description of the contexts within which the three models operate, and the broader implications that these conceptual distinctions have for the growth of our discipline.”

“Levin, schneider, and gaeth (1998) identified three distinct types of framing effects in the literature: attribute framing effects, goal framing effects, risky choice framing effects. while most previous framing studies used between-subjects manipulations of frame, the present study used two sessions, spaced one week apart, to give each of 102 participants both framing conditions and all three types of framing. using the difference between the score for the positive framing condition and the negative framing condition as the unit of analysis for each type of framing effect, the following were found: (1) reliable framing effects for attribute framing and risky choice framing, but not for goal framing; (2) distributions of individual framing effects showing that the aggregate-level effects were representative of individuals even though some individuals showed no framing effects; (3) no significant interdependencies between the three categories of framing effects; (4) individual differences in reaction to the task scenarios related to various of the ‘big five’ personality traits as well as the faith in intuition scale. the use of within-subject designs to assess individual differences in decision-making phenomena such as framing effects and other biases and heuristics is recommended for future research. © 2002 elsevier science (usa).”

“In framing studies, logically equivalent choice situations are differently described and the resulting preferences are studied. a meta-analysis of framing effects is presented for risky choice problems which are framed either as gains or as losses. this evaluates the finding that highlighting the positive aspects of formally identical problems does lead to risk aversion and that highlighting their equivalent negative aspects does lead to risk seeking. based on a data pool of 136 empirical papers that reported framing experiments with nearly 30,000 participants, we calculated 230 effect sizes. results show that the overall framing effect between conditions is of small to moderate size and that profound differences exist between research designs. potentially relevant characteristics were coded for each study. the most important characteristics were whether framing is manipulated by changing reference points or by manipulating outcome salience, and response mode (choice vs. rating/judgment). further important characteristics were whether options differ qualitatively or quantitatively in risk, whether there is one or multiple risky events, whether framing is manipulated by gain/loss or by task-responsive wording, whether dependent variables are measured between- or within- subjects, and problem domains. sample (students vs. target populations) and unit of analysis (individual vs. group) was not influential. it is concluded that framing is a reliable phenomenon, but that outcome salience manipulations, which constitute a considerable amount of work, have to be distinguished from reference point manipulations and that procedural features of experimental settings have a considerable effect on effect sizes in framing experiments. © 1998 academic press.”

“Framing is used here to conceptualize the political signification that social movements use – assigning meaning to events & conditions in ways intended to mobilize participants & gain support. four sets of factors concerned with the conditions that affect framing efforts are considered here: (1) how diagnostic, prognostic, & motivational framing tasks are interconnected; (2) the internal constraints of the belief system; (3) the relevance of the framing effort to the phenomenological world of the participants; & (4) the cycle of protest in which the movement is embedded. the approach has the advantages of capturing the complexity of movement participation & of addressing those situations when structural conditions seem advantageous but mobilization is not successful. 42 references. a. waters”

“This paper argues for the necessity of universal health care (as well as universal free education) using a different argument than most that have been made heretofore. it is not meant to conflict with but to strengthen the arguments previously made by others. using the second paragraph of the declaration of independence and the preamble to the constitution we argue that universal health care in this day and age has become a necessary condition if the ideals of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are to be more than an empty promise and if the discussion of ‘promoting of general welfare’ in the preamble is to have any meaning.”

“Nisbet, m. c., & mooney, c. (2009). framing science. communicating science: new agendas in communication, 40.”

“Framing is the process by which a communication source constructs and defines a social or political issue for its audience. while many observers of political communication and the mass media have discussed framing, few have explicitly described how framing affects public opinion. in this paper we offer a theory of framing effects, with a specific focus on the psychological mechanisms by which framing influences political attitudes. we discuss important conceptual differences between framing and traditional theories of persuasion that focus on belief change. we outline a set of hypotheses about the interaction between framing and audience sophistication, and test these in an experiment. the results support our argument that framing is not merely persuasion, as it is traditionally conceived. we close by reflecting on the various routes by which political communications can influence attitudes.”

“In the american political process, news discourse concerning public policy issues is carefully constructed. this occurs in part because both politicians and interest groups take an increasingly proactive approach to amplify their views of what an issue is about. however, news media also play an active role in framing public policy issues. thus, in this article, news discourse is conceived as a sociocognitive process involving all three play- ers: sources, journalists, and audience members operating in the universe of shared culture and on the basis of socially defined roles. framing analysis is presented as a constructivist approach to examine news discourse with the primary focus on conceptualizing news texts into empirically operationalizable dimensions-syntactical, script, thematic, and rhetorical structures-so that evidence of the news media’s framing of issues in news texts may be gathered. this is considered an initial step toward analyzing the news discourse process as a whole. finally, an extended empirical example is provided to illustrate the applications of this conceptual framework of news texts. abstract from author copyright of political communication is the property of routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. however, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. this abstract may be abridged. no warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (copyright applies to all abstracts) in the american political process, news discourse concerning public policy issues is carefully constructed. this occurs in part because both politicians and interest groups take an increasingly proactive approach to amplify their views of what an issue is about. however, news media also play an active role in framing public policy issues. thus, in this article, news discourse is conceived as a sociocognitive process involving all three play- ers: sources, journalists, and audience members operating in the universe of shared culture and on the basis of socially defined roles. framing analysis is presented as a constructivist approach to examine news discourse with the primary focus on conceptualizing news texts into empirically operationalizable dimensions-syntactical, script, thematic, and rhetorical structures-so that evidence of the news…”

“Framing is a potentially useful paradigm for examining the strategic creation of public relations messages and audience responses. based on a literature review across disciplines, this article identifies 7 distinct types of framing applicable to public relations. these involve the framing of situations, attributes, choices, actions, issues, responsibility, and news. potential applications for public relations practice and research are discussed.”