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.

/pdf/seven-models-of-framing-implications-for-public-relations-fmxr6l6nf3.pdf

Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations

Receiving other people’s advice: Influence and benefit

How should groups make decisions? The authors provide an original evaluation of 9 group decision rules based on their adaptive success in a simulated test bed environment. When the adaptive success standard is applied, the majority and plurality rules fare quite well, performing at levels comparable to much more resource-demanding rules such as an individual judgment averaging rule. The plurality rule matches the computationally demanding Condorcet majority winner that is standard in evaluations of preferential choice. The authors also test the results from their theoretical analysis in a behavioral study of nominal human group decisions, and the essential findings are confirmed empirically. The conclusions of the present analysis support the popularity of majority and plurality rules in truth-seeking group decisions.

The Robust Beauty of Majority Rules in Group Decisions

Using advice from multiple sources to revise and improve judgments

1 The Lay of the Empirical Land 2 Models of Juror and Jury Decision Making 3 Jury-Related Trial Practices 4 Effects of Trial Context 5 Trial Participant Characteristics 6 The Evidence 7 Deliberation 8 An Integrative Multi-Level Theory of Jury Decision Making 9 So What? Implications and Future Directions

Jury Decision Making: The State of the Science

The Committee Charge, Framing Interpersonal Agreement, and Consensus Models of Group Quantitative Judgment☆☆☆

The effect of the normatively based plaintiff bias (favoritism toward an individual suing a corporation) on decision making was assessed for six-person mock juries that made decisions, or merely discussed the case, or for individual jurors. Decision makers also received information in either tables or graphs but there was no effect of this manipulation. It was predicted that groups would award more money than individual decision makers, and that the effect of the plaintiff bias on individual opinions would be strongest when groups discussed but did not decide. Group decisions were higher than individual decisions, and examination of the amount and perception of consensus achieved in groups indicated that the bias affected opinions when groups discussed, but not when groups decided. These results demonstrate the effects of the norm on intermember social influence and opinion change absent similar effects arising from the process of group decision making. The results are integrated with existing research on...

Kidok Nam

Papers

The Committee Charge, Framing Interpersonal Agreement, and Consensus Models of Group Quantitative Judgment☆☆☆

The Plaintiff Bias in Mock Civil Jury Decision Making: Consensus Requirements, Information Format and Amount of Consensus