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, limiting 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 dependent 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.

/pdf/framing-as-a-theory-of-media-effects-2r7ssng9hs.pdf

Framing as a theory of media effects

Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 1994, Vol 39(2), 225. Reviews the book, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992). The author's commendable effort to specify a model of mass opinion formation offers readers an introduction to the prevailing vi

The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.

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. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00326.x In 1997, Republican pollster Frank Luntz sent out a 222-page memo called ‘‘Language of the 21st century’’ to select members of the U.S. Congress. Parts of the memo soon spread among staffers, members of Congress, and also journalists. Luntz’s message was simple: ‘‘It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it’’ (Luntz, in press). Drawing on various techniques for real-time message testing and focus grouping, Frank Luntz had researched Republican campaign messages and distilled terms and phrases that resonated with specific interpretive schemas among audiences and therefore helped shift people’s attitudes. In other words, the effect of the messages was not a function of content differences but of differences in the modes of presentation. The ideas outlined in the memo were hardly new, of course, and drew on decades of existing research in sociology (Goffman, 1974), economics (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), psychology (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984), cognitive linguistics (Lakoff, 2004), and communication (Entman, 1991; Iyengar, 1991). But Frank Luntz was the first professional pollster to systematically use the concept of framing as a campaign tool. The Democratic Party soon followed and George Lakoff published Don’t Think of an

/pdf/framing-agenda-setting-and-priming-the-evolution-of-three-4ufh7yugww.pdf

Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models

public controversy. In the present research, we examine how local television news outlets framed a specific, dramatic event: a demonstration and rally by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) in a small Ohio city. We explore the effect of alternative news frames for this event on tolerance for KKK activities. We also test contrasting hypotheses about how viewers psychologically process news frames, and how such frames ultimately affect viewers' thoughts about political controversies.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2952075.pdf

Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance

Social scientists have documented framing effects in a wide range of contexts, including surveys, experiments, and actual political campaigns. Many view work on framing effects as evidence of citizen incompetence—that is, evidence that citizens base their preferences on arbitrary information and/or are subject to extensive elite manipulation. Yet, we continue to lack a consensus on what a framing effect is as well as an understanding of how and when framing effects occur. In this article, I examine (1) the different ways that scholars have employed the concepts of framing and framing effects, (2) how framing effects may violate some basic criteria of citizen competence, and (3) what we know about how and when framing effects work. I conclude that while the evidence to date suggests some isolated cases of incompetence, the more general message is that citizens use frames in a competent and well-reasoned manner.

/pdf/the-implications-of-framing-effects-for-citizen-competence-2uqyp1szfk.pdf

The implications of framing effects for citizen competence

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.

Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects

Students of public opinion have increasingly recognized issue framing as an important influence on political attitudes, but the precise means by which frames affect attitudes is not well understood. We argue that one distinctive way in which frames affect attitudes is by influencing the importance individuals attach to issue-relevant beliefs. We contrast this mechanism with the more familiar means of persuasion via change in belief content. Data come from two laboratory experiments. In each, a controversial issue was framed in one of two ways. We measured framing's influence on belief content, belief importance, and issue opinion. In both experiments, framing significantly affected issue opinion. Causal analysis shows that framing independently affected belief content and belief importance, and that each contributed to issue opinion.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2647553.pdf

Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion

Research on gender stereotypes has found that voters ascribe certain beliefs and traits to candidates based on the candidate's sex. Most of this research relies on experimental data and examines stereotyping solely in terms of voter decision making. In contrast, we examine state executive office elections to determine if stereotypes influence both candidate selection and success. State executive elections are ideal for studying gender stereotypes as many of the offices focus on specific policy issues that correspond with stereotypical competencies of male and female candidates. We find considerable support for our expectation of an interaction between candidate sex and office type in candidate selection: women are less likely to run for offices that are inconsistent with their stereotypical strengths and, beginning in 1990, somewhat more likely to run for stereotypically consistent offices. In terms of candidate success, however, we do not find that women's likelihood of winning varies strongly across off...

/pdf/gender-stereotyping-in-state-executive-elections-candidate-2uil2l2b8o.pdf

Gender Stereotyping in State Executive Elections: Candidate Selection and Success

PART ONE: WHAT SHOULD THE ROLE OF CITIZENS BE IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY? Public Opinion in a Democracy PART TWO: ARE CITIZENS PLIABLE? Political Socialization Mass Media Attitude Stability and Attitude Change PART THREE: DO CITIZENS ORGANIZE THEIR POLITICAL THINKING? Ideological Innocence and Critiques Pluralistic Roots of Public Opinion: Personality, Self-interest, Values, and History Pluralistic Roots of Public Opinion: The Central Role of Groups PART FOUR: DO CITIZENS ENDORSE AND DEMONSTRATE DEMOCRATIC BASICS? Knowledge, Interest, and Attention to Politics Support for Civil Liberties Support for Civil Rights PART FIVE: WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITIZENS AND THEIR GOVERNMENT? Trust in Government, Support for Institutions, and Social Capital Impact of Public Opinion on Policy PART SIX: WHAT DO WE MAKE OF PUBLIC OPINION IN A DEMOCRACY? Conclusion

Zoe M. Oxley

Papers

Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance

Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects

Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion

Gender Stereotyping in State Executive Elections: Candidate Selection and Success

Public Opinion: Democratic Ideals, Democratic Practice