The implications of framing effects for citizen competence
01 Sep 2001-Political Behavior (Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers)-Vol. 23, Iss: 3, pp 225-256
TL;DR: The authors examine the different ways that scholars have employed the concepts of framing and framing effects, how framing effects may violate some basic criteria of citizen competence, and what we know about how and when framing effects work.
Abstract: 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.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992) as discussed by the authors is a model of mass opinion formation that offers readers an introduction to the prevailing theory of opinion formation.
Abstract: 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
3,150 citations
TL;DR: Situational crisis communication theory (SCCT) as discussed by the authors offers a framework for understanding the dynamic dynamics of crisis communication and how people will react to the crisis response strategies used to manage the crisis.
Abstract: Crisis managers benefit from understanding how crisis communication can be used to protect reputational assets during a crisis. Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) offers a framework for understanding this dynamic. SCCT provides a mechanism for anticipating how stakeholders will react to a crisis in terms of the reputational threat posed by the crisis. Moreover, SCCT projects how people will react to the crisis response strategies used to manage the crisis. From its empirical research emerges a set of evidence-based crisis communication guidelines. The development of SCCT is discussed along with the presentation of its guidelines for crisis communication.
1,771 citations
Cites background from "The implications of framing effects..."
...Frames in thought involve the cognitive structures (such as scripts or schema) people utilize when interpreting information ( Druckman, 2001 )....
[...]
...The people who receive the message will focus their attentions on those factors when forming their opinions and making judgments ( Druckman, 2001 )....
[...]
...In general, frames are concerned about salience or emphasis and operate on two related levels: frames in communication and frames in © 2007 Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. 1363-3589 $30.00 Vol. 10, 3, 163–176 Corporate Reputation Review 167 thought ( Druckman, 2001 )....
[...]
TL;DR: This article explored the limits of framing effects by focusing on one particular constraint -the credibility of the frame's source, and found that elites face a clear and systematic constraint to using frames to influence and manipulate public opinion.
Abstract: Public opinion often depends on which frames elites choose to use. For example, citizens' opinions about a Ku Klux Klan rally may depend on whether elites frame it as a free speech issue or a public safety issue. An important concern is that elites face few constraints to using frames to influence and manipulate citizens' opinions. Indeed, virtually no work has investigated the limits of framing effects. In this article, I explore these limits by focusing on one particular constraint-the credibility of the frame's source. I present two laboratory experiments that suggest that elites face a clear and systematic constraint to using frames to influence and manipulate public opinion.
1,060 citations
TL;DR: This paper proposed a theory of framing to identify the key individual and contextual parameters that determine which of many competing frames will have an effect on public opinion in a competitive setting, where individuals receive multiple frames representing alternative positions on an issue.
Abstract: Public opinion often depends on how elites choose to frame issues. For example, citizens’ opinions about a Ku Klux Klan rally may depend on whether elites frame the event as a free-speech issue or a public safety issue. Past research has focused largely on documenting the size of framing effects in uncontested settings. By contrast, there has been little research on framing in competitive environments in which individuals receive multiple frames representing alternative positions on an issue. We take an initial step toward understanding how frames work in competitive environments by integrating research on attitude structure and persuasion. Our theory of framing identifies the key individual and contextual parameters that determine which of many competing frames will have an effect on public opinion.
977 citations
Cites background or result from "The implications of framing effects..."
...This research suggests that a frame’s strength increases, for example, when it comes from a credible source (Druckman, 2001b), resonates with consensus values (Chong, 2000), and does not contradict strongly held prior beliefs (Brewer, 2001; Druckman & Nelson, 2003; Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2001;…...
[...]
...5 This standard makes documenting any effect more difficult than the contrast method in which opinions are usually moving in two opposite directions (see Druckman, 2001a, for discussion)....
[...]
...…their attitudes (i.e., we focus on frame setting and individuallevel effects; these two processes are often called an emphasis framing effect; see Druckman, 2001c).1 Our focus on competitive framing effects also means that we do not explicitly address priming (issue salience) and…...
[...]
...We see our work as distinct from theorizing on valence or equivalency-framing effects (see Druckman, 2001c, 2004a)....
[...]
...(see Druckman, 2001c, for discussion)....
[...]
TL;DR: The authors showed that public preferences can be arbitrarily manipulated by how issues are framed, and that public opinion fails in these instances as a reliable guide to policy, raising questions about the capacity of citizens to provide autonomous input into the democratic process.
Abstract: The past quarter century of scholarship on public opinion has shown that citizens’ attitudes can be influenced significantly by how elites frame their communications in the mass media. In the parlance of this research, a speaker “frames” an issue by encouraging readers or listeners to emphasize certain considerations above others when evaluating that issue. A framing “effect” occurs when individuals arrive at different positions on the issue, depending on the priority given to various considerations (Druckman and Nelson 2003: 730). For example, a newspaper editorial defending a hate group rally in terms of the group’s free speech rights may move readers to favor allowing the rally by causing them to weigh speech concerns more heavily when assessing the issue. Alternatively, an editorial challenging the rally as a threat to public safety may lead readers to give priority to maintaining social order and turn them against the rally (Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley 1997). Such studies raise questions about the capacity of citizens to provide autonomous input into the democratic process. If public preferences can be arbitrarily manipulated by how issues are framed, there can be no legitimate representation of public interests or meaningful discussion of government responsiveness (e.g., Bartels 2003; Entman 1993; Zaller 1992). Public opinion fails in these instances as a reliable guide to policy. Most of this research, however, has drawn its conclusions from observations of noncompetitive political contexts in which elite frames are conveyed without debate or opposition. There has been surprisingly
897 citations
References
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 1975TL;DR: In this article, the Mathematical Basis for Multiple Regression/Correlation and Identification of the Inverse Matrix Elements is presented. But it does not address the problem of missing data.
Abstract: Contents: Preface. Introduction. Bivariate Correlation and Regression. Multiple Regression/Correlation With Two or More Independent Variables. Data Visualization, Exploration, and Assumption Checking: Diagnosing and Solving Regression Problems I. Data-Analytic Strategies Using Multiple Regression/Correlation. Quantitative Scales, Curvilinear Relationships, and Transformations. Interactions Among Continuous Variables. Categorical or Nominal Independent Variables. Interactions With Categorical Variables. Outliers and Multicollinearity: Diagnosing and Solving Regression Problems II. Missing Data. Multiple Regression/Correlation and Causal Models. Alternative Regression Models: Logistic, Poisson Regression, and the Generalized Linear Model. Random Coefficient Regression and Multilevel Models. Longitudinal Regression Methods. Multiple Dependent Variables: Set Correlation. Appendices: The Mathematical Basis for Multiple Regression/Correlation and Identification of the Inverse Matrix Elements. Determination of the Inverse Matrix and Applications Thereof.
29,764 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1942
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a history of the first half of the 20th century, from 1875 to 1914, of the First World War and the Second World War.
Abstract: Introduction. Part I: The Marxian Doctrine. Prologue. I. Marx the Prophet. II. Marx the Sociologist. III. Marx the Economist. IV Marx the Teacher. Part II: Can Capitalism Survive? Prologue. V. The Rate of Increase of Total Output. VI. Plausible Capitalism. VII. The Process of Creative Destruction. VIII. Monopolistics Practices. IX. Closed Season. X. The Vanishing of Investment Opportunity. XI. The Civilization of Capitalism. XII. Crumbling Walls. XIII. Growing Hostility. XIV. Decomposition. Part III: Can Socialism Work? XV. Clearing Decks. XVI. The Socialist Blueprint. XVII. Comparison of Blueprints. XVIII. The Human Element. XIX. Transition. Part IV: Socialism and Democracy. XX. The Setting of the Problem. XXI. The Classical Doctrine of Democracy. XXII. Another Theory of Democracy. XXIII. The Inference. Part V: A Historical Sketch of Socialist Parties. Prologue. XXIV. The Nonage. XXV. The Situation that Marx Faced. XXVI. From 1875 to 1914. XXVII. From the First to the Second World War. XXVIII. The Consequences of the Second World War. Preface to the First Edition, 1942. Preface to the Second Edition, 1946. Preface to the Third Edition, 1949. The March Into Socialism. Index.
16,667 citations
TL;DR: The psychological principles that govern the perception of decision problems and the evaluation of probabilities and outcomes produce predictable shifts of preference when the same problem is framed in different ways.
Abstract: The psychological principles that govern the perception of decision problems and the evaluation of probabilities and outcomes produce predictable shifts of preference when the same problem is framed in different ways. Reversals of preference 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 appearance. The dependence of preferences on the formulation of decision problems is a significant concern for the theory of rational choice.
15,513 citations
"The implications of framing effects..." refers background in this paper
...(Tversky and Kahneman, 1981, p. 453) • A frame provides “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events, weaving a connection among them....
[...]
...For example, in their widely cited experiment, Tversky and Kahneman (1981, 1987) asked one group of respondents to respond to Problem 1: Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people....
[...]
Book•
01 Jan 1935
TL;DR: In this paper, Neuberg and Heine discuss the notion of belonging, acceptance, belonging, and belonging in the social world, and discuss the relationship between friendship, membership, status, power, and subordination.
Abstract: VOLUME 2. Part III: The Social World. 21. EVOLUTIONARY SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY (Steven L. Neuberg, Douglas T. Kenrick, and Mark Schaller). 22. MORALITY (Jonathan Haidt and Selin Kesebir). 23. AGGRESSION (Brad J. Bushman and L. Rowell Huesmann). 24. AFFILIATION, ACCEPTANCE, AND BELONGING: THE PURSUIT OF INTERPERSONAL CONNECTION (Mark R. Leary). 25. CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS (Margaret S. Clark and Edward P. Lemay, Jr.). 26. INTERPERSONAL STRATIFICATION: STATUS, POWER, AND SUBORDINATION (Susan T. Fiske). 27. SOCIAL CONFLICT: THE EMERGENCE AND CONSEQUENCES OF STRUGGLE AND NEGOTIATION (Carsten K. W. De Dreu). 28. INTERGROUP RELATIONS 1(Vincent Yzerbyt and Stephanie Demoulin). 29. INTERGROUP BIAS (John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner). 30. SOCIAL JUSTICE: HISTORY, THEORY, AND RESEARCH (John T. Jost and Aaron C. Kay). 31. INFLUENCE AND LEADERSHIP (Michael A. Hogg). 32. GROUP BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE (J. Richard Hackman and Nancy Katz). 33. ORGANIZATIONAL PREFERENCES AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES (Deborah H. Gruenfeld and Larissa Z. Tiedens). 34. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF POLITICAL BEHAVIOR (Jon A. Krosnick, Penny S. Visser, and Joshua Harder). 35. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW (Margaret Bull Kovera and Eugene Borgida). 36. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND LANGUAGE: WORDS, UTTERANCES, AND CONVERSATIONS (Thomas Holtgraves). 37. CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY (Steven J. Heine). AUTHOR INDEX. SUBJECT INDEX.
13,453 citations
TL;DR: Reaching this goal would require a more self-con- scious determination by communication scholars to plumb other fields and feed back their studies to outside researchers, and enhance the theoretical rigor of communication scholarship proper.
Abstract: deficient core knowledge, I propose that we turn an osten- sible weakness into a strength. We should identify our mission as bring- ing together insights and theories that would otherwise remain scattered in other disciplines. Because of the lack of interchange among the disci- plines, hypotheses thoroughly discredited in one field may receive wide acceptance in another. Potential research paradigms remain fractured, with pieces here and there but no comprehensive statement to guide re- search. By bringing ideas together in one location, communication can aspire to become a master discipline that synthesizes related theories and concepts and exposes them to the most rigorous, comprehensive state- ment and exploration. Reaching this goal would require a more self-con- scious determination by communication scholars to plumb other fields and feed back their studies to outside researchers. At the same time, such an enterprise would enhance the theoretical rigor of communication scholarship proper. The idea
11,643 citations
"The implications of framing effects..." refers background in this paper
...(Entman, 1993, p. 57) The first criterion of citizen competence requires that citizens not base their preferences on arbitrary information....
[...]
...Indeed, virtually no one cites cases where equivalency framing effects do not work (e.g., Entman, 1993; Quattrone and Tversky, 1988; Zaller, 1992)....
[...]
...Many take these demonstrations as evidence that citizens either base their preferences on arbitrary information and/or are subject to extensive elite manipulation (e.g., Bartels, 1998; Entman, 1993; Riker, 1986)....
[...]
...225 0190-9320/01/0900-0225/0 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation 1993; Entman, 1993, p. 57; Farr, 1993, p. 386; Manheim, 1991, pp. 4–5; Page and Shapiro, 1992, pp. 366–367; Parenti, 1999, pp. 123–124; Riker, 1986)....
[...]
...For example, imagine that an individual faces a choice between two alternatives—Policy A and Policy B....
[...]