A brief review of science-based insights in framing.

1. Framing theory and its origins
 Framing theory
– Most commonly applied research approach in the field of communication science
– Refers to phenomenon that (often small) changes in the presentation of an issue produce (sometimes
large) changes of opinion (e.g. Chong & Druckman, 2007)
– Originated from cognitive psychology (Bartlett, 1932) and anthropology (Bateson, 1955/1972)
– Subsequently adopted by other disciplines, including:
 Sociology (e.g. Goffman, 1974)
 Economics (e.g. Kahneman & Tversky, 1979)
 Linguistics (e.g. Tannen, 1979, Lakoff, 2008)
 Social movement research (e.g. Snow & Benford, 1988)
 Communication science (e.g. Tuchman, 1978)
 Political communication (e.g. Gitlin, 1980, Rendahl, 1995)
 Corporate communication research (e.g. Hallahan, 1999)
 Health communication (e.g. Rothman & Salovey, 1997)
 2 complementary frame conceptualizations in research literature
– Reflecting the two broad foundations of framing research: the sociological and psychological “schools”
– Frames are schemes for both presenting and comprehending news information, (Scheufele, 1999)
– Frames serve both as "devices embedded in political discourse“, and as "internal structures of the
mind, (Kinder & Sanders, 1990)

2. Framing, agenda setting and priming
 Framing research has often been grouped with agenda setting and priming.
– All three approaches have been examined under the broad category of cognitive media effects (Borah,
2011).
 Agenda setting
– Occurs due to the frequency with which an issue is discussed in the mass media.
– Does not involve how the issue is treated in the media and is not relevant to framing (Cappella &
Jamieson, 1997).
 Priming
– Occurs when news content suggests to news audiences that they ought to use specific issues as
benchmarks for evaluating the performance of leaders and governments.
– Is often understood as an extension of agenda setting.
 Framing
– Is based on the assumption that how an issue is characterized in news reports can have an influence
on how it is understood by audiences.
 Primary difference on the psychological level:
– Agenda setting and priming: whether we think about an issue or issue consideration
– Framing: how we think about an issue .

3. The sociological school: media frames
 Framing research that grew from sociological foundations refers to ‘‘frames in communication’’, e.g.
media frames used by journalists to portray an issue
– Focus on ‘‘words, images, phrases, and presentation styles’’ (Druckman, 2001) used to construct news stories
and the processes that shape this construction.
 Conceptualizations of media frames:
– “Attributes of the news itself“(Scheufele ,1999)
– Rhetorical or narrative tools which can be used to implicitly or explicitly convey meanings (e.g. Gitlin, 1980)
– A “central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning” to events related to an issue (Gamson &
Modigliani, 1987)
 Entman (1993) defined framing as ‘‘to select some aspects of perceived reality and make them more
salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal
interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described’’.
 Gamson and Modigliani (1989) suggest that frames can be identified by:
– 5 framing devices which suggest how to think about the issue:
 metaphors, exemplars, catchphrases, depictions, visual symbols
– 3 reasoning devices justify what should be done about it:
 roots (i.e. a causal analysis), consequences (i.e. a particular type of effect), and appeals to principle (i.e. a set of moral
claims)

4. The psychological school: audience frames/schemata
 From the psychological perspective, framing involves a process where individuals choose from
a number of considerations available to them (Nelson, Oxley & Clawson, 1997).
 The set of dimensions that affect an individual’s evaluation constitute an individual’s “frame in
thought” (Chong & Druckman, 2007).
 Conceptualizations of audience frames/schemata:
– “Information-processing schemata" of individuals (Scheufele ,1999)
– “Mentally stored clusters of ideas that guide individuals' processing of information" (e.g. Entman,
1993)
 According to Lakoff (2008) frames or schemata/scripts:
– Are the fundamental building blocks of the narratives people live by
– Are part of the cognitive structures we think with
– Tend to structure a huge amount of our thought
– Encompass roles (like a cast of characters), relations between the roles, and scenario's carried out by
those playing the roles.

5. How framing works: mediators of framing effects
 According to Chong & Druckman (2007) most researchers agree that framing effects are
mediated by:
1. availability: people draw their opinions from the set of available beliefs stored in memory.
2. accessibility: only some beliefs become accessible at a given moment.
3. applicability: out of the set of accessible beliefs, only some are strong enough to be judged relevant
or applicable to the subject at hand.
 Framing can work on all three levels, by making new beliefs available about an issue, making
certain available beliefs accessible, or making beliefs applicable or “strong” in people’s
evaluations.
 Framing effects depend on a mix of factors including the strength and repetition of the frame,
the competitive environment, and individual motivations (Chong & Druckman, 2007)
 Other researchers have employed processes such as readjusting explanation, metaphorical
reasoning, or usability explanation to explain the cause of framing effects (Borah, 2011)

6. How framing works: the role of cognitive processing
 Two-process theories of reasoning (Stanovich & West, 2000)
– New field of research, emerged in cognitive psychology since the late seventies.
– People use two systems to process information: intuitive (System 1) and deliberate thinking (System 2).
 System 1, intuitive thinking:
– Associative, holistic, automatic, relatively fast and undemanding of cognitive capacity, acquisition by biology,
exposure and personal experience.
– Approaches processing tasks in a highly contextualized, personalized, conversational and socialized manner.
 System 2: deliberate thinking:
– Rule-based, analytic, controlled, demanding of cognitive capacity, relatively slow, acquisition by cultural and
formal tuition.
– Approaches tasks in a decontextualized, depersonalized and asocial manner.
 System 1 accounts for 98% of all cognitive processes, including perceptions, evaluations and attitudes.
 Some implications:
– People are mostly unaware of availability, accessibility and applicability processes that guide framing effects
– Depending on the circumstances people may reject or accept frames and not be aware of it! E.g. frame
inhibition (Lakoff, 2008).
– Conscious, deliberate frame processing is the exception to the rule and requires a threshold to be passed:
 Salience
 Involvement.
– Framing tactics should anticipate the expected mode of cognitive processing of issue information by an
audience:
 adjusting the mix of intuitive and logical framing devices in a frame package

7. Moderators of framing effects
 Framing effects are not universal (Borah, 2011)
 Many variables that moderate the effects of frames are described in research literature:
– Individual-level conditions, e.g. issue knowledge (Rhee, 1997), need to evaluate (Druckman and
Nelson, 2003), frames evoking cultural themes, values and beliefs (e.g. van Gorp, 2007), source
credibility (Druckman, 2001) and issue importance (Lecheler, Vreese and Slothuus, 2009).
– Contextual conditions, e.g. strength of frames (Chong and Druckman, 2007) and competitive framing.
 Some examples
– Important attitudes are stronger, more accessible, and more elaborate – and therefore less likely to be
affected by news frames whereas weak attitudes with low levels of importance are more likely to be
altered, and this happens by adding new information to the individual's depot (Lecheler, de Vreese
and Slothuus, 2009)
– Frames delivered by credible sources are more likely to shift opinions (Druckman 2001)
– Frames that invoke longstanding cultural values are more likely to shift opinions (Gamson &
Modigliani, 1987)

8. Strategic choices involved in the framing of issues
 Snow and Benford (1988) identify three core framing-tasks in social movement research and state
that the degree to which framers attend to these tasks will determine participant mobilization.
– diagnostic framing for the identification of a problem and assignment of blame,
– prognostic framing to suggest solutions, strategies, and tactics to a problem
– motivational framing that serves as a call to arms or rationale for action.
1. Hanggli & Kriesi (2010) identify 3 strategic choices involved in framing decisions:
a. substantive emphasis choice: selecting one or several substantive frames capable of steering the attention
of the media and the public to the advocated cause and away from the cause of opponents
b. oppositional emphasis choice: deciding to what degree the opponent's substantive frame(s) should be
addressed as compared to one’s own frames and whether to use the opponents' frames offensively or
defensively
c. contest emphasis choice: deciding to what degree the media’s contest emphasis frame(s) or conflict frame(s)
(portraying an issue as a contest or conflict between opponents and focusing on who is winning or losing
etc.) should be addressed relative to one’s own substantive frame(s)
2. Benford & Snow (1988) and Snow et al. (1986) propose 4 (substantive) framing strategies:
a) Frame bridging : the linkage of two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames
regarding a particular issue or problem
b) Frame amplification: the clarification and invigoration of an interpretive frame that bears on a particular
issue, problem, or set of events
c) Frame extensions: extending the boundaries of the proposed frame to include or encompass the views,
interests, or sentiments of targeted groups
d) Frame transformation: “necessary when the proposed frames "may not resonate with, and on occasion may
even appear antithetical to, conventional lifestyles or rituals and extant interpretive frames

9. Framing in a nutshell
 Framing influences how people perceive issues through the degree in which news frames
succeed in activating existing frames (schemata) available in memory.
– Framing effects have been empirically demonstrated in numerous studies.
– Because frames are related to cultural phenomena, their use is often unnoticed and implicit, and their
impact is by stealth.
 Framing is not some kind of magic bullet:
– The presence of frames does not guarantee their influence on audience cognitions:
– People actively filter, sort and reorganize information in personally meaningful ways in constructing an
understanding of public issues.
– Framing effects are believed to be mediated by availability, accessibility and applicability processes
– Framing effects are believed to be moderated by individual-level conditions and contextual conditions
 Recent research in cognitive psychology (two-process theories of reasoning) suggests that
intuitive processing (system 1) is the default mode used by people to process impressions
– Framing effects are thus likely to be positively influenced by intuitive framing devices, e.g. metaphors,
exemplars, depictions, words/lexical choices, catchphrases and visual symbols, in a frame package
– Logical reasoning devices remain necessary to facilitate logical cognitive processing
– In short: effective framing requires strong frames and both intuitive and logical framing devices to
evoke and “justify”the frame