Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 289–298

Picking a Frame for Communicating About Genetics: Stigmas or Challenges

Original Paper

Currently, one may describe awareness of genomics as limited, but growing in the US. Although awareness is limited, the US public expresses great concern that genomics could result in stigmatization and discrimination (Reproductive genetic testing: What America thinks. Washington, DC: Genetics and Public Policy Center, 2004). This situation provides a rare opportunity to think carefully about how to design communication to a general public in ways that galvanize positive sentiments around genomics instead of stimulate stigmas. This manuscript provides a synthesis of communication theories relevant to framing genomics in stigma and challenge formats, the details necessary to understand what such messages look like, and an illustration of the two frames. Many people in different roles are engaging in these conversations in many different contexts. Through the growing exposure and interest in genomics, the opportunity to proactively script messages to form beliefs and attitudes about genomics, instead of managing pre-existing ones, may disappear quickly.

KEY WORDS:

communication frames stigma challenge genetic testing genomics 

REFERENCES

  1. American Stroke Association (Producer). (2005). Early stroke response [Television Public Service Announcement]. (Available from the American Stroke Association, National Center, 7272 Greenville Avenue, Dallas, TX, 75231).Google Scholar
  2. Ashmore, R. D., & Del Boca, F. K. (1981). Conceptual Approaches to Stereotypes and Stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (p. 16), New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  3. Bates, B. R. (2005). Public culture and public understanding of genetics: A focus group study. Public Understanding of Sci, 14, 47–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., & Lickel, B. (2000). Stigma, threat, and social interactions. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 307–333). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Pers Soc Psychol, 17, 475–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, L., Macintyre, K., & Trujillo, L. (2003). Interventions to reduce HIV/AIDS stigma: what have we learned? AIDS Educ Prev, 15, 49–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behav Sci, 3, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and public good. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cappella, J. N., Lerman, G., & Kang, Y. (2006). Genetic information in news: Deterministic and probabilistic frames about genetic susceptibilities to smoking addiction and disease. Paper presented at the annual International Communication Association meeting in Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
  10. Cogent Research. (2005). Cogent syndicated genomics attitudes & trends: 2005. Cambridge, MA: Cogent Research.Google Scholar
  11. Condit, C. M. (1999). How the public understands genetics: Non-deterministic and non-discriminatory interpretations of the ‘blueprint’ metaphor. Public Understanding of Sci, 8, 169–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Condit, C. M., Dubriwny, T., Lynch, J., & Parrott, R. (2004). Lay people's understanding of and preference against the word “mutation.” Am J Med Genet, 130A, 245–250.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Corcoran, C., Malaspina, D., & Hercher, L. (2005). Prodromal interventions for schizophrenia vulnerability: The risks of being “at risk.” Schizophrenia Research, 73, 173–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to ‘prejudice.’ J Pers Soc Psychol, 88, 770–789.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cox, S. M., & Starzomski, R. C. (2004). Genes and geneticization? The social construction of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. New Genet Soc, 23, 137–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1995). Parameters of social identity. J Pers Soc Psychol, 68, 280–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denayer, L., Evers-Kiebooms, G., Deboeck, K., et al. (1992). Reproductive decision-making of aunts and uncles of a child with cystic-fibrosis—genetic risk perception and attitudes toward carrier identification and prenatal-diagnosis. Am J Med Genet, 44, 104–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DeTurck, M. A. (2002). Persuasive effects of product warning labels. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), Persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 213–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., & Harrison, K. (1999). The problem of us versus them and AIDS stigma. Am Behav Sci, 42, 1212–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dovidio, J., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 1–28). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Entman, R. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. J Commun, 41, 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J Commun, 43, 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fanos, J. H., & Johnson, J. P. (1995). Barriers to carrier testing for adult cystic-fibrosis sibs—the importance of not knowing. Am J Med Genet, 59, 85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fiske, D. W., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  25. Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol, 30, 407–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frable, D. E. (1993). Dimensions of marginality: Distinctions among those who are different. Pers Soc Psychol Bull, 19, 370–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Genetics and Public Policy Center. (2004). Reproductive genetic testing: What America thinks. Washington, DC: Genetics & Public Policy Center.Google Scholar
  29. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  30. Gollust, S. E., Hull, S. C., & Wilfond, B. S. (2002). Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA, 288, 1762–1767.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haidt, J., McCauley, C. R., & Rozin, P. (1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Pers Individ Differences, 16, 701–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychol Rev, 103, 336–355.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hogg, M. A., & Reid, S. A. (2006). Social identity, self-categorization, and the communication of group norms. Commun Theor, 16, 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Jankovic, J. (2001). Tourette's syndrome. New Engl J Med, 345, 1184–1193.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, E., & Davis, K. (1965). From acts to dispositions: the attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 220–266). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. Am Psychol, 39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kenen, R., Ardern-Jones, A., & Eeles, R. (2005). “Social separation” among women under 40 years of age diagnosed with breast cancer and carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. J Genetic Counsel, 15, 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kitzinger, J., & Reilly, J. (1997). The rise and fall of risk reporting: Media coverage of human genetics research, ‘false memory syndrome’ and ‘mad cow disease.’ Eur J Commun, 12, 319–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lanie, A. D., Jayaratne, T. E., Sheldon, J. P., Kardia, S. L. R., Anderson, E. S., Feldbaum, M., & Petty, E. M. (2004). Exploring the public understanding of basic genetic concepts. J Genetic Counsel, 13, 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lawson, K. L. (2003). Perceptions of deservedness of social aid as a function of prenatal diagnostic testing. J Appl Soc Psychol, 33, 76–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annu Rev Sociol, 27, 363–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Link, B. G., Yang, L., Phelan, J. C., & Collins, P. Y. (2004). Measuring mental illness stigma. Schizophr Bull, 30, 511–542.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Lobb, E. A., Butow, P. N., Moore, A., Barratt, A., Tucker, K., Gaff, C., Kirk, J., Dudding, T., & Butt, D. (2006). Development of a communication aid to facilitate risk communication in consultations with unaffected women from high risk breast cancer families: A pilot study. J Genetic Counsel, 15, 393–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Looy, H. (2004). Embodied and embedded morality: Divinity, identity, and disgust. Zygon, 39, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2002). From prejudice to intergroup relations: Differentiated reactions to social groups. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  48. Manusov, V., & Milstein, T. (2005). Interpreting nonverbal behavior: Representation and transformation frames in Israeli and Palestinian media coverage of the 1993 Rabin-Arafat handshake. West J Commun, 69, 183–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marteau, T. M., & Drake, H. (1995). Attributions for disability—The influence of genetic screening. Soc Sci Med, 40, 1127–1132.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mehta, S. I., & Farina, A. (1997). Is being ‘sick’ really better? Effect of the disease view of mental disorder on stigma. J Soc Clin Psychol, 16, 405–419.Google Scholar
  51. Meiser, B., Mitchell, P. B., McGirr, H., Van Herten, M., & Schofield, P. R. (2005). Implications of genetic risk information in families with a high density of bipolar disorder: An exploratory study. Soc Sci Med, 60, 109–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mercer, L., Creighton, S., Holden, J. J. A., & Lewis, M. E. S. (2006). Parental perspectives on the causes of an autism spectrum disorder in their children. J Genetic Counsel, 15(1), 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Misra, L. M., & Pai, A. (1998). Genetic counseling in India: Challenges, barriers, and progress. Perspect Genetic Counsel, 20, 1–12.Google Scholar
  54. Morone, J. A. (1997). Enemies of the people: the moral dimension to public health. J Health Polit, Policy Law, 22, 993–1020.Google Scholar
  55. Mosk, M. (2004, October 13). Schaefer faults AIDS patients: MD official defends proposed registry. The Washington Post, B01.Google Scholar
  56. Myers, M. F., Chang, M., Jorgensen, C., Whitworth, W., Kassim, S., Litch, J. A., Armstrong, L., Bernhardt, B., Faucett, W. A., Irwin, D., Mouchawar, J., & Bradley, L. A. (2006). Genetic testing for susceptibility to breast and ovarian cancer: Evaluating the impact of a direct-to-consumer marketing campaign on physicians’ knowledge and practices. Genetic Med, 8, 361–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., & Asher, T. (2000). Why people stigmatize: Toward a biocultural framework. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31–61). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  58. Nielsen Media Research. (2005). Nielsen television index ranking report for 11/07/2005–11/13/2005. New York: Nielsen Media Research.Google Scholar
  59. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Pol Commun, 10, 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Parrot, R., Silk, K., Weiner, J., Condit, C., Harris, T., & Bernhardt, J. (2003). Deriving lay models of uncertainty about genes’ role in illness causation to guide communication about human genetics. J Commun, 54, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Phelan, J. C. (2005). Geneticization of deviant behavior and consequences for stigma: The case of mental illness. J Health Soc Behav, 46, 307–322.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Rapport, F., Iredale, R., Jones, W., Sivell, S., Edwards, A., Gray, J., & Elwyn, G. (2006). Decision aids for familial breast cancer: Exploring women's views using focus groups. Health Expectations, 9, 232–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Reese, S., Gandy, O., & Grant, A. (Eds.). (2001). Framing public life. Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.Google Scholar
  64. Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: A social cognitive account of framing effects. J Commun, 47, 26–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Roberts, L. W., Warner, T. D., Geppert, C. M. A., Rogers, M., & Hammond, K. A. G. (2005). Employees’ perspectives on ethically important aspects of genetic research participation: A pilot study. Compr Psychiatry, 46, 27–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). On the orienting value of attitudes: Attitude accessibility as a determinant of an object's attraction of visual attention. J Pers Soc Psychol, 63, 198–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). ‘To thine own self be true:’ Values, framing and voter decision-making strategies. Commun Res, 23, 509–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Shiloh, S. (2006). Illness representations, self-regulation, and genetic counseling: A theoretical review. J Genetic Counsel, 15, 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Shiloh, S., Rashuk-Rosenthal, D., & Benyamini, Y. (2002). Illness attributions: their structure and associations with other illness cognitions and perceptions of control. J Behav Med, 25, 373–394.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Smith, R. A., & Miller, W. (2007). Media depictions of health topics: Challenge and stigma formats. J Health Commun, 12(3).Google Scholar
  71. Smith, R. A., Han, S., & Miller, W. (2006). Blighted evacuees or wrathful storms: Investigating stigma and challenge frames in newspaper articles. Paper presented at the annual International Communication Association meeting in Dresden, Germany.Google Scholar
  72. Tajfel, H. (1959). Quantitative judgement in social perception. Br J Psychol, 50, 16–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  74. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wiener, L. S., Battles, H. B., & Heilman, N. (2000). Public disclosure of child's HIV infection: Impact on children and families. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 12, 485–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Witte, K., Meyer, G., & Martell, D. (2001). Effective health risk messages: A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  77. Wong, J. G., & Lieh-Mak, F. (2001). Genetic discrimination and mental illness: a case report. J Med Ethics, 27, 393–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication StudiesUniversity of Texas, AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations