Political Behavior

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 221–246 | Cite as

Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects

  • Thomas E. Nelson
  • Zoe M. Oxley
  • Rosalee A. Clawson
Article

Abstract

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ajzen, Icek, and Fishbein, Martin (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Norman H. (1981). Foundations of Information Integration Theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bargh, John A., and Pietromonaco, Paula (1982). Automatic information processing and social perception: The influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43: 437-449.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, Paul Allen, Dalton, Russell J., and Huckfeldt, Robert (1995). Political intermediation in a multi-message environment: The case of the United States. Paper presented at the meeting of the Cross-National Election Project, Columbus, Ohio.Google Scholar
  5. Beniger, James R., and Gusek, Jodi A. (1995). The cognitive revolution in public opinion and communication research. In Theodore L. Glasser and Charles T. Salmon (eds.), Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  6. Bennett, W. Lance. (1988). News: The Politics of Illusion, 2nd ed. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Carmines, Edward G., and Kuklinski, James H. (1990). Incentives, opportunities, and the logic of public opinion in American political representation. In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski (eds.), Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chong, Dennis (1993). How people think, reason and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science 37: 867-899.Google Scholar
  9. Conover, Pamela J., and Feldman, Stanley (1984). How people organize the political world: A schematic model. American Journal of Political Science 28: 95-126.Google Scholar
  10. Dorman, William A., and Livingston, Steven. (1994). The news before the storm. In W. Lance Bennett and David L. Paletz (eds.), Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eagly, Alice H., and Chaiken, Shelly (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  12. Eagly, Alice H., and Warren, Rebecca (1976). Intelligence, comprehension, and opinion change. Journal of Personality 44: 226-242.Google Scholar
  13. Edelman, Murray (1964). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  14. Entman, Robert M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43: 51-58.Google Scholar
  15. Fabrigar, Leandre, Krosnick, Jon A., and Miller, Joanne M. (1995). What motivates issue public membership? Distinguishing between personal importance and national importance. The Ohio State University. Typescript.Google Scholar
  16. Feagin, Joe R. (1975). Subordinating the Poor. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  17. Feldman, Stanley, and Zaller, John. (1992). Political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science 36: 268-307.Google Scholar
  18. Gamson, William A. (1992). Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  19. Gamson, William A., and Lasch, Katherine E. (1983). The political culture of social welfare policy. In Shimon E. Spiro and Ephraim Yuchtman-Yaar (eds.), Evaluating the Welfare State. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gamson, William A., and Modigliani, Andre. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology 3: 137-177.Google Scholar
  21. Gamson, William A., and Modigliani, Andre. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology 95: 1-37.Google Scholar
  22. Gitlin, Todd. (1980). The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Goffman, Erving (1974). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  24. Gurevitch, Michael, and Blumler, Jay G. (1994). Political communication systems and democratic values. In Doris A. Graber (ed.), Media Power in Politics, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hallin, Daniel C. (1992). Sound bite news: Television coverage of elections, 1968–1988. Journal of Communication 42: 5-24.Google Scholar
  26. Hanson, Russell L. (1993). Deliberation, tolerance and democracy. In George E. Marcus and Russell L. Hanson (eds.), Reconsidering the Democratic Public. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hochschild, Jennifer (1981). What's Fair? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hochschild, Jennifer (1993). Disjunction and ambivalence in citizens' political outlooks. In George E. Marcus and Russell L. Hanson (eds.), Reconsidering the Democratic Public. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hovland, Carl I., Janis, Irving L., and Kelley, Harold H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hurwitz, Jon (1989). Presidential leadership and public followership. In Michael Margolis and Gary A. Mauser (eds.), Manipulating Public Opinion. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  31. Iyengar, Shanto (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald (1987). News That Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Iyengar, Shanto, and Simon, Adam (1994). News coverage of the Gulf crisis and public opinion: A study of agenda-setting, priming, and framing. In W. Lance Bennett and David L. Paletz (eds.), Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jaccard, James (1981). Toward theories of persuasion and belief change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 260-269.Google Scholar
  35. Jaccard, James, and Becker, Michael A. (1985). Attitudes and behavior: An information integration perspective. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 21: 440-465.Google Scholar
  36. Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39: 341-50.Google Scholar
  37. Kinder, Donald R. and Herzog, Don. (1993). Democratic discussion. In George E. Marcus and Russell L. Hanson (eds.), Reconsidering the Democratic Public. University Park, PA: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kinder, Donald R., and Sanders, Lynn M. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. Social Cognition 8: 73-103.Google Scholar
  39. Kingdon, John W. (1993). Politicians, self-interest and ideas. In George E. Marcus and Russell L. Hanson (eds.), Reconsidering the Democratic Public. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Klapper, Joseph T. (1960). The Effects of Mass Communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kluegel, James R. (1987). Macro-economic problems, beliefs about the poor and attitudes toward welfare spending. Social Problems 34: 82-99.Google Scholar
  42. Kluegel, James R. and Smith, Eliot (1986). Beliefs About Inequality: Americans' Views of What Is and What Ought to Be. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  43. Krosnick, Jon A., and Brannon, Laura A. (1993). The media and the foundations of presidential support: George Bush and the Persian Gulf conflict. Journal of Social Issues 49: 167-182.Google Scholar
  44. Krosnick, Jon A., and Fabrigar, Leandre R. (n.d.). Designing Questionnaires to Measure Attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  45. Krosnick, Jon A, and Kinder, Donald R. (1990). Altering the foundations of support for the president through priming. American Political Science Review 84: 497-512.Google Scholar
  46. Kuklinski, James H., Luskin, Robert C., and Bolland, John (1991). Where is the schema? Going beyond the “S” word in political psychology. American Political Science Review 85: 1341-1356.Google Scholar
  47. Lasswell, Harold D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (ed.), The Communication of Ideas: Religion and Civilization Series. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  48. Lazarsfeld, Paul, Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Helen (1944). The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Leo, John (1994/95). Framing the wrong picture. Newsweek, Dec. 26–Jan. 2, p. 21.Google Scholar
  50. Lodge, Milton G., and Hamill, Ruth (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review 80: 505-519.Google Scholar
  51. Luker, Kristin (1984). Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  52. McClelland, Gary H., and Judd, Charles M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin 114: 376-390.Google Scholar
  53. McCombs, Maxwell E., and Shaw, Donald R. (1972). The agenda-setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36: 176-187.Google Scholar
  54. McGraw, Kathleen M., and Pinney, Neil (1990). The effects of general and domain-specific expertise on political memory and judgment. Social Cognition 8: 9-30.Google Scholar
  55. McGuire, William J. (1964). Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. I. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  56. McGuire, William J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. F. Borgatta and W. W. Lambert (eds.), Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  57. McGuire, William J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Gardner Lindzey and Elliot Aronson (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  58. McHugo, Gregory J., Lanzetta, John T., Sullivan, Denis G., Masters, Roger D., and Englis, Basil G. (1985). Emotional reactions to a political leader's expressive displays. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49: 1513-1529.Google Scholar
  59. Miller, Arthur H., Wattenberg, Martin P., and Malanchuk, Oksana (1986). Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review 80: 521-540.Google Scholar
  60. Mutz, Diana C. (1992). Mass media and the depoliticization of personal experience. American Journal of Political Science 36: 483-508.Google Scholar
  61. Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M. (n.d.). Media framing of a civil liberties controversy and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  62. Nelson, Thomas E., and Kinder, Donald R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics 58:1055-1078.Google Scholar
  63. Nisbett, Richard E., and Wilson, Timothy DeCamp (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 34: 231-259.Google Scholar
  64. Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y. (1989). Educating and manipulating the public. In Michael Margolis and Gary A. Mauser (eds.), Manipulating Public Opinion. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  65. Pan, Zhongdang, and Kosicki, Gerald M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication 10: 55-75.Google Scholar
  66. Parenti, Michael (1986). Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  67. Patterson, Thomas E. (1993). Out of Order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  68. Petty, Richard T., and Cacioppo, John E. (1986). Communication and Persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  69. Rogers, Everett M., and Dearing, James W. (1994). Agenda-setting research: Where has it been, where is it going? In Doris A. Graber (ed.), Media Power in Politics, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
  70. Sears, David O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 515-530.Google Scholar
  71. Sherif, Carolyn W., Sherif, Muzafer, and Nebergall, Roger E. (1965). Attitude and Attitude Change: The Social Judgment-Involvement Approach. Philadelphia: Saunders.Google Scholar
  72. Sniderman, Paul, Brody, Richard, and Tetlock, Philip (1991). Reasoning and Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Tetlock, Philip E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50: 819-827.Google Scholar
  74. Tourangeau, Roger, and Rasinski, Kenneth (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin 103: 299-314.Google Scholar
  75. Van der Pligt, Joop, and Eiser, J. Richard (1984). Dimensional salience, judgment, and attitudes. In J. Richard Eiser (ed.), Attitudinal Judgment. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  76. Wolfsfeld, Gadi (1991). Media, protest, and political violence: A transactional analysis. Journalism Monographs 127: 1-61.Google Scholar
  77. Wyer, Robert S., and Hartwick, Jon (1980). The role of information retrieval and conditional inference processes in belief formation and change. In Leonard Berkowitz (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 13: 241-284.Google Scholar
  78. Zajonc, Robert B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9: 1-27.Google Scholar
  79. Zajonc, Robert B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist 35: 151-75.Google Scholar
  80. Zaller, John R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Zaller, John (1994). Elite leadership of mass opinion: New evidence from the Gulf War. In W. Lance Bennett and David L. Paletz (eds.), Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  82. Zaller, John R., and Feldman, Stanley (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science 36: 579-616.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas E. Nelson
    • 1
  • Zoe M. Oxley
  • Rosalee A. Clawson
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus

Personalised recommendations