Framing Infectious Diseases: Effective Policy Implementation and United States Public Opinion

  • Mita Saksena


This chapter combines quantitative and qualitative research methods—content analysis of newspaper reports and analysis of health opinion polls to assess impact of media frames in shaping public opinion. Focusing on framing of transnational infectious diseases (HIV/AIDS, SARS, and avian flu) as medical dangers, economic risks, security threats, and human rights concerns, the chapter draws attention to the role of media frames in enlisting active support and engaging public opinion for effective policy implementation to control spread of these infectious diseases. The findings also address the debate on the role and importance of domestic public opinion as a factor in domestic and foreign policy decisions of governments in an increasingly globalized world.


  1. Aldrich, John H., Christopher Gelpi, Peter Feaver, Jason Reifler, and Kristin Thompson Sharp. 2006. Foreign Policy and the Electoral Connection. Annual Review of Political Science 9: 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almond, Gabriel A. 1956. Public Opinion and National Security. Public Opinion Quarterly 20 (2): 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabas, Jason, and Jennifer Jerit. 2010. Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid? American Political Science Review 104 (2): 226–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardhan, Nilanjana. 2001. Transnational AIDS-HIV News Narratives: A Critical Exploration of Overarching Frames. Mass Communication and Society 4 (3): 283–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumgartner, Frank R., and Beth L. Leech. 2001. Interest Niches and Policy Bandwagons: Patterns of Interest Group Involvement in National Politics. The Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1191–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benford, Robert D. 1993. You Could Be the Hundredth Monkey: Collective Action Frames and Vocabularies of Motive Within the Nuclear Disarmament Movement. Sociological Quarterly 34 (2): 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berelson, Bernard. 1952. Content Analysis in Communications Research. Glencoe: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Berstein, Paul. 1998. Bringing the Public Back In: Should Sociologists Consider the Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy? Social Forces 77 (1): 27–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beuno de Mesquita, Bruno. 2002. Domestic Politics and International Relations. International Studies Quarterly 46 (1): 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blackstone, Amy. 2012. Principles of Sociological Inquiry: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods. Washington: Saylor Foundation.Google Scholar
  11. Brewer, Paul R., and Kimberly Gross. 2005. Values, Framing and Citizens’ Thoughts About Policy Issues: Effects on Content and Quantity. Political Psychology 26 (6): 929–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2010. Studying the Effects of Issue Framing in Public Opinion About Policy Issues. In News Framing Analysis: Experimental and Theoretical Perspectives, ed. Paul D’. Angelo and Jim A. Kuypers, 159–186. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, D.T., and J.C. Stanley. 1996. Experimental and Quasi Experimental Designs. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1994. Addressing Emerging Infectious Disease Threats: A Prevention Strategy for the United States. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service.Google Scholar
  15. Chaffee, Steven, and Frank Stacey. 1996. How Americans Get Political Information: Print Versus Broadcast News. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 546 (1): 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chong, Dennis. 1993. How People Think, Reason, and Feel About Rights and Liberties. American Journal of Political Science 37: 867–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments. Journal of Communication 57 (1): 99–118.Google Scholar
  18. ———. 2010. Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time. American Political Science Review 104 (4): 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chong, Dennis, Citrin Jack, and Conley Patricia. 2001. When Self Interests Matter. Political Psychology 22 (3): 540–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, Jude. 2006. The Role of Language and Gender in the Naming and Framing of HIV/AIDS in the South African Context. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 24 (4): 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Coy, Patrick G., and Lynne M. Woehrle. 1996. Constructing Identity and Oppositional Knowledge: The Framing Practices of Peace Movement Organizations During the Persian Gulf War. Sociological Spectrum 16 (3): 287–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dahistrom, Michael F., Anthony Dudo, and Dominique Brossard. 2012. Precision of Information, Sensational Information, and Self-Efficacy Information as Message-Level Variables Affecting Risk Perceptions. Risk Analysis 32 (1): 155–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Daniel, Riffe, Lacy Stephen, and Fico G. Frederick. 2005. Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Analysis in Research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. DeMotts, Rachel B., and Lawrence P. Markowitz. 2004. Framing the Epidemic: The Case of UNAIDS. Paper presented at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 2–5.Google Scholar
  25. Domke, David, Erica S. Graham, Kevin Coe, Sue Lockett John, and Ted Coopman. 2006. Going Public as Political Strategy: The Bush Administration, an Echoing Press, and Passage of the Patriot Act. Political Communication 23 (3): 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Druckman, James N. 2001. On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? The Journal of Politics 63 (4): 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. ———. 2010. Competing Frames in a Political Campaign. In Winning with Words: The Origins and Impact of Framing, ed. Brian F. Schaffner and Patrick J. Sellers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2011. What’s It All About? Framing in Political Science. In Perspectives in Framing, ed. Gideon Keren, 279–302. New York: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  29. Entman, Robert M. 2003. Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fearon, James D. 1998. Domestic Politics, Foreign Policy, and Theories of International Relations. Annual Review of Political Science 1 (1): 289–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Feldman, Stanley, and John Zaller. 1992. The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State. American Journal of Political Science 31: 268–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fiske, Susan T., and Shelley E. Taylor. 2008. Social Cognition, from Brains to Culture. Boston: McGraw Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  33. Gamson, William A., and Andre Modigliani. 1987. The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action. Research in Political Sociology 3: 137–177.Google Scholar
  34. Gelpi, Christopher. 2010. Performing on Cue? The Formation of Public Opinion Towards War. Journal of Conflict Resolution 54 (1): 88–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gross, Kimberly, and Lisa D. Ambrosio. 2004. Framing Emotional Response. Political Psychology 25 (1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Harrell, Margaret C., and Melissa A. Bradley. 2009. Data Collection Methods: Semi Structured Interviews and Focus Groups. Santa Monica: RAND.Google Scholar
  37. Ho, Shirley, Dominique Brossard, and Dietram A. Scheufele. 2007. The Polls—Trends Public Reactions to Global Health Threats and Infectious Diseases. Public Opinion Quarterly 71 (4): 671–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Holsti, Ole R. 1992. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy. International Studies Quarterly 36: 439–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. ———. 2004. Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  40. Iyengar, Shanto. 1990. The Accessibility Bias in Politics: Television News and Public Opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Jamieson, Kathleen H., and Karlyn K. Campbell. 2001. The Interplay of Influence: News, Advertising, Politics and the Mass Media. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Jentleson, Bruce W. 1992. The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force. International Studies Quarterly 36 (1): 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kinder, Donald R. 2007. Curmudgeonly Advice. Journal of Communication 57 (1): 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Krippendorff, Klaus. 1980. Validity in Content Analysis. In Computerstrategien für die kommunikationsanalyse, ed. E. Mochmann, 69–112. Frankfurt: Campus.Google Scholar
  46. ———. 2013. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Liberman, Nira, Jens Forster, and Tory E. Higgins. 2007. Completed vs. Interrupted Priming: Reduced Accessibility from Post-fulfillment Inhibition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43 (2): 258–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lippman, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.Google Scholar
  49. Loewenson, Rene. 2011. Civil Society Influence on Global Health Policy. Zimbabwe: World Health Organization, Training and Research Support Center.Google Scholar
  50. Lupia, Arthur. 2000. Who Can Persuade Whom? Implications from the Nexus of Psychology and Rational Choice Theory. In Political Psychology, ed. James H. Kuklinski. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Luther, Catherine A., and Xiang Zhou. 2005. News Framing of SARS in China and the United States. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 82 (4): 857–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Miller, Joanne M., and Jon A. Krosnick. 2000. News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted Source. American Journal of Political Science 44: 295–309.Google Scholar
  53. Mira, Sitrovic. 2003. Effects of Media Use on Audience Framing and Support for Welfare. Mass Communication and Society 3 (2): 269–296.Google Scholar
  54. Mondak, Jeffrey J. 1993. Source Cues and Policy Approval: The Cognitive Dynamics of Public Support for the Reagan Agenda. American Journal of Political Science 37: 186–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Morgenthau, H.G. 1956. Politics Among Nations. New York: A. A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  56. Mueller, John E. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Mullinix, Kevin J., Thomas J. Leeper, James N. Druckman, and Jeremy Freese. 2015. The Generalizability of Survey Experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 2 (2): 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nelson, Thomas E., Zoe M. Oxley, and Rosalee A. Clawson. 1997. Towards a Psychology of Framing Effects. Political Behavior 19 (3): 221–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nisbet, Matthew C., and Mike Huge. 2006. Attention Cycles and Frames in the Plant Biotechnology Debate. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 11 (2): 2–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nisbet, Matthew C., and Bruce V. Lewenstein. 2002. Biotechnology and the American Media: The Policy Process and the Elite Press 1970–99. Science Communication 23 (4): 359–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Page, Benjamin I. 1996. Who Deliberates? Mass Media in American Society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Page, Benjamin I., Robert Y. Shapiro, and Glenn R. Dempsey. 1987. What Moves Public Opinion? The American Political Science Review 81 (1): 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Paletz, David L. 2002. The Media in American Politics; Contents and Consequences. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  64. Payne, Rodger A. 2001. Persuasion, Norms and Frame Construction. European Journal of International Relations 7 (1): 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Potter Philip, B.K., and Matthew A. Baum. 2010. Democratic Peace, Democratic Audience Costs and Political Communication. Political Communication 27 (4): 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Powlick, Philip J. 1995. The Sources of Public Opinion for American Foreign Policy Officials. International Studies Quarterly 39 (4): 427–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Powlick, Philip J., and Andrew Z. Katz. 1998. Defining the American Public Opinion/Foreign Policy Nexus. Mershon International Studies Review 42 (1): 29–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Prasad, B.D. 2008. Content Analysis: A Method in Social Science Research. In Research Methods for Social Work, ed. D.K. Lal Das and V. Bhaskaran, 173–193. New Delhi: Rawat.Google Scholar
  69. Price, Vincent, and John Zaller. 1993. Who Gets the News: Alternative Measures of News Reception and Their Implication for Research. Public Opinion Quarterly 57 (2): 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Risse Kappen, Thomas. 1991. Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies. World Politics 43 (4): 479–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scheufele, Bertram. 2006. Framing-Effects Approach: A Theoretical and Methodological Critique. Communications 29 (4): 401–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Scheufele, Dietram A., and David Tewksbury. 2007. Framing, Agenda Setting and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication 57 (1): 9–20.Google Scholar
  73. Sears, David O. 1986. College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influence of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (3): 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shanto, Iyenger, and Kinder Donald. 1987. News that Matters: Television and American Public Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  75. Shih, Tsung-Jen, Rosalyna Wijaya, and Dominique Brossard. 2008. Media Coverage of Public Health Epidemics: Linking Framing and Issue Attention Cycle Toward an Integrated Theory of Print News Coverage of Epidemics. Mass Communication and Society 11 (2): 141–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sniderman, Paul M., and Sean M. Theriault. 2004. The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing. In Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Non-attitudes, Measurement Error and Change, ed. Willem E. Saris and Paul M. Sniderman, 337–358. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Stempel, G.H. 1989. Content Analysis. In Research Methods in Mass Communications, ed. G.H. Stempel and B.H. Westley, 119–131. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  78. Sullivan, John L., and Eugene Borgida. 1989. Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates Waltz Before a Blind Audience? American Political Science Review 83 (1): 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tian, Yan, and Concetta M. Stewart. 2005. Framing the SARS Crisis: A Computer-Assisted Text Analysis of CNN and BBC Online News Reports of SARS. Asian Journal of Communication 15 (3): 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Walt, Gill, Louisiana Lush, and Jessica Ogden. 2004. International Organizations in Transfer of Infectious Diseases: Iterative Loops of Adoption, Adaptation, and Marketing. Governance 17 (2): 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Williams, Michael C. 2003. Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics. International Studies Quarterly 47 (4): 511–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wise, David, and Paul R. Brewer. 2010. Competing Frames for a Public Health Issue and Their Effects. Mass Communication and Society 13 (4): 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. World Health Organization. 2004. WHO Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar
  84. ———. 2011. Health Topics: Infectious Diseases. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mita Saksena
    • 1
  1. 1.Rutgers UniversityNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations