Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Frames, Framing Effects, and Survey Responses

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences

Abstract

What the public thinks about crime and about the criminal justice system’s response to crime partly depends upon how stories are framed. Internal and external frames are central themes that make certain information more critical and guide inferences and emotions about expressed opinions, attitudes, or decisions. This chapter reviews research on the effects of framing, including survey introductions, on survey responses, and on the decision-making processes underlying the framing effect. Research shows that certain frames in survey introductions may be more persuasive and can increase response rates. This chapter also covers how questions and surveys are framed also may bias responses. Beyond these external frames, this chapter discusses the normative and cultural internal frames that may influence respondents’ opinions. The wide reaching implications for survey measurement and research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arpan, L. M., Baker, K., Lee, Y., Jung, T., Lorusso, L., & Smith, J. (2006). News coverage of social protests and the effects of photographs and prior attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 9(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baylor, T. (1996). Media framing of movement protest: The case of American Indian protest. Social Science Journal, 33, 241–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berinsky, A. J. (2002). Political context and the survey response: The dynamics of racial policy opinion. The Journal of Politics, 64, 567–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birkland, T. A., & Lawrence, R. G. (2009). Media framing and policy change after columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1405–1425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, P. R., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dardis, F. E., Baumgartner, F. R., Boydstun, A. E., De Boef, S., & Shen, F. (2008). Media framing of capital punishment and its impact on individuals’ cognitive responses. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 115–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunegan, K. J. (1996). Fines, frames, and images: Examining formulation effects on punishment decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(1), 58–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitude. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edy, J. A., & Meirick, P. C. (2007). Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57, 119–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, N. G. (1988). Joining forces: Police training, socialization, and occupational competence. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. (1991). Police attitudes to crime and punishment: Certainties and dilemmas. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 39–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galesic, M., & Tourangeau, R. (2007). What is sexual harassment? It depends on who asks! Framing effects on survey responses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2006). Positive versus negative framing affects justice judgments. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorp, B. V., Vettehen, P. H., & Beentjes, J. W. (2009). Challenging the frame in the news: The role of issue involvement, attitude, and competing frames. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(4), 161–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Couper, M. P. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(4), 475–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: Description and illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. The Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A., Moore, D., & Tourangeau, R. (2007). Response order effects in dichotomous categorical questions presented orally: The impact of question and respondent attributes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(3), 325–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hugenberg, K., Bodenhausen, G. V., & McLain, M. (2006). Framing discrimination: Effects of inclusion versus exclusion mind-sets on stereotypic judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1020–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under uncertainty. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimmel, M. S. (2002). Gender symmetry in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1132–1363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information processing at successive stages of decision making: Need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Londen, M., Coenders, M., & Scheepers, P. (2010). Effects of issue frames on aversion to ethnic-targeted school policies. Methodology, 6(3), 96–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowen, J. C., & Cialdin, R. B. (1980). On implementing the door-in-the-face compliance technique in a business context. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norenzayan, A., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Telling what they want to know: Participants tailor causal attributions to researchers’ interests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1011–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, B., & Oyserman, D. (2010). The shield of defense or the sword of prosecution? How self-regulatory focus relates to responses to crime. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(8), 1849–1867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presser, S., Blair, J., & Triplett, T. (1992). Survey sponsorship, response rates, and response effects. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 699–702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey participation: Description and illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, K. V. (2010). Framing violence: The effects of survey context and question framing on reported rates of partner violence. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 71(4-b), 2745.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election champaign coverage: A social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47, 26–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). “To thine own self be true”: Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. M., Schwarz, N., Roberts, T., & Ubel, P. (2006). Why are you calling me? How study introductions change response patterns. Quality of Life Research, 15, 621–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalans, L. J. (1993). Citizens’ crime stereotypes, biased recall, and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. Law and Human Behavior, 17(4), 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalans, L. J. (2002). Measuring attitudes to sentencing. In M. Hough & J. V. Roberts (Eds.), Attitudes toward sentencing (pp. 15–32). Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalans, L. J. (2008). Measuring attitudes about sentencing and sentencing goals. In M. E. Oswald, S. Bieneck, & J. Hupfeld-Heinemann (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stalans, L. J., & Finn, M. A. (1995). How novice and experienced officers interpret wife assaults: Normative and efficiency frames. Law & Society Review, 29(2), 301–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stalans, L. J., & Finn, M. A. (2006). Public’s and police officers’ interpretation and handling of domestic violence cases: Divergent realities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(9), 1129–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Cong, Y. (2009). The framing of the survey request and panel attrition. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 338–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Groves, R. M., & Redline, C. D. (2010). Sensitive topics and reluctant respondents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(3), 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 207–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, A. G., & Dubelaar, C. (2003). Increasing quality in measuring advertising effectiveness: A meta-analysis of question framing in conversion studies. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(6), 78–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yavin, I., & Schul, Y. (2000). Acceptance and elimination procedures in choice: Noncomplementarity and the role of implied status quo. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Loyola University Chicago, 820 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

    Loretta J. Stalans

  2. Department of Psychology and Associate Faculty of the Women’s Studies and Gender Studies Program, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Loretta J. Stalans

Authors
  1. Loretta J. Stalans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Loretta J. Stalans .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, Tenth Ave. 899, New York, 10019, New York, USA

    Lior Gideon

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stalans, L.J. (2012). Frames, Framing Effects, and Survey Responses. In: Gideon, L. (eds) Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation