Frames, Framing Effects, and Survey Responses

  • Loretta J. StalansEmail author


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.


Survey measurement  Framing  Decision making  


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baylor, T. (1996). Media framing of movement protest: The case of American Indian protest. Social Science Journal, 33, 241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berinsky, A. J. (2002). Political context and the survey response: The dynamics of racial policy opinion. The Journal of Politics, 64, 567–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkland, T. A., & Lawrence, R. G. (2009). Media framing and policy change after columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1405–1425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dunegan, K. J. (1996). Fines, frames, and images: Examining formulation effects on punishment decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(1), 58–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitude. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Fielding, N. G. (1988). Joining forces: Police training, socialization, and occupational competence. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. (1991). Police attitudes to crime and punishment: Certainties and dilemmas. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 39–51.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2006). Positive versus negative framing affects justice judgments. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: Description and illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under uncertainty. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimmel, M. S. (2002). Gender symmetry in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1132–1363.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Presser, S., Blair, J., & Triplett, T. (1992). Survey sponsorship, response rates, and response effects. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 699–702.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tourangeau, R., & Cong, Y. (2009). The framing of the survey request and panel attrition. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 338–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tourangeau, R., Groves, R. M., & Redline, C. D. (2010). Sensitive topics and reluctant respondents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(3), 413–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal Justice and CriminologyLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and Associate Faculty of the Women’s Studies and Gender Studies ProgramLoyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations