Bryant et al 07.

fm Page 100 Friday, April 13, 2012 12:00 PM

chapter seven

Framing

Frames are seen as patterns of interpretation through which

people classify information in order to handle it efficiently.
—Dietram Scheufele (2004), p. 402

Each day, we as news consumers are bombarded with stories from news
media—television, newspapers, magazines, the Internet, mobile phones—and
we form attitudes and opinions and make judgments based in part on the infor-
mation we consume. In the agenda-setting chapter, we learned that mass media
have the power to set our issue agendas, or tell us what to think about, and they
also have the power, through the way they put together stories with words and
images, to frame that information in such a way that can actually affect the way
we think.
In recent years, media effects researchers have turned their attention to the
power of the way information is put together or framed, and the effects that it
has in the minds of media consumers. You will recall from the agenda-setting
chapter that “attribute” agenda setting focuses on the media not only telling
viewers what to think about but also telling them what to think. This type of
research has developed into an entirely new area, called framing, that some
media effects scholars believe should be distinguished from agenda-setting
research and priming research both theoretically and experimentally.
This chapter examines the theory of framing, the effects of framing, frame-
building and frame-setting approaches, and types of frames. Then we take a
look at relevant recent research in framing.

100
Bryant et al 07.fm Page 101 Friday, April 13, 2012 12:00 PM

Framing 101

Framing Theory
Framing theory finds its roots in the fields of psychology and sociology. Psy-
chologically oriented research typically has featured micro-level studies of indi-
viduals, whereas sociologically oriented research has generated macro-level
studies of society.
According to Tewksbury and Scheufele (2009), the psychological perspec-
tive of framing comes from Sherif’s (1967) work on “frames of reference,” and
from prospect theory (Kahneman, 2003; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, 1984).
Individuals make judgments and perceive the world within certain frames of
reference, and these frames of reference can be set up in such a way to impact
individual judgments and perceptions. Prospect theory expands this idea by not-
ing that perceptions are dependent upon the point of reference of the informa-
tion that is being given. In other words, framing a message in different ways
will result in different interpretations.
The sociological approaches to framing are drawn from attribution theory
(Heider, 1959; Heider & Simmel, 1944) and frame analysis (Goffman, 1974).
Attribution theory states that people simplify their perceptions of social reality
by making judgments about what causes others to act in particular ways. They
attribute the actions they observe to either personal, social, or environmental
factors (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009). In frame analysis theory, people do not
simply attribute the cause of actions, but they rely on socially shared meanings
to categorize information into “schemas” (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009, p. 18)
or “primary frameworks” (Goffman, 1974, p. 24) in their minds.

Effects of Framing
Framing can result in several types of effects, including having an impact on
knowledge, persuasion, or agenda setting. “At their most powerful, frames invite
people to think about an issue in particular ways” (Tewksbury & Scheufele,
2009, p. 19).
For example, if a news story contains information on an issue that has
never been covered before, people will learn the facts about that issue from the
presentation. If people already have set ideas about a particular issue that the
news covers, the manner in which a story is framed may cause them to rethink
that issue or react in some way to the information that is being presented. In
some cases, the information is framed in such a way that the audience member
is persuaded to a particular point of view. In the agenda-setting chapter, we
learned that coverage of certain issues by news media set the agenda for the
public, or made those issues salient in the minds of the audiences. Framing
theorists distinguish framing effects from agenda-setting effects by pointing
out that framing goes beyond the mere accessibility of particular issues in the
news by inviting audience members to apply the information or ideas in partic-
ular ways.
Bryant et al 07.fm Page 102 Friday, April 13, 2012 12:00 PM

102 Chapter Seven

The basis of a psychological difference between agenda setting and framing,

therefore, lies in this accessibility/applicability distinction. Ironically, per-
haps the best way to conceive of the difference between the two is to recog-
nize that accessibility and applicability go hand-in-hand in everyday
information processing. (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009, p. 21)

Framing researchers have found evidence for both accessibility and applicability
as important processes in framing effects.
Framing researchers also distinguish framing studies from persuasion stud-
ies because some framing studies focus on the origin or evolution of news
frames. Persuasion studies involve the presentation of persuasive information
that audiences usually recognize as having persuasive appeal. Framing studies
usually deal with news presented by journalists who are supposed to be objective
in their presentations, and audiences usually do not suspect that the information
may be persuasive or at least influences the way they perceive certain issues.
Another important difference between persuasion research and framing
research is the effects that are measured. Persuasion researchers try to measure
changes in attitudes due to exposure to persuasive messages. Framing research-
ers seek to discover audience interpretations of news information (Tewksbury et
al., 2000).
Using a study cited in the chapter on priming can serve to demonstrate
framing effects at work. Simon and Jerit’s 2007 study found that people
exposed to a news story about a new abortion procedure were affected by the
way the story was framed. When presented with a news story that referred to
the fetus as a “baby,” people were more likely to support regulation of the new
abortion procedure. Those presented with a news story that used the terms
“fetus” and “baby” equally in the story also experienced these framing effects.
Audiences who read the “fetus”-only story were significantly more likely not to
express support for regulation of the procedure.

Frame Building and Frame Setting

Framing studies come in two types. The first includes studies that examine
the way frames are put together by news professionals. These studies are
included under the heading of “frame building.” The second type is comprised
of studies that examine the effects on audiences from news frames. These are
referred to as “frame-setting” studies.

Frame Building
Studies that examine frame building focus on the way frames are con-
structed—by journalists, by politicians, and by culture. Issues come to be
framed in a particular manner because of the way elites present the informa-
tion, or the way the media present the information in line with events and pop-
ular culture (Scheufele & Nisbet, 2007).
Bryant et al 07.fm Page 103 Friday, April 13, 2012 12:00 PM

Framing 103

Research on framing by journalists has identified five factors that can influ-
ence how journalists frame the information they present (Tewksbury & Scheufele,
2009). Journalists may be influenced by
• societal norms and values
• the pressure and constraint of news organizations
• pressures from interest groups or policy makers
• their professional routines
• each journalist’s own political orientation or ideology (Shoemaker & Reese,
1996; Tuchman, 1978)
The elite in society—interest groups, politicians, government agencies—
routinely attempt to frame issues that the media cover (Scheufele, 1999; Gam-
son & Modigliani, 1987; Miller, Andsager, & Riechart, 1998; Nisbet, Brossard, &
Kroepsch, 2003; Nisbet & Huge, 2006). Research has shown that the elite are
sometimes successful (Andsager, 2000) but at other times are not (Miller et al.,
1998) in influencing journalists on the way issues are framed.
The surrounding culture also plays a part in the way journalists frame
issues. Journalists are a part of the culture in which they work, and their stories
reflect that culture. Because of this, frames “often are unnoticed and implicit,
their impact is by stealth” (Van Gorp, 2007, p. 63). For example, the cultural
movement to separate church and state matters in this country has been taken
seriously by journalists, who do not frame stories from a religious standpoint.

Frame Setting
Frames can influence individuals to make connections in their minds that
can result in four outcomes—defining the issue, determining the causes for an
issue, noting the implications for an issue, and the treatment of an issue (Ent-
man, 1993; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009).
A frame can wield its influence cognitively—in the way the individual
thinks about an issue, or affectively—the way the person feels about an issue. It
all depends on the way a story is constructed, whether it focuses on conflicts
among elite policy makers, the results of certain policy changes on individuals,
or stirs the emotions of individuals by focusing on a human interest angle
(Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997).
In one study, researchers presented individuals with two identical stories,
except the stories had different lead (or beginning) sentences and different
headlines. One story’s headline and lead paragraph favored the economic bene-
fits of large farms that raised hogs, whereas the other story pointed out serious
environmental concerns with such farms. The way the story was framed signifi-
cantly affected individuals’ opinions on large hog farms, and the effect remained
weeks after the people read the stories. The ones who read about the economic
benefits of the farms showed support for the farms, and those who read about
the environmental problems associated with the farms were significantly less
likely to support them (Tewksbury et al., 2000).
Bryant et al 07.fm Page 104 Friday, April 13, 2012 12:00 PM

104 Chapter Seven

Such research makes it clear that journalists need to take seriously their
duty to present all sides of an issue and not focus on only one aspect. It also
demonstrates the power that reporters have to influence the public in the way
they frame stories.
Another study tested tolerance for a Ku Klux Klan rally by presenting indi-
viduals with stories framed in different ways. The people who read articles that
framed the rally in terms of free speech were significantly more tolerant when
asked about Klan speeches and rallies (Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997) than
were those who read articles that framed the rally in terms of racism.
Studies also have shown that individual differences among audience mem-
bers affect the power of the framed information. People with particular beliefs
and attitudes or “schema” on a particular topic tend to accept new information
on the topic more than those without such existing schemas (Rhee, 1997; Shen,
2004). People react differently to news stories, depending upon their personal
knowledge, experiences, and attitudes. For example, someone who has suffered
with asthma for many years would accept information about new treatment
options for the condition. They would attend to the information and possibly
store the information based on their existing schema.
Research has shown that frames can have effects on attitudes—either for-
mation of attitudes or change of attitudes (Nelson & Oxley, 1999; Brewer,
2002)—and sometimes on behaviors (Valentino, Beckmann, & Buhr, 2001;
Boyle et al., 2006).
Most studies of framing effects have focused on short-term evaluations, and
for that reason they resemble priming studies. Framing theorists point out that
the best way to show that people apply the information they learn in frames is
through longitudinal research (Price & Tewksbury, 1997; Tewksbury &
Scheufele, 2009). These studies test for applicability of the frame weeks or
months after exposure, and therefore differ from priming studies.

Types of Frames
Researchers have tended to test for specific types of frames in audience
reactions. “This includes sets of frames, such as gains vs. loss frames [i.e., losses
that hurt more than gains feel good] (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979), episodic vs.
thematic frames [i.e., episodic in that news is reported in terms of a specific
event or a typical case, versus thematic, in which news is reported within a more
general context] (Iyengar, 1991), strategy vs. issue frames (Cappella & Jamie-
son, 1997), or human interest, conflict, and economic consequences frames
(Price et al., 1997)” (Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009, p. 28).
Tewksbury and Scheufele (2009) pointed out that this practice has a limit-
ing effect on framing research, in that it ignores the possibility of “master
frames” (Snow & Benford, 1992) or frames that might exist in the culture that
could apply across issues.