Information about Framing (social Sciences)

In media studies, sociology and psychology, the term framing refers to an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Framing defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others. The mass media or specific political or social movements or organizations may establish media frames.

Early work on framing effects in economics, as performed by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, earned Kahneman a Nobel Prize.

History

Most commentators attribute the concept of framing to the work of Erving Goffman and especially to his 1974 book, Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Goffman used the idea to label "schemata of interpretation" that allow individuals or groups "to locate, perceive, identify, and label" events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding actions.^[1] Goffman's framing concept evolved out of his 1959 work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, a commentary on impression-management. These works arguably depend on Kenneth Boulding's concept of image (Boulding, 1956). George Lakoff, in teaching his Cognitive Science 101 course at the University of California, Berkeley gives his students a directive: "Do not think of an elephant!"^[2] According to Lakoff, one cannot not think of an elephant, as the mere mention of the word "elephant" provokes an image (and an accompanying frame).

Framing in the public sphere

Framing has become a prominent strategic issue in politics, particularly in the United States, where both the Democratic and Republican political parties compete to practise it. According to the New York Times, "Even before the election, a new political word had begun to take hold of the party, beginning on the West Coast and spreading like a virus all the way to the inner offices of the Capitol. That word was 'framing.' Exactly what it means to 'frame' issues seems to depend on which Democrat you are talking to, but everyone agrees that it has to do with choosing the language to define a debate and, more important, with fitting individual issues into the contexts of broader story lines."^[3] Lakoff made one suggestion that provoked widespread ridicule:^[4] renaming trial lawyers, unpopular in the United States, as "public protection attorneys". Though this suggestion has not been widely adopted, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America did rename themselves the American Association of Justice, in what the Chamber of Commerce called an effort to hide their identity.^[5]

The New York Times depicted similar intensity among Republicans: "In one recent memo, titled 'The 14 Words Never to Use,' [FrankLuntz]] urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls ... the 'New American Lexicon.' Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz's view, never advocates 'drilling for oil'; he prefers 'exploring for energy.' He should never criticize the 'government,' which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack 'Washington,' with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. 'We should never use the word outsourcing,' Luntz wrote, 'because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.'^[3].

From a political perspective, framing has widespread consequences. For example, the concepts of framing and agenda setting are linked: by consistently invoking a particular frame, the framing party may effectively control discussion and perception of the issue. Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in Trust Us, We're Experts illustrate how public-relations (PR) firms often use language to help frame a given issue, structuring the questions that then subsequently emerge. For example, one firm advises clients to use "bridging language" that uses a strategy of answering questions with specific terms or ideas in order to shift the discourse from an uncomfortable topic, to a more comfortable one.^[6] Practitioners of this strategy might attempt to draw attention away from one frame in order to focus on another. As Lakoff notes, "On the day that George W. Bush took office, the words "tax relief" started coming out of the White House."^[7] By refocusing the structure away from one frame (tax burden or tax responsibilities), individuals can set the agenda of the questions to be asked in future.

Cognitive linguists point to an example of framing in the phrase "tax relief". In this frame, use of the concept "relief" entails a concept of taxes putting strain on the citizen:

• "The current tax code is full of inequities. Many single moms face higher marginal tax rates than the wealthy. Couples frequently face a higher tax burden after they marry. The majority of Americans cannot deduct their charitable donations. Family farms and businesses are sold to pay the death tax. And the owners of the most successful small businesses share nearly half of their income with the government. President Bush's tax cut will greatly reduce these inequities. It is a fair plan that is designed to provide tax relief to everyone who pays income taxes."^[8]

Alternative frames may emphasize the concept of taxes as a source of infrastructural support to the citizen:

• "The truth is that the wealthy have received more from America than most Americans — not just wealth but the infrastructure that has allowed them to amass their wealth: banks, the Federal Reserve, the stock market, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the legal system, federally-sponsored research, patents, tax supports, the military protection of foreign investments, and much much more. American taxpayers support the infrastructure of wealth accumulation. It is only fair that those who benefit most should pay their fair share."^[9]

Frames perform the necessary function of limiting debate by setting the vocabulary and metaphors through which participants can comprehend and discuss an issue . They are an inherent part not just of political discourse, but of cognition. In addition to generating new frames, politically oriented framing research aims to increase public awareness of the indispensable connection between framing and reasoning.

Typical frames used to understand U.S politics

• Counterterrorism as law enforcement vs. Counterterrorism as war. As Lakoff observes: "Colin Powell argued within the administration that it be treated as a crime. This would have involved international crime-fighting techniques: checking banks accounts, wire-tapping, recruiting spies and informants, engaging in diplomacy, cooperating with intelligence agencies in other governments, and if necessary, engaging in limited “police actions” with military force. ... But the crime frame did not prevail in the Bush administration. Instead, a war metaphor was chosen: the “War on Terror.”^[10]
• Recent popularization of the term "escalation" to describe an increase in troop levels in Iraq. This implies that the United States is deliberately increasing the scope of conflict in a provocative manner. It also implies that U.S. strategy entails long-term military presence in Iraq, whereas surge framing implies a powerful but brief, transitory increase in intensity.^[11]
• The "bad apple" frame, as in the proverb "one bad apple spoils the barrel". This frame implies that removing one underachieving or corrupt official from an institution will solve a given problem; in an opposing frame, the same problem is understood as systematic or structural to the institution itself.^[12]
• Program-names that may only describe the intended effects of a program but can also imply their effectiveness. These include:
• "Foreign Aid"^[13] (which implies that the result will be to aid, rather than harm foreigners)
  • * "Social Security" (which implies that the program can be relied on to provide security for a society)
  • "Stabilisation policy" (which implies that the effects of a policy will be stabilizing).

  Frame analysis

  Framing theory and frame analysis provide a broad theoretical approach that has been used in communication studies, news (Johnson-Cartee, 1995), politics, and social movements among other applications. "Framing is the process by which a communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy" (Nelson, Oxley, & Clawson, 1997, p. 221).
  
  According to some sociologists, the "social construction of collective action frames" involves "public discourse, that is, the interface of media discourse and interpersonal interaction; persuasive communication during mobilization campaigns by movement organizations, their opponents and countermovement organizations; and consciousness raising during episodes of collective action."^[14]

  Frame analysis for social movements

  Sociologists have utilized framing to explain the process of social movements (Snow & Benford, 1988). Movements act as carriers of beliefs and ideologies. In addition, they are part of the process of constructing meaning for participants and opposers (Snow & Benford, 1988). Mass movements are said to be successful when the frames projected align with the frames of participants to produce resonance between the two parties. This is a process known as frame alignment.

  Frame alignment — a process to explain social movement theory

  Snow and Benford (1988) regard frame alignment as an important element in social mobilization or movement. They argue that when individual frames become linked in congruency and complementariness, that "frame alignment" occurs (p. 198; Snow et al. 1986, p. 464), producing "frame resonance", which is key to the process of a group transitioning from one frame to another (although not all framing efforts are successful). The conditions that affect or constrain framing efforts are:
  • "The robustness, completeness, and thoroughness of the framing effort". Snow and Benford (1988) identify three core framing tasks and the degree to which these tasks are attended to will determine participant mobilization. The three tasks are: a) diagnostic framing for the identification of a problem and assignment of blame, b) prognostic framing to suggest solutions, strategies, and tactics to a problem, and c) motivational framing that serves as a call to arms or rationale for action.
  • The relationship between the proposed frame and the larger belief system; centrality – the frame cannot be of low hierarchical significance and salience within the larger belief system. Its range and interrelatedness – if the frame is linked to only one core belief or value that, in itself, is of limited range within the larger belief system, the frame has a high degree of being discounted.
  • Relevance of the frame to the realities of the participants; a frame must be relevant to participants and inform them. Relevancy can be constrained by empirical credibility or testability, it relates to participant experience, and has narrative fidelity, that is, it fits in with existing cultural myths and narrations.
  • Cycles of protest (Tarrow 1983a; 1983b); the point at which the frame emerges on the timeline of the current era and existing preoccupations with social change. Framing efforts may be affected by previous frames.
  Snow and Benford (1988) propose that once proper frames are constructed as described above, large-scale changes in society such as those necessary for social movement can be achieved through frame alignment.

  Four types of frame alignment

  Frame alignment involves four types,: frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension and frame transformation.
  1. Frame bridging is the "linkage of two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 467). It involves the linkage of a movement to "unmobilized [sic] sentiment pools or public opinion preference clusters" (p. 467) of people who share similar views or grievances but who lack an organizational base.
  2. Frame amplification refers to "the clarification and invigoration of an interpretive frame that bears on a particular issue, problem, or set of events" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 469). This interpretive frame usually involves the invigorating of values or beliefs.
  3. Frame extensions are a movement's effort to incorporate participants by extending the boundaries of the proposed frame to include or encompass the views, interests, or sentiments of targeted groups.
  4. Frame transformation is a process required when the proposed frames "may not resonate with, and on occasion may even appear antithetical to, conventional lifestyles or rituals and extant interpretive frames" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 473).
  
  
  When this happens, the securing of participants and support requires new values, new meanings and understandings. Goffman (1974, p. 43–44) calls this "keying" where "activities, events, and biographies that are already meaningful from the standpoint of some primary framework, in terms of another framework" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 474) such that they are seen differently. There are two types of frame transformation:
  1. Domain-specific transformations such as the attempt to alter the status of groups of people, and
  2. Global interpretive frame transformation where the scope of change is quite radical as in a change of world views, total conversions of thought, or uprooting of all that is familiar (e.g. moving from communism to market capitalism; religious conversion, etc.).

  Framing effect

  The context or framing of problems adopted by decision-makers is controlled in part by extrinsic manipulation of the decision options offered, as well as by forces intrinsic to decision makers, e.g., their norms, habits, and unique temperament.

  Absolute and relative influences

  Framing effects arise because one can frequently frame a decision using multiple scenarios, wherein benefits may be expressed either as a relative risk reduction (RRR), or as absolute risk reduction (ARR). Extrinsic control over the cognitive distinctions, between risk tolerance and reward anticipation, adopted by decision makers can be facilitated by altering the presentation of relative risks and absolute benefits.
  
  People generally prefer the absolute certainty inherent in a positive framing effect, which offers an assurance of gains. When decision options are framed as a likely gain, risk averse choices predominate.
  
  A shift toward risk-seeking behavior occurs when framing decisions in negative terms, or when a negative framing effect is adopted by a decision maker.

  Frame manipulation research

  Researchers have found that framing decision-problems in a positive light generally resultys in less-risky choices ; when problems are framed negatively, riskier choices tend to result. According to behavioral economists:
  • Positive framing effects (associated with risk aversion) result from presentation of options as sure (or absolute) gains.
  • Negative framing effects (associated with a preference shift toward choosing riskier options) result from options presented as the relative likelihood of losses.
  Researchers have found that subjects were invariably affected, but to varying degrees, by framing manipulation. Individuals were risk averse when presented with value-increasing options, and when faced with value decreasing contingencies, tended towards increased risk-taking. Variations in decision framing, by manipulating the options to represent either a gain or as a loss, were found to alter the risk aversion preferences of decision makers.
  
  In one study, 57% of the subjects chose a medication when benefits were presented in relative terms, whereas only 14.7% chose a medication whose benefit appeared in absolute terms. Further questioning of the patients suggested that, because the underlying risk of disease was ignored by the subjects, benefits were perceived as greater when expressed in relative terms.[1]

  Theoretical models

  Researchers have proposed various models explaining the framing effect:
  • Cognitive theories, such as the Fuzzy Trace theory, attempt to explain framing effects by determining the amount of cognitive processing effort devoted to determining the value of potential gains and losses.
  • Prospect theory explains the framing effect in functional terms, determined by preferences for differing perceived values, based on the assumption that losses are weighed more heavily than equivalent gains.
  • Motivational theories explain framing effects in terms of hedonic forces affecting individuals, such as fears and wishes, based on the notion that negative emotions evoked by potential losses are usually greater than those evoked by hypothetical gains.
  • Cognitive cost-benefit tradeoff theory, which defines choice as a compromise between desires, either as a preference for a correct decision or a preference for minimized cognitive effort. This model, which dovetails elements of cognitive and motivational theories, postulates that the necessary cognitive effort for calculating the value of a sure gain is considerably lower than what is required to select a risky gain.

  Neuroimaging

  Cognitive neuroscientists have linked the framing effect to neural activity in the amygdala, and have identifed another brain-region, the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex (OMPFC), that appears to moderate the role of emotion on decisions. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to monitor brain activity during a financial decision-making task, they observed greater activity in the OMPFC of research subjects who were less susceptible to framing effects.

  Further reading

  • Baars, B. (1988), A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Boulding, Kenneth E. (1956). The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society. Michigan University Press.
  • Carruthers, P. (2003), On Fodor's Problem, Mind and Language, vol. 18(5), pp. 502–523.
  • Clark, A. (1997), Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Cutting, Hunter and Makani Themba Nixon (2006). Talking the Walk: A Communications Guide for Racial Justice: AK Press
  • Dennett, D. (1978), Brainstorms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Feldman, Jeffrey. (2007), Framing the Debate: Famous Presidential Speeches and How Progressives Can Use Them to Control the Conversation (and Win Elections). Brooklyn, NY: Ig Publishing.
  • Fodor, J.A. (1983), The Modularity of Mind, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Fodor, J.A. (1987), “Modules, Frames, Fridgeons, Sleeping Dogs, and the Music of the Spheres”, in Pylyshyn (1987).
  • Fodor, J.A. (2000), The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Ford, K.M. & Hayes, P.J. (eds.) (1991), Reasoning Agents in a Dynamic World: The Frame Problem, New York: JAI Press.
  • Goodman, N. (1954), Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Hanks, S. & McDermott, D. (1987), “Nonmonotonic Logic and Temporal Projection”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 33(3), pp. 379–412.
  • Haselager, W.F.G. (1997). Cognitive science and folk psychology: the right frame of mind. London: Sage
  • Haselager, W.F.G. & Van Rappard, J.F.H. (1998), “Connectionism, Systematicity, and the Frame Problem”, Minds and Machines, vol. 8(2), pp. 161–179.
  • Hayes, P.J. (1991), “Artificial Intelligence Meets David Hume: A Reply to Fetzer”, in Ford & Hayes (1991).
  • Heal, J. (1996), “Simulation, Theory, and Content”, in Theories of Theories of Mind, eds. P. Carruthers & P. Smith, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–89.
  • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • McCarthy, J. (1986), “Applications of Circumscription to Formalizing Common Sense Knowledge”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 26(3), pp. 89–116.
  • McCarthy, J. & Hayes, P.J. (1969), “Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence”, in Machine Intelligence 4, ed. D.Michie and B.Meltzer, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 463–502.
  • McDermott, D. (1987), “We've Been Framed: Or Why AI Is Innocent of the Frame Problem”, in Pylyshyn (1987).
  • Mithen, S. (1987), The Prehistory of the Mind, London: Thames & Hudson.
  • Pylyshyn, Z.W. (ed.) (1987), The Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Russell, S. & Wefald, E. (1991), Do the Right Thing: Studies in Limited Rationality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Shanahan, M.P. (1997), Solving the Frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Shanahan, M.P. (2003), “The Frame Problem”, in The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, ed. L.Nadel, Macmillan, pp. 144–150.
  • Simon, H. (1957), Models of Man, New York: John Wiley.
  • Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1996), “Fodor's Frame Problem and Relevance Theory”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol. 19(3), pp. 530–532.
  • Wilkerson, W.S. (2001), “Simulation, Theory, and the Frame Problem”, Philosophical Psychology, vol. 14(2), pp. 141–153.
  • Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.
  • Fairhurst, Gail T. and Sarr, Robert A. 1996. The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership. USA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
  • Klandermans, Bert. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Scheufele, Dietram A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.
  • Willard,Charles Arthur Liberalism and the Social Grounds of Knowledge Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.
  • Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
  • Johnson-Cartee, K. (2005). News narrative and news framing: Constructing political reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
  • Diana Kendall, Sociology In Our Times, Thomson Wadsworth, 2005, ISBN 0-534-64629-8 Google Print, p.531
  • Leites, N. & Wolf, C., Jr. (1970). Rebellion and authority. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
  • McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1996). Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Framing Processes—Toward a Synthetic, Comparative Perspective on Social Movements. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements; Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221–246.
  • Pan. Z. & Kosicki, G. M. (2001). Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world, (pp. 35–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research, 1, 197–217.
  • Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51, 464–481.
  • Tarrow, S. (1983a). Struggling to Reform: social Movements and policy change during cycles of protest. Western Societies Paper No. 15. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
  • Tarrow, S. (1983b). Resource mobilization and cycles of protest: Theoretical reflections and comparative illustrations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Detroit, August 31–September 4.
  • Tilly, C., Tilly, L., & Tilly, R. (1975). The rebellious century, 1830–1930. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Turner, R. H., & Killian, L. M. (1972). Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

  See also

  • Argumentation theory
  • Bias
  • Buzzword
  • Code word (figure of speech)
  • Communication theory
  • Connotation
  • Demagoguery
  • Fallacy of many questions
  • Figure of speech
  • Freedom of speech
  • Free press
  • Journalism
  • Language and thought
  • Meme
  • Newspeak
  • political correctness
  • Political frame
  • Power word
  • Rhetorical device
  • Semantics
  • Sophism
  • Spin doctor
  • Stovepiping
  • Thought Reform (book)
  • Trope
  • Unspeak (book)

  External links

  • The Framing Wars. New York Times 17 July 2005
  • Curry, Tom. 2005. "Frist chills talk of judges deal (Page 2)." The question in the poll was not framed as a matter of whether nominee ought to get an up-or-down vote. And that framing of the issue, Republican strategists believe, is the most advantageous one... MSNBC.com.
  • CMU.edu (pdf) - 'The Framing effect and risky decision: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI', C. Gonzalez, et al, Journal of Economic Psychology (2005)
  • FindArticles.com - 'Risky decision making across three arenas of choice: are younger and older adults differently susceptible to framing effects?', Michael Ronnlund, Erik Karlsson, Erica Laggnas, Lisa Larsson, Therese Lindstrom, Journal of General Psychology (January, 2005)
  • HBS.edu - 'Fixing Price Tag Confusion'(interview), Sean Silverthorne (December 11, 2006)
  • MSN.com - ''Framing effect' influences decisions
  Emotions play a role in decision-making when information is too complex', Charles Q. Choi, MSNBC (August 3, 2006)
  • NeuroscienceMarketing.com - 'Why Negative Ads Work: Framing, Emotions, and Irrational Decisions'
  • Ox.ac.uk - 'Framing',

  Progressive Framework Institutes

  • The Rockridge Institute was created by George Lakoff in response to Conservative thinktanks.
  • http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/

  Conservative framework institutes

  • The Project for a New American Century (credited with framing the invasion of Iraq).
  • Focus on the Family: active in spreading frames of conservative Christian doctrine.

  References

  1. ^ Erving Goffman (1974). Frame Analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974, page 21.
  2. ^ "Framing the Dems: How conservatives control political debate and how progressives can take it back." The American Prospect. Volume 14, Issue 8, September 2003. [2] Link broken as of 2007-09-6.
  3. ^ The Framing Wars. New York Times 17 July] 2005]
  4. ^ Walter Olson, Overlawyered weblog, 2005-07-18
  5. ^ Al Kamen, "Forget Cash -- Lobbyists Should Set Support for Lawmakers in Stone", Washington Post, 2007-01-17
  6. ^ Rampton, Sheldon and Stauber, John. Trust Us, We're Experts! Putnam Publishing, New York, NY, 2002. Page 64.
  7. ^ George Lakoff: Don't think of an elephant!: know your values and frame the debate. White River Junction (Vermont): Chelsea Green, 2004. Page 3.
  8. ^ The President's Agenda for Tax Relief retrieved 3 July 2007.
  9. ^ Rockridge Institute: Simple Framing
  10. ^ Lakoff, George. "Five Years after 9/11: Drop the War Metaphor"
  11. ^ "It's Escalation, Stupid." Alternet retrieved 3 July 2007
  12. ^ Bruce Budner. "The Rumsfeld Dilemma: Demand an Exit Strategy, Not a Facelift." The Huffington Post 15 September] 2006]
  13. ^ "Is It All in a Word? The Effect of Issue Framing on Public Support for U.S. Spending on HIV/AIDS in Developing Countries." by Sara Bleich. Retrieved 2007-07-03

14. ^ Bert Klandermans. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell, page 45)