News Framing Effects

Theory and Practice

Sophie Lecheler, Claes H. de Vreese

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781138632684
• eBook ISBN: 9781351802550
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Media Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

News Framing Effects is a guide to framing effects theory, one of the most prominent theories in media and communication science. Rooted in both psychology and sociology, framing effects theory describes the ability of news media to influence people's attitudes and behaviors by subtle changes to how they report on an issue. The book gives expert commentary on this complex theoretical notion alongside practical instruction on how to apply it to research.

The book's structure mirrors the steps a scholar might take to design a framing study. The first chapter establishes a working definition of news framing effects theory. The following chapters focus on how to identify the independent variable (i.e., the "news frame") and the dependent variable (i.e., the "framing effect"). The book then considers the potential limits or enhancements of the proposed effects (i.e., the "moderators") and how framing effects might emerge (i.e., the "mediators"). Finally, it asks how strong these effects are likely to be. The final chapter considers news framing research in the light of a rapidly and fundamentally changing news and information market, in which technologies, platforms, and changing consumption patterns are forcing assumptions at the core of framing effects theory to be re-evaluated.

1
News framing effects theory

An integrative view

Introduction

About two decades ago, Nelson, Oxley, and Clawson (1997) presented strong evidence for the impact of news framing. In a local news story about the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), one group of respondents was exposed to a news story that framed a planned KKK rally as a free-speech issue. The other group of respondents was exposed to a news story that framed the rally as a disruption of public order. Those reading the free-speech-issue frame exhibited more tolerance for the KKK than those reading the public-order-disruption frame.

This study has become one of the most influential and widely cited studies in the framing effects literature. A different frame in a news story can lead to significant and meaningful differences in how recipients think about even controversial issues like the Klan and in the degree of tolerance that they exhibit. The example makes clear that when journalists select and produce news, how they frame it is consequential for citizens’ understanding of important issues.

This book is about the effects that are generated by news organizations and journalistic choices. In this chapter we provide a definition of framing and a general introduction to news framing effects research, to the historical roots of framing, to its application in communication science, political science, and public opinion research, and to the different research strands in the field. The chapter relates framing research to broader ongoing developments such as mediatization and changes in our media landscape.

We also delineate the scope and limitations of the book. Our book does not focus on research about frames in the news. How different political, economic, and social issues are framed in the news has been the topic of much research (which is only briefly reviewed). Instead, we quickly move onto news framing effects, which is the focus of the book. News framing effects are the outcomes of what happens when citizens consume news. In other words, news framing effects are the outcome of a process of frame information processing. The actual effects depend on the type of news frame and the news story as well as the type of individual. We identify and highlight the most important features determining news framing effects. Finally, we look at how current developments in the media landscape—in the landscape of platforms and social media—and in the methodological toolkit influence framing theory and framing effects research. The chapter also includes a brief discussion of limitations: We acknowledge that our model is based on quantitative research within a socio-psychological tradition of framing research. In doing so, we note theories and methods that might have produced different viewpoints, and we point readers to relevant literature where necessary.

What is framing?

Framing does not have a single definition that is agreed upon and used by most scholars (Scheufele, 2008). This lack of consensus has led some scholars to refer to framing as a “fractured paradigm” (Entman, 1993), to suggest it as a “bridging concept” (Reese, 2007), and to question its relevance as applied in news research (Cacciatore, Scheufele, & Iyengar, 2016). We are agnostic about the absence of a clear definition. In fact, one might view framing as an example of a thriving concept, which is still in a phase where definitions and applicability are not yet set in stone. What seems like conceptual clarity can easily become deadweight because a concept’s definitions and boundary conditions are no longer challenged and explicated. This cannot be said of the framing concept. We believe that Entman’s (1993) labeling of this concept as fractured more than 25 years ago did it no harm. On the contrary, its fractured nature has led to a rich research tradition, but one in which readers, scholars, and students must be explicit about their definitions and relations to extant research.

Within the many definitions of framing, we find both theoretical and empirical contributions. Conceptually, we define news frames as “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events, weaving a connection among them. The frame suggests what the controversy is about, the essence of the issue” (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987, p. 143). In short, a news frame can affect an individual by stressing certain aspects of reality and pushing others into the background: The news frame has a selective function. In this way, certain issue attributes, judgments, and decisions are suggested. In this book we focus on news framing and, specifically, on the contribution of journalism in creating and using certain frames.

Definitions, typologies, and operationalizations

A fundamental distinction in framing research is made between studies employing equivalency frames and those employing emphasis frames (Chong & Druckman, 2007a). Equivalency frames refer to logically similar content that is presented or phrased differently. Emphasis frames are closer to “real” journalistic news coverage and present “qualitatively different yet potentially relevant considerations” (Chong & Druckman, 2007b, p. 114). The concept of equivalency stems from the series of Asian disease studies by Kahneman and Tversky (1984), which demonstrated their prospect theory. Simple question-wording differences that reverse information such as those studied by Kahneman and Tversky are not easily compatible with more complex politics and communicative situations. Therefore, most news framing studies have focused on emphasis frames.

De Vreese (2005) further suggested a general distinction with reference to the nature and content of a news frame. Certain frames are pertinent only to specific issues or events. Such frames may be labeled issue-specific frames. So far, studies of issue-specific news frames have looked at the framing of healthcare, the Internet, labor disputes, and biotechnology (see de Vreese & Lecheler, 2012 for an overview). Other frames transcend thematic limitations and can be identified in relation to different topics, some even over time and in different cultural contexts. These frames can be labeled generic frames.

An issue-specific approach to the study of news frames allows for a profound level of specificity and detail relevant to the event or issue under investigation. This advantage, however, is potentially an inherent disadvantage as well. A high degree of issue sensitivity makes analyses that draw on issue-specific frames difficult to generalize, compare, and use as empirical evidence for theory building. Some of the most commonly identified generic frames are the conflict, human interest, attribution of responsibility, morality, and economic consequences frames (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000), the game frame (Patterson, 1993), and the strategy frame (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997), as well as episodic versus thematic frames (Iyengar, 1991).

Research that tries to detect news frames in texts, such as political news, often relies on an inductive approach and refrains from analyzing news stories with a priori defined news frames. Frames emerge from the material during the course of analysis. An inductive approach produces rich knowledge about the framing of the issue at hand but makes it hard to extrapolate and replicate the findings. A second approach is deductive in nature and investigates frames that are defined and operationalized prior to the investigation.

A fundamental question for news framing research is the following: When the frame is in a text, what are the textual (or visual) components carrying the frame? Cappella and Jamieson (1997) suggest that considering any production feature of verbal or visual texts as a candidate for news frames is too broad. They suggest four criteria that a frame must meet. First, a news frame must have identifiable conceptual and linguistic characteristics. Second, it should be commonly observed in journalistic practice. Third, it must be possible to reliably distinguish the frame from other frames. Fourth, a frame must have representational validity (i.e., be recognized by others) and not be merely a figment of a researcher’s imagination (Cappella & Jamieson, 1997, pp. 47, 89).

In an oft-cited definition of framing, Entman (1993, p. 52) suggested that frames in the news can be examined and identified by “the presence or absence of certain keywords, stock phrases, stereotyped images, sources of information and sentences that provide thematically reinforcing clusters of facts or judgments.” Gamson and Modigliani (1987) identify “framing devices” that condense information and offer a “media package” of an issue. They identify (1) metaphors, (2) exemplars, (3) catch-phrases, (4) depictions, and (5) visual images as framing devices.

In more recent discussions about the framing concept in communication science research, it has been argued that the framing concept is used too broadly and that different types of framing should be distinguished. This critique focuses on the difference between emphasis frames and equivalence frames as discussed above. In essence, it suggests that scholars discard emphasis framing as “framing” and “rely on more specific terminology when discussing their work and the media effects models underlying it” (Cacciatore et al., 2016, p. 9).

We believe that Cacciatore et al. (2016) make important observations, and we share their frustration with the too-careless application and use of the concept in some studies. It is especially relevant to consider what communication and journalism research can bring to the framing concept. The workings of journalism create a number of frames that can be dubbed journalistic news frames; that is, they are largely crafted by journalistic agency. These frames are typically generic in nature, in the sense that they apply to different issues and are not bound to any specific issues. They are not full equivalence frames in the strict sense of the definition. They emphasize different aspects of an issue or event but do not provide fully different information. They are therefore not emphasis frames—where arguments, foci, and story lines are very different—such as in the original free-speech versus public-disruption frame. Such frames might indeed stretch the understanding of the psychological underpinnings of the concept.

We echo earlier scholars who suggest that a strict equivalence notion of framing in news and communication research often does injustice to the idea that news framing presents issues differently (de Vreese, 2005). D'Angelo and Shaw (in press) are outspoken on this point. Cacciatore et al.’s (2016) paradigm, they argue, has limits:

In stating that media framing researchers should focus only on format-based variations of the same topic, they adumbrate that the only purview of framing analysis is risky choice valence frames. Thus, they choose the type of equivalency frame that has the least to do with journalism, which in turn renders the frame construct largely inapplicable to journalism.

(D'Angelo & Shaw, in press)

Indeed, differences in journalistic reporting often do not boil down to merely interpreting numbers as losses or gains but contain more elements, such as emphasizing different aspects of an issue (de Vreese, 2003; Zaller, 1996). The suggestion that “framing research be both terminologically and conceptually refocused around equivalence-based definitions” (Cacciatore et al., 2016, p. 15) we therefore consider too narrow. We fully side, however, with the reflection that “although framing studies have exploded in recent years, the exact process behind the phenomenon remains a contentious issue, and one for which only a limited amount of research exists” (Cacciatore et al., 2016, p. 15). We completely share this view and spend a large part of this book showing how news framing research has brought rich knowledge on the mechanisms and conditionalities of effects. In fact, understanding the effects of different news frames, the processes through which they cause effects, and the conditions in which, and individuals on whom, these effects are most pronounced are a key focus in news framing research. Framing effects refer most strictly to how receivers come to think about and interpret different topics, but frames can have further effects (see also Chapter 3).

Historical origins: framing in different disciplines

Framing is a concept that is widely used in the social and behavioral sciences. In communication science, framing is prominent in health communication, news and journalism research, and, in particular, political communication research. The origins of framing as it is used in political communication research today can be traced back to both sociological and psychological literature.

In the sociological tradition, the work by Erving Goffman is crucial. Goffman takes the starting point that frames are useful devices for human beings to make sense of the world in all kinds of everyday situations. For him, frames are culturally bound and serve to reduce the complexity of our everyday world. The work inspired by this line of reasoning has tended to focus on macro processes. In the psychological tradition, the work by Kahneman and Tversky is typically named as a starting point. They developed prospect theory, which suggests that new information is evaluated very differently depending on whether a gain frame or a loss frame is applied to it. Research based on prospect theory is often focused on micro processes.

In the social sciences, the framing concept—in addition to its centrality in communication science—has developed in disciplines as diverse as psychology, economics, law, political science, sociology, and public opinion research. These different disciplines have asked different and sometimes overlapping questions, with framing as the backdrop concept. Framing has been applied, for example, in psychology and economics to understand decision-making (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1984). In political science much attention has been devoted to how elites communicate, and to the effects of elite framing (Chong & Druckman, 2007a; Zaller, 1992). In sociology, research has been concerned with how experiences are structured (Goffman, 1974) and how framing is related to the concept of power (Vliegenthart & van Zoonen, 2011).

In the field of communication science, framing has become one of the most popular concepts. Recent overviews all document the popularity and tremendous increase in the use of the concept (Borah, 2011; Chong & Druckman, 2007a; D’Angelo & Kuypers, 2010; de Vreese & Lecheler, 2012; Matthes, 2009, 2012; Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007). In political communication research, ideas from both traditions have carried over. Work by Tuchman (1978) and Gitlin (1980) is clearly more aligned with the sociological perspective, whereas much of the later framing effects literature (see below) has a psychologically oriented foundation. The framing notion was picked up by Entman (1993), who transferred framing to the study of the mass and news media, in particular. At the core of the news framing research stands the quest to understand and explain why “(often small) changes in the presentation of an issue or an event produce (sometimes larger) changes of opinion” or other outcome variables ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of table
• Preface
• 1 News framing effects theory: an integrative view
• 2 News framing effects … from where?
• 3 News framing effects … on what?
• 4 Moderators of news framing effects … on whom?
• 5 Mediators of news framing effects … how and why?
• 6 The duration of news framing effects … how long?
• 7 The future of news framing effects … and now?
• References
• Author index
• Subject index