Twenty-five years after Entman (1993) argued that the framing paradigm was fractured, debates about the value of framing as a theoretical concept are still ongoing. In particular, discussions focus on the use of: (a) equivalence frames (i.e., frames with logical equivalence such as gain and loss frames) versus emphasis frames (i.e., frames that emphasize different dimensions of an issue); and (b) generic frames (frames that are applicable to multiple issues) versus issuespecific frames (frames that are applicable to one issue only). We conducted a systematic review on the use of these frame types in 21st-century political-framing experiments (N = 372) to establish whether and how scholars' positions in these debates have changed across disciplines and over time. Results demonstrate that emphasis frames are more popular than equivalence frames, and that a slight majority of frames are issue-specific rather than generic. Moreover, frame preferences differ across disciplines and have hardly changed over time. This study thus shows that debates about what types of frames should be studied have had little influence on scholars' frame choices across disciplines in previous research on political framing.

In this paper, we reflect on the implementation of a gamified application for helping students learn important facts about their study program. We focus on two design features, of which different configurations were tested in a field experiment among Dutch university students (N ¼ 101). The first feature is feedback, which is expected to increase engagement, with personalized ("tailored") feedback being more effective than generic feedback. The second feature is a session limit that was designed to prevent users from "binging" the game, because this could prevent deep learning. Results showed that generic feedback was more effective than tailored feedback, contrasting our expectations. The session limit, however, did prevent binging without reducing the overall number of sessions played. Our findings suggest that careful consideration of game properties may impact sustaining and encouraging play via a gamified application.

No abstract

Conceptual metaphor theory and other important theories in metaphor research are often experimentally tested by studying the effects of metaphorical frames on individuals’ reasoning. Metaphorical frames can be identified by at least two levels of analysis: words vs. concepts. Previous overviews of metaphorical-framing effects have mostly focused on metaphorical framing through words (metaphorical-words frames) rather than through concepts (metaphorical-concepts frames). This means that these overviews included only experimental studies that looked at variations in individual words instead of at the broader logic of messages. For this reason, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = 91, N = 34,783) to compare the persuasive impact of both types of metaphorical frames. Given that patterns of metaphor usage differ across discourse domains, and that effects may differ across modalities and discourse domains, we focused on one mode of presentation and one discourse domain only: verbal metaphorical framing in political discourse. Results showed that, compared to non-metaphorical frames, both metaphorical-words and metaphorical-concepts frames positively influenced beliefs and attitudes. Yet, these effects were larger for metaphorical-concepts frames. We therefore argue that future research should more explicitly describe and justify which level of analysis is chosen to examine the nature and effects of metaphorical framing.

No abstract