Framing as a Theory of Media Effects

Abstract

Research on framing is characterized by theoretical and empirical vagueness. This is due, in part, to the lack of a commonly shared theoretical model underlying framing research. Conceptual problems translate into operational problems, limiting the comparability of instruments and results. In this paper I systematize the fragmented approaches to framing in political communication and integrate them into a comprehensive model. I classify previous approaches to framing research along two dimensions: the type of frame examined (media frames vs. audience frames) and the way frames are operationalized (independent variable or dependent variable). I develop a process model of framing, identifying four key processes that should be addressed in future research: frame building, frame setting, individuallevel processes of framing, and a feedback loop from audiences to journalists.Entman (1993) referred to framing as "a scattered conceptualization" (p.␣ 51), with previous studies lacking clear conceptual definitions and relying on context-specific, rather than generally applicable operationalizations. Brosius and Eps (1995) went even further, positing that framing is not a clearly explicated and generally applicable concept, but only a metaphor that cannot be directly translated into research questions.Partly because of these vague conceptualizations, the term framing has been used repeatedly to label similar but distinctly different approaches. For example, Wicks (1992) identified subtle but distinct differences between various concepts of cognitive categorization. Hamill and Lodge (1986) and saw only a terminological difference between concepts like frame, script, or schema. At the same time, studies have operationalized framing in combination with other concepts such as agenda setting or priming (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987). More recently, McCombs, Shaw, and Weaver (1997) suggested that not only are agenda setting and framing effects related, framing is, in fact, an extension of agenda setting. They used the term second-level agenda-setting to describe the impact of the salience of characteristics of media coverage on audiences' interpretation of these news stories. Perhaps as a result of these terminological and conceptual

Representing a “revolution”: how the popular press has portrayed personalized medicine

“…33 The concept of "framing," which has been taken up and expanded on by theorists and communication scholars, refers to the process of selecting, and in turn emphasizing, particular stories, topics, themes, facts, and actors over others. 34 As a result of framing choices, certain frames resonate more with particular audiences, gaining stronger or weaker influence depending on the context. 35 With regard to analyzing frames when performing content analysis, choices can be made between analyzing generic or issue-specific frames.…”

Angelina Jolie’s faulty gene: newspaper coverage of a celebrity’s preventive bilateral mastectomy in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom

“…The concept of "framing" emphasizes the selective presentation of specific topics, facts, controversies, actors, and assertions in news stories. 21,22 Frames are routinely used in news reporting to call attention to some aspects of reality while obscuring other elements. These interpretive story lines provide a context within which to understand the issues being presented and can significantly influence the audiences' perceptions by limiting the range of interpretations on complex topics.…”

Framing-effects approach: A theoretical and methodological critique

“…Several definitions of 'frame' and 'framing' (e. g., Entman, 1993;Gitlin, 1980;Gamson and Modigliani, 1989;Pan and Kosicki, 1993;Tankard, 2001;Reese, 2001;Scheufele, 1999) share a number of assumptions. Frames are seen as patterns of interpretation through which people classify information in order to handle it efficiently.…”