Notes on frames and framing effects: A short glossary with examples

My notes on the terminology in the framing literature, with recommended readings in political science and psychology. Some terms that will be covered: framing in communication, framing in thought, the framing effect, agenda-setting, priming, persuasion, emphasis or issue framing effects, equivalency framing effects, risky choice framing, attribute framing, goal framing, context framing. 

Please note that there's a debate in the literature on the distinctions between these terms – the definitions I've chosen to present might not be universally accepted. Let me know if you spot any errors.

Photo by Jackie Hope on Unsplash.

Framing in communication
what the speaker says

"The words, images, phrases, and presentation styles that a speaker uses when relaying information to another" (Druckman, 2001, p. 227). "The frame that the speaker chooses may reveal what the speaker sees as relevant to the topic at hand" (Druckman, 2001, p. 227) or the impact they want the communication to have on the opinion of others. Here, a frame is a property of a communication.

Examples: a speaker who states that a hate group’s planned rally is a free speech issue invokes a free speech frame; a politician who states that supporting same-sex marriage saves money invokes an economic frame; "Study Finds That Immigrants Are Central to Long Island Economy" headline invokes an economic frame of mind.

Framing in thought
what the individual is thinking

Refers to "an individual’s (cognitive) understanding of a given situation" (Druckman, 2001, pp. 227–228). "In this case, a frame is not a property of a communication, but rather describes an individual’s perception of a situation; the frame reveals what an individual sees as relevant to understanding a situation" (Druckman, 2001, p. 228). 

Examples: if an individual believes that free speech dominates all other considerations in deciding whether a hate group has the right to rally, that individual’s frame in thought is free speech (Chong & Druckman, 2007).

Framing effect
when frames in communication shape frames of thought

The process in which frames in communication shape frames in thought (Druckman, 2001). Simply put, "decisions based on the framing effect are made by focusing on the way the information is presented instead of the information itself" (The Decision Lab, n.d.). It's sometimes also referred to as the "framing bias" (especially in the cognitive psychology literature).

Studies of "framing effects" include various domains – cognition, psycholinguistics, perception, social psychology, health psychology, clinical psychology, educational psychology, business, communication, political science,... Applications include everything from plea bargaining in court to patients’ preferences surrounding cancer chemotherapy. The effects are not just individual but can also be systemic and have considerable influence on public opinion (The Decision Lab, n.d.). For example, "the bulk of attention in the political science and communications literatures ... has been on how frames in the communications of elites (e.g., politicians, media outlets, interest groups) influence citizens’ frames and attitudes" (Chong & Druckman, 2007).

Framing isn't agenda-setting, priming or persuasion

Agenda-setting

Agenda-setting is the "ability (of the news media) to influence the importance placed on the topics of the public agenda" (McCombs, 2002, as cited in "Agenda-setting theory," 2021). "Mass media organizations aren’t telling us what to think or how we should feel about a story or issue, but are giving us certain stories or issues that people should think more about" (Alvernia University, 2018).

The independent variable for a framing effect is "the description of an issue, an event, a campaign, or a problem"; the independent variable for agenda-setting is "emphasis on an issue or problem" (Druckman, 2001, pp. 247–248). The dependent variable for a framing effect is "the criteria on which an issue or problem is judged (and/or the decision outcome)"; the dependent variable for agenda-setting is "one’s overall assessment of what problems are important" (Druckman, 2001, p. 248).

Examples of agenda-setting: seeing a sensational or scandalous story at the top of a broadcast as opposed to a story that happened more recently or one that affects more people, such as an approaching storm or legislative tax reform (Alvernia University, 2018).

Priming

"By calling attention to some matters while ignoring others, television news influences the standards by which governments, presidents, policies, and candidates for public office are judged. Priming refers to changes in the standards that people use to make political evaluations" (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987, as cited in Chong & Druckman, 2007). Some argue that priming works through increasing the accessibility of an issue in memory (which would bring the connotation of "priming" in psychology and the connotation of "priming" in political communication together); others, however, don't think that media emphasis on an issue works through accessibility (for a short discussion, see Chong & Druckman, 2007, p. 115).

The independent variable for a framing effect is "the description of an issue, an event, a campaign, or a problem"; the independent variable for priming is "emphasis on an issue or problem" (Druckman, 2001, pp. 247–248). The dependent variable for a framing effect is "the criteria on which an issue or problem is judged (and/or the decision outcome)"; the dependent variable for priming is similar and is typically "the criteria that underlies one’s evaluation of a political leader" (Druckman, 2001, p. 248).

Examples of priming: individuals who watch stories about defense/energy policy tend to base their overall approval of the president (or some other political candidate) on their assessment of the president’s handling of defense/energy policy (Chong & Druckman, 2007).

Persuasion

Persuasion means changing people’s opinions by "the supply of arguments and evidence through which people are induced to change their minds about some aspect of politics" (Kinder, 2003, as cited in Leeper & Slothuus, 2018). 

While persuasion works through the transmission of new information, framing, in pure form, provides no new substantive information about the issue (Leeper & Slothuus, 2018). "Rather, by offering a particular perspective, frames organize—or better, reorganize—information that citizens already have in mind. Frames suggest how politics should be thought about, encouraging citizens to understand events and issues in particular ways" (Kinder, 2003, as cited in Leeper & Slothuus, 2018). Framing, involves changes in which considerations are seen as relevant (e.g., when thinking of a new housing project, are economic or environmental considerations more important?), while persuasion involves evaluations based on those considerations (will the economic impact be positive or negative?) (Nelson & Oxley, 1999, as cited in Druckman, 2001).

Examples of persuasion: in light of new information, people come to think that the president is smarter than he first seemed, or that school segregation is ineffective and should be abandoned (Kinder, 2003, as cited in Leeper & Slothuus, 2018).

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash.

Emphasis framing effects
(sometimes used synonymously with Issue framing effects)

They show that "by emphasizing a subset of potentially relevant considerations, a speaker can lead individuals to focus on these considerations when constructing their opinions" (Druckman, 2001, p. 230). In other words, an emphasis frame is "a message that provides an interpretation of an issue or policy by emphasizing which aspect of the issue is relevant for evaluating it, without the frame itself providing any new substantive information about the issue" (Leeper & Slothuus, 2018).

Most of emphasis frames are valenced, meaning that they carry a positive or negative connotation or an overarching tone. For example, "an emphasis frame may illustrate an issue from an economic perspective while at the same time stressing either the negative or positive issue-relevant aspects" (Feinholdt, 2016).

Examples: the "pro‐choice" and "pro‐life" frames in the abortion debate; framing automobile travel as a public health hazard. (+ All of the examples of frames in communication I've given above were emphasis frames)

Equivalency framing effects
(or Equivalence framing effects)

They occur when different, but logically equivalent, words or phrases cause individuals to alter their preferences (Tversky & Kahneman, 1987). 

Examples: "5% unemployment" versus "95% employment"; "97% lean" versus "3% fat".

Equivalency frames have usually been studied in psychological research. From a rationality perspective, the frames should not matter and "people should maintain their preferences since the information they view is inherently the same" (Feinholdt, 2016). However, empirical studies have shown that people will deviate from their initial preferences (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1984; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).

Equivalency frames are similar to emphasis frames "insofar as both put the respondent’s focus on specific considerations (e.g., free speech or public safety; unemployment or employment). However, equivalency frames employ materially identical descriptions (e.g., 90% employment = 10% unemployment ... ), whereas emphasis frames focus on qualitatively different yet potentially relevant considerations (e.g., free speech or public safety)" (Chong & Druckman, 2007, p. 114).

Equivalency framing effects = Valence framing effects?

Both terms are sometimes used to refer to the same subset of framing effects. The term "Equvalency framing" was derived from the notion of mathematical equivalence (e.g., "97% lean" = "3% fat"). The term "Valence framing" was derived from the fact that the same critical information is typically represented in either a positive or a negative light (Levin et al., 1998) (e.g., if ground beef is labeled as "97% lean", then this is positively valenced; if it is labeled as "3% fat", then this is negatively valenced). I will continue using the term "Equvalency framing effects" only.

Photo by Piret Ilver on Unsplash.

Three types of equivalency framing effects

These three different types of framing manipulations are described in detail by Levin and colleagues (1998).

Risky choice framing

What is framed? The outcomes of a potential choice involving options differing in level of risk.
What is affected? Risk preference.
How is the effect measured? Comparison of choices for risky options.
(Levin et al., 1998)

Examples: the Asian disease problem by Kahneman and Tversky (1981): framing the effectiveness of a program to combat the disease in terms of lives saved (e.g., "200 out of 600 people will be saved") or in terms of lives lost (e.g., "400 out of 600 people will die").

Attribute framing

What is framed? Attributes or characteristic of an object or event.
What is affected? Item evaluation.
How is the effect measured? Comparison of attractiveness ratings for the single item.
(Levin et al., 1998)

Examples: stating that "35% of the students had never cheated" versus that "65% of the students had cheated"; labelling the beef as "75% lean" versus "25% fat"; describing a surgery in terms of survival rates versus mortality rates; "a total of 300 will win the lottery" versus "only 300 will win the lottery".

Goal framing

What is framed? Consequence or implied goal of an action or behavior.
What is affected? Impact of persuasion.
How is the effect measured? Comparison of rate of adoption of the behavior.
(Levin et al., 1998)

In a common example of this type of framing effect, "the positive frame focuses attention on the goal of obtaining the positive consequence (or gain), whereas the negative frame focuses attention on avoiding the negative consequence (or loss). A distinguishing feature of goal framing manipulations is that both framing conditions promote the same act" (Levin et al., 1998, p. 167).

Examples: presenting information stressing the negative consequences of not engaging in breast self-examination (BSE) versus presenting information stressing the positive consequences of engaging in BSE (e.g., "Research shows that women who do BSE have an increased chance of finding a tumor in the early, more treatable stages of the disease" versus "Research shows that women who do not do BSE have a decreased chance of finding a tumor in the early, more treatable stages of the disease") (Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987, as cited in Levin et al., 1998); "public goods games can be framed as involving decisions on how much to either "give" to a common pool or "take" away from an existing common pool (commons dilemma frame)" (Gerlach et al., 2019).

Context framing
(A snippet from the experimental economics literature)

In social dilemma games, framing can go further than variation in positive/negative valence (e.g., "giving" versus "taking away" from the common pool). Gerlach and colleagues (2019) use the term context framing to refer to "the communicative process of associating concepts to situations ... so that the situation is interpreted in the light of these concepts". 

"Terms that have been used interchangeably to refer to context framing include cultural framing...; institutional framing...; label framing...; linguistic framing...; rhetorical framing...; semantic framing...; and social framing..." (Gerlach et al., 2019).

Examples: prefacing prisoner’s dilemmas by emphasizing either the competitive nature of the individual payoffs or the possible group advantage of cooperation (Deutsch, 1960, as cited in Gerlach et al., 2019); referring to the dilemma as a "Community game" versus a "Wall Street game" (Liberman et al., 2004, as cited in Gerlach et al., 2019); participants choosing between putting money in envelopes labeled "mine" and "community box" versus "free rider" and "community box" (Torsvik et al., 2011, as cited in Gerlach et al., 2019).

References

Recommended reading
(I found these useful for understanding the terminology)

Other references in this text

Articles/ Book chapters/ Theses
  • Feinholdt, A. (2016). Fight or flight: Affective news framing effects. [PhD Thesis, Amsterdam School of Communication Research]. UvA-DARE. https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.541967
  • Gerlach, P., Jaeger, B., & Hertwig, R. (2019, March 22). Cooperation needs interpretation. A meta-analysis on context frames in social dilemma games. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/27U8Y
  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.4.341
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1987). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In R. M. Hogarth & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology (pp. 67–94). Univ. Chicago Press.
Webpages