2010 - Public Relations Society of America

Framing
Frames are defined as interpretive packages for content that supplies a context and
suggests the importance of an issue through selection, emphasis, exclusion, and elaboration
(Gamson & Modigliani, 1989). Gamson and Lasch (1983) defined framing as “the central
organizing idea for understanding events related to the issue in question” (p. 398). Frames
organize information in order to perpetuate understanding through the use of narratives and may
be identified through the headline, lead, quotes, and paragraph within the body of a news story
(Entman, 2007; Gamson, & Modigliani, 1989). Through framing, the media influence how
individuals think about an issue by highlighting certain issue aspects over other aspects
(Ghanem, 1997; Kim et al., 2002; McCombs, 2004; McCombs & Ghanem, 2003; Scheufele,
2004).
The type of frame used in conjunction with the issue is a main factor in generating
framing effect outcomes. Major frame types include equivalency framing, emphasis framing,
advocacy framing, and responsibility framing. Equivalency framing effects focus on either gains
or losses with equal outcomes (Kahnemann & Tversky, 1984). Loss frames produce greater
effects when individual issue involvement is high, and gain frames can be more effective when
individual issue involvement is low. However, counter-effects result when the level of source
credibility is too high. Messages with low efficacy cause the individual to process the message
more so than messages with high efficacy since the higher the efficacy the less the individual
questions the information within the message. Individuals are greatly influenced by perceptions
of risk, even when the outcomes of either risk aversion or risk-seeking frames are identical.
Frames that provide certainty and mitigate risk are favored over risk-seeking frames. In the
absence of certainty, individuals favor frames with positive outcomes over negative outcomes as
exhibited in Tversky and Kahneman’s (1981, 1987) studies in which groups chose the riskaversion
scenario over the risk-seeking one, even though the potential outcomes were equivalent.
Emphasis framing effects alter individual consideration by directing focus to specific
issue attributes, such as framing low-income housing as assistance to the economically
disadvantaged instead of higher taxes (Druckman 2001b). Stories favoring individual values cue
conservative preferences; conversely, egalitarian frames cue liberal preferences (Kellstedt,
2000). Emphasis framing effects lack consistency because individuals may agree with the
principle, but later oppose policies to implement the principle, as experienced with equal
employment opportunity (Fine, 1992). Direct framing effects are moderated through the
perceived level of credibility attributed to the media source, such as the Wall Street Journal or
People Magazine (Druckman, 2001b). Indirectly, individuals seek credible sources to guide
their opinions.
Other frame types include substantive and procedural frames, and conflict-reinforcing
and conflict-displacing frames (Entman, 1993, 2004, 2007; Dardis et al., 2008). Substantive
frames define effects or conditions, identify causes, convey a moral judgment, and endorse
remedies or improvements (Entman, 2004). Procedural frames, also referred to as the horseracing
frame, focus on evaluation of political actors (Entman, 2004). In later research, Entman
(2007) distinguished three types of bias within frames: distortion bias – falsifying reality; content
bias – lack of equal treatment to both sides of the argument; and decision-making bias –
motivations of the media.
Conflict-reinforcing frames bolster the status quo by presenting the same opposing
considerations that have occurred over time (Dardis et al., 2008). In fact, conflict-reinforcing
frames may be also thought of as the common frame amplified over time. Conflict-displacing
44