Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Framing

Framing is a concept that refers to the selection of words, topics, and ideas in communication and the effects of these selections on public opinion. The term itself is a metaphor, suggesting that media messages, such as news stories, are bounded by practices of inclusion (what's inside the frame) and exclusion (that which we do not see). Communications researcher Robert Entman wrote in 1993 that “[t]o frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communication text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation.” This straightforward definition locates the act of framing in the newsroom, but the theory of framing is also rooted in psychology, where the focus of study is on how individuals interpret reality differently, in part as a result of media frames. Framing research therefore spans several disciplines such as communication research, psychology, sociology, and political science. This entry discusses several of the theoretical approaches to framing, illustrates their applications, and considers the importance of framing for journalism practice and criticism.

Framing as Practice

Framing practices are observed by studying the social organization of the news and by analyzing the linguistic and rhetorical organization of journalistic texts. The underlying implication of the frame concept is that a story has more than one way of being told and that editorial decisions affect the way reality is transferred from its actual occurrence to its symbolic representation in the news. Journalists collect a body of facts relating to an event or a series of events, such as the mayor's visit to a local school or a presidential election campaign. They are then required to digest considerable factual information and incorporate it into fairly short news stories by choosing which elements to tell and deciding how to tell them. Reducing news occurrences into narrow frames allows journalists to deliver the news efficiently to their audience. The efficiency of framing has to do with brevity but also with the use of words and concepts that are already familiar to the audience and established in use. Otherwise, journalists would have to introduce and explain each occurrence they report, without assuming prior knowledge by their audience. As a result, journalists are less likely to frame the news in a manner that challenges their audience's pre-existing beliefs.

The news media frame news by stressing certain aspects of issues or people on which they report while de-emphasizing others. They may choose to cover a new presidential initiative by emphasizing its merits and shortcomings, or discussing it as an election gimmick. Either approach may be justified, but the way in which the story is told (the policy-frame or the gimmick-frame) becomes socially important, since it can affect the way the public will consider this policy.

Framing as Effect

The expectation for framing effects is premised on the notion that frames are likely to shape the way people think about issues, persons, and events. This effect can be driven at times by choices of particular words, which activate distinct and predictable ways of thinking. The workings of this process are best understood through psychological studies, dating to the 1970s, which are the foundation for the study of framing effects. Economists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky observed how seemingly minor changes in wording impact people's support for policy choices. Famously, they found that people would prefer a program where 200 out of 600 people might be saved as opposed to one in which there is a one-third probability that all 600 will live but a two-thirds probability that no one will be saved. Even though the prospects for lives saved were mathematically identical, the way in which the options were worded, emphasizing risk or gain, activated biases that are inherent to human nature. In this case, the bias was against risk. Since people are, by and large, risk averse, they will likely oppose political candidates that are framed as more risky, even where the facts may not back this estimate of risk. Along the same lines, health information can affect behaviors differently when it centers on avoiding loss rather than on possible gains as well. For example, young women exposed to information about breast cancer were found more likely to conduct breast self-examinations when provided with negatively framed information, which emphasized the risks of not doing so, than when presented with the benefits of such action.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution