 |
This article or section is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (September 2007) |
A "frame" in social theory is a schemata of interpretation that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events[1]. When the question is asked, "What happened?" or "What is going on?", the answer often proceeds through reference to one or another frame. If a friend rapidly closes and opens an eye, we will respond very differently depending on whether we attribute this to a purely "physical" frame (he blinked) or to a social frame (he winked)[2]. The former might result from a speck of dust, and be therefore involuntary and not particularly meaningful; the latter would be voluntary and meaningful, to convey to an accomplice that what is being said is not serious, for example. Events seen as purely physical or within a frame of "nature" will be read differently than those seen as occurring with social frames, though the two often overlap and can be confused or reinterpreted (as when someone winks, then pretends it was a blink when the wink proves to have a deleterious effect). It is not, however, that we look at an event and then "apply" a frame to it. Rather, individuals constantly project into the world around them the interpretive frames that allow them to make sense of it; we only shift frames (or realize that we have been applying a frame) when incongruity calls for a frame shift. That is, we only become aware of the frames that we always already use when we are forced to replace one frame with another[3]. In media studies, sociology and psychology, the term framing refers to an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Framing defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others. The mass media or specific political or social movements or organizations may establish media frames. "Framing is the process by which a communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy" (Nelson, Oxley, & Clawson, 1997, p. 221). George Lakoff, in teaching his Cognitive Science 101 course at the University of California, Berkeley gives his students a directive: "Do not think of an elephant!"[4] According to Lakoff, one cannot not think of an elephant, as the mere mention of the word "elephant" provokes an image (and an accompanying frame).
Contents |
History
Word-selection has contributed to rhetoric since time immemorial. But most commentators attribute the concept of framing to the work of Erving Goffman and point especially to his 1974 book, Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Goffman used the idea of frames to label "schemata of interpretation" that allow individuals or groups "to locate, perceive, identify, and label" events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding actions.[5] Goffman's framing concept evolved out of his 1959 work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, a commentary on the management of impressions. These works arguably depend on Kenneth Boulding's concept of image.[6] Early work on framing effects in economics,[7] as performed by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, contributed to Kahneman winning the 2002 Nobel Prize in Economics.
Framing in politics
Framing has become a prominent strategic issue in politics, particularly in the United States of America, where both the Democratic and Republican political parties compete to utilize it. According to the New York Times:
Even before the election, a new political word had begun to take hold of the party, beginning on the West Coast and spreading like a virus all the way to the inner offices of the Capitol. That word was 'framing.' Exactly what it means to 'frame' issues seems to depend on which Democrat you are talking to, but everyone agrees that it has to do with choosing the language to define a debate and, more important, with fitting individual issues into the contexts of broader story lines."[8]
Lakoff made one suggestion that provoked widespread ridicule:[9] renaming trial lawyers (unpopular in the United States) as "public protection attorneys". Though Americans have not generally adopted this suggestion, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America did rename themselves the "American Association of Justice", in what the Chamber of Commerce called an effort to hide their identity.[10] The New York Times depicted similar intensity among Republicans:
In one recent memo, titled 'The 14 Words Never to Use,' [Frank] Luntz urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls ... the 'New American Lexicon.' Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz's view, never advocates 'drilling for oil'; he prefers 'exploring for energy.' He should never criticize the 'government,' which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack 'Washington,' with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. 'We should never use the word outsourcing,' Luntz wrote, 'because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.'[8]
From a political perspective, framing has widespread consequences. For example, the concept of framing links with that of agenda-setting: by consistently invoking a particular frame, the framing party may effectively control discussion and perception of the issue. Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in Trust Us, We're Experts illustrate how public-relations (PR) firms often use language to help frame a given issue, structuring the questions that then subsequently emerge. For example, one firm advises clients to use "bridging language" that uses a strategy of answering questions with specific terms or ideas in order to shift the discourse from an uncomfortable topic to a more comfortable one.[11] Practitioners of this strategy might attempt to draw attention away from one frame in order to focus on another. As Lakoff notes, "On the day that George W. Bush took office, the words "tax relief" started coming out of the White House."[12] By refocusing the structure away from one frame ("tax burden" or "tax responsibilities"), individuals can set the agenda of the questions asked in the future. Cognitive linguists point to an example of framing in the phrase "tax relief". In this frame, use of the concept "relief" entails a concept of taxes putting strain on the citizen:
- "The current tax code is full of inequities. Many single moms face higher marginal tax rates than the wealthy. Couples frequently face a higher tax burden after they marry. The majority of Americans cannot deduct their charitable donations. Family farms and businesses are sold to pay the death tax. And the owners of the most successful small businesses share nearly half of their income with the government. President Bush's tax cut will greatly reduce these inequities. It is a fair plan that is designed to provide tax relief to everyone who pays income taxes."[13]
Alternative frames may emphasize the concept of taxes as a source of infrastructural support to the citizen:
- "The truth is that the wealthy have received more from America than most Americans — not just wealth but the infrastructure that has allowed them to amass their wealth: banks, the Federal Reserve, the stock market, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the legal system, federally-sponsored research, patents, tax supports, the military protection of foreign investments, and much much more. American taxpayers support the infrastructure of wealth accumulation. It is only fair that those who benefit most should pay their fair share."[14]
Frames perform the necessary function of limiting debate by setting the vocabulary and metaphors through which participants can comprehend and discuss an issue. They form an inherent part not just of political discourse, but of cognition. In addition to generating new frames, politically-oriented framing research aims to increase public awareness of the indispensable connection between framing and reasoning.
Political examples
- "Counterterrorism as law enforcement" vs. "Counterterrorism as war". As Lakoff observes: "Colin Powell argued within the administration that it [the assault of September 11, 2001 ] be treated as a crime. This would have involved international crime-fighting techniques: checking banks accounts, wire-tapping, recruiting spies and informants, engaging in diplomacy, cooperating with intelligence agencies in other governments, and if necessary, engaging in limited “police actions” with military force. ... But the crime frame did not prevail in the Bush administration. Instead, a war metaphor was chosen: the “War on Terror.”[15]
- Recent popularization of the term "escalation" to describe an increase in American troop-levels in Iraq. This implies that the United States has deliberately increased the scope of conflict in a provocative manner. It also implies that U.S. strategy entails a long-term military presence in Iraq, whereas "surge" framing implies a powerful but brief, transitory increase in intensity.[16]
- The "bad apple" frame, as in the proverb "one bad apple spoils the barrel". This frame implies that removing one underachieving or corrupt official from an institution will solve a given problem; an opposing frame presents the same problem as systematic or structural to the institution itself — a source of infectious and spreading rot.[17]
- Program-names that may only describe the intended effects of a program but can also imply their effectiveness. These include:
- "Foreign Aid"[18] (which implies that spending money will aid foreigners, rather than harm them)
- "Social security" (which implies that the program can be relied on to provide security for a society)
- "Stabilisation policy" (which implies that a policy will have a stabilizing effect).
Frame analysis
Framing theory and frame analysis provide a broad theoretical approach that analysts have used in communication studies, news (Johnson-Cartee, 1995), politics, and social movements (among other applications). According to some sociologists, the "social construction of collective action frames" involves "public discourse, that is, the interface of media discourse and interpersonal interaction; persuasive communication during mobilization campaigns by movement organizations, their opponents and countermovement organizations; and consciousness raising during episodes of collective action."[19]
Frame-analysis for social movements
Sociologists have utilized framing to explain the process of social movements.[20] Movements act as carriers of beliefs and ideologies (compare memes). In addition, they operate as part of the process of constructing meaning for participants and opposers (Snow & Benford, 1988). Sociologists deem mass-movements "successful" when the frames projected align with the frames of participants to produce resonance between the two parties. Researchers of framing speak of this process as frame re-alignment.
Frame-alignment — a process to explain social movement theory
Snow and Benford (1988) regard frame-alignment as an important element in social mobilization or movement. They argue that when individual frames become linked in congruency and complementariness, "frame alignment" occurs,[21] producing "frame resonance", a catalyst in the process of a group transitioning from one frame to another (although not all framing efforts prove successful). The conditions that affect or constrain framing efforts include:
- "The robustness, completeness, and thoroughness of the framing effort". Snow and Benford (1988) identify three core framing-tasks, and state that the degree to which framers attend to these tasks will determine participant mobilization. They characterize the three tasks as:
- diagnostic framing for the identification of a problem and assignment of blame
- prognostic framing to suggest solutions, strategies, and tactics to a problem
- motivational framing that serves as a call to arms or rationale for action
- The relationship between the proposed frame and the larger belief-system; centrality – the frame cannot be of low hierarchical significance and salience within the larger belief system. Its range and interrelatedness – if the framer links the frame to only one core belief or value that, in itself, has a limited range within the larger belief system, the frame has a high degree of being discounted.
- Relevance of the frame to the realities of the participants; a frame must seem relevant to participants and must also inform them. Empirical credibility or testability can constrain relevancy: it relates to participant experience, and has narrative fidelity, meaning that it fits in with existing cultural myths and narrations.
- Cycles of protest (Tarrow 1983a; 1983b); the point at which the frame emerges on the timeline of the current era and existing preoccupations with social change. Previous frames may affect efforts to impose a new frame.
Snow and Benford (1988) propose that once someone has constructed proper frames as described above, large-scale changes in society such as those necessary for social movement can be achieved through frame-alignment.
Four types of frame-alignment
Frame-alignment comes in four forms,: frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension and frame transformation.
- Frame bridging involves the "linkage of two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 467). It involves the linkage of a movement to "unmobilized [sic] sentiment pools or public opinion preference clusters" (p. 467) of people who share similar views or grievances but who lack an organizational base.
- Frame amplification refers to "the clarification and invigoration of an interpretive frame that bears on a particular issue, problem, or set of events" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 469). This interpretive frame usually involves the invigorating of values or beliefs.
- Frame extensions represent a movement's effort to incorporate participants by extending the boundaries of the proposed frame to include or encompass the views, interests, or sentiments of targeted groups.
- Frame transformation becomes necessary when the proposed frames "may not resonate with, and on occasion may even appear antithetical to, conventional lifestyles or rituals and extant interpretive frames" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 473).
When this happens, the securing of participants and support requires new values, new meanings and understandings. Goffman (1974, p. 43–44) calls this "keying", where "activities, events, and biographies that are already meaningful from the standpoint of some primary framework, in terms of another framework" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 474) such that they are seen differently. Two types of frame transformation exist:
- Domain-specific transformations, such as the attempt to alter the status of groups of people, and
- Global interpretive frame-transformation, where the scope of change seems quite radical — as in a change of world-views, total conversions of thought, or uprooting of everything familiar (for example: moving from communism to market capitalism; religious conversion, etc.).
Framing effect
The context or framing of problems adopted by decision-makers results in part from extrinsic manipulation of the decision-options offered, as well as from forces intrinsic to decision-makers, e.g., their norms, habits, and unique temperament.
Absolute and relative influences
Framing effects arise because one can frequently frame a decision using multiple scenarios, wherein one may express benefits either as a relative risk reduction (RRR), or as absolute risk reduction (ARR). Extrinsic control over the cognitive distinctions (between risk tolerance and reward anticipation) adopted by decision makers can occur through altering the presentation of relative risks and absolute benefits. People generally prefer the absolute certainty inherent in a positive framing-effect, which offers an assurance of gains. When decision-options appear framed as a likely gain, risk-averse choices predominate. A shift toward risk-seeking behavior occurs when a decision-maker frames decisions in negative terms, or adopts a negative framing effect.
Frame-manipulation research
Researchers have found that framing decision-problems in a positive light generally results in less-risky choices; with negative framing of problems, riskier choices tend to result. According to behavioral economists:
- positive framing effects (associated with risk aversion) result from presentation of options as sure (or absolute) gains
- negative framing effects (associated with a preference shift toward choosing riskier options) result from options presented as the relative likelihood of losses
Researchers have found that framing-manipulation invariably affects subjects, but to varying degrees. Individuals proved risk averse when presented with value-increasing options; but when faced with value decreasing contingencies, they tended towards increased risk-taking. Variations in decision framing, by manipulating the options to represent either a gain or as a loss, were found to alter the risk aversion preferences of decision makers. In one study, 57% of the subjects chose a medication when presented with benefits in relative terms, whereas only 14.7% chose a medication whose benefit appeared in absolute terms. Further questioning of the patients suggested that, because the subjects ignored the underlying risk of disease, they perceived benefits as greater when expressed in relative terms.[22]
Theoretical models
Researchers have proposed various models explaining the framing effect:
- cognitive theories, such as the Fuzzy Trace theory, attempt to explain framing-effects by determining the amount of cognitive processing effort devoted to determining the value of potential gains and losses.
- prospect theory explains the framing-effect in functional terms, determined by preferences for differing perceived values, based on the assumption that people give a greater weighting to losses than to equivalent gains.
- motivational theories explain framing-effects in terms of hedonic forces affecting individuals, such as fears and wishes — based on the notion that negative emotions evoked by potential losses usually out-weigh the emotions evoked by hypothetical gains.
- cognitive cost-benefit trade-off theory defines choice as a compromise between desires, either as a preference for a correct decision or a preference for minimized cognitive effort. This model, which dovetails elements of cognitive and motivational theories, postulates that calculating the value of a sure gain takes much less cognitive effort than that required to select a risky gain.
Neuroimaging
Cognitive neuroscientists have linked the framing-effect to neural activity in the amygdala, and have identifed another brain-region, the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex (OMPFC), that appears to moderate the role of emotion on decisions. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to monitor brain-activity during a financial decision-making task, they observed greater activity in the OMPFC of those research subjects less susceptible to framing-effects.[23]
