▪ Abstract 

We review the meaning of the concept of framing, approaches to studying framing, and the effects of framing on public opinion. After defining framing and framing effects, we articulate a method for identifying frames in communication and a psychological model for understanding how such frames affect public opinion. We also discuss the relationship between framing and priming, outline future research directions, and describe the normative implications of framing.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. 1980. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnold DR, Munnell AH, Graetz M. eds. 1998. Framing the Social Security Debate Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. [Google Scholar]
  3. Barker DC. 2005. Values, frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns. Polit. Behav 27:375–94 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartels LM. 2003. Democracy with attitudes. In Electoral Democracy ed. MB MacKuen, G Rabinowitz pp. 48–82 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  5. Berelson BR, Lazarsfeld PF, McPhee WN. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  6. Berinsky AJ, Kinder DR. 2006. Making sense of issues through media frames: understanding the Kosovo crisis. J. Polit 68:640–56 [Google Scholar]
  7. Brewer PR. 2001. Value words and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values. Polit. Psychol 22:45–64 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brewer PR. 2003. Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: a framing-based account. Public Opin. Q 67:173–201 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brewer PR, Graf J, Willnat L. 2003. Priming or framing: media influence on attitudes toward foreign countries. Int. J. Commun. Stud 65:493–508 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brewer PR, Gross K. 2005. Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: effects on content and quality. Polit. Psychol 26:929–48 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brewer PR, Sigelman L. 2002. Political scientists as color commentators: framing and expert commentary in media campaign coverage. Press/Politics 7:23–35 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brewer PR, Graf J, Willnat L. 2003. Priming or framing: media influence on attitudes toward foreign countries. The International Journal for Communication Studies 65:493–508 [Google Scholar]
  13. Callaghan K, Schnell F. 2004. Framing American Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pitts. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Cappella JN, Jamieson KH. 1997. Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  15. Carragee KM, Roefs W. 2004. The neglect of power in recent framing research. J. Commun 54:214–33 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chong D. 1993. How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. Am. J. Polit. Sci 37:867–99 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chong D. 1996. Creating common frames of reference on political issues. In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change ed. DC Mutz, PM Sniderman, RA Brody pp. 195–224 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  18. Chong D. 2000. Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  19. Chong D. 2006. Free speech and multiculturalism in and out of the academy. Polit. Psychol 27:29–54 [Google Scholar]
  20. Chong D, Druckman JN. 2007. A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. J. Commun. In press [Google Scholar]
  21. Chong D, Wolinsky-Nahmias Y. 2005. Green fees: the price of open space. In Ambivalence, Politics, and Public Policy ed. MD Martinez, SC Craig pp. 103–25 New York: Palgrave [Google Scholar]
  22. Converse PE. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and Discontent ed. DE Apter pp. 206–61 New York: Free [Google Scholar]
  23. Delgado R. 1982. Words that wound: a tort action for racial insults, epithets and name calling. Harvard Civil Rights 17:133 [Google Scholar]
  24. Delgado R. 1991. Campus antiracism rules: constitutional narratives in collision. Northwest Univ. Law Rev 85:343 [Google Scholar]
  25. de Vreese CH, Peter J, Semetko HA. 2001. Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: a cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Polit. Comm 18:107–22 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dimitrova DV, Kaid LL, Williams AP, Trammell KD. 2005. War on the web: the immediate news framing of Gulf War II. Press/Politics 10:22–44 [Google Scholar]
  27. Druckman JN. 2001a. Evaluating framing effects. J. Econ. Psychol. 22:91–101 [Google Scholar]
  28. Druckman JN. 2001b. On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame. J. Polit. 63:1041–66 [Google Scholar]
  29. Druckman JN. 2001c. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Polit. Behav. 23:225–56 [Google Scholar]
  30. Druckman JN. 2004. Political preference formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 98:671–86 [Google Scholar]
  31. Druckman JN, Holmes JW. 2004. Does presidential rhetoric matter? Priming and presidential approval. Pres. Stud. Q 34:755–78 [Google Scholar]
  32. Druckman JN, Jacobs LR, Ostermeier E. 2004. Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. J. Polit 66:1205–27 [Google Scholar]
  33. Druckman JN, Nelson KR. 2003. Framing and deliberation. Am. J. Polit. Sci 47:728–44 [Google Scholar]
  34. Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Pub. [Google Scholar]
  35. Edwards III GC. 2003. On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. Edwards GC III, Wood BD. 1999. The President, Congress and the media. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 93:327–44 [Google Scholar]
  37. Enelow J, Hinich M. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting Boston: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  38. Entman RM. 1993. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. J. Commun 43:51–58 [Google Scholar]
  39. Entman RM. 2004. Projects of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  40. Feldman S, Zaller J. 1992. The political culture of ambivalence: ideological responses to the welfare state. Am. J. Polit. Sci 36:268–307 [Google Scholar]
  41. Fridkin KL, Kenney PJ. 2005. Campaign frames: Can candidates influence media coverage. In Framing American Politics ed. K Callaghan, F Schnell pp. 54–75 Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pitts. Press [Google Scholar]
  42. Gamson WA. 1992. Talking Politics New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  43. Gamson WA. 2005. Book review of Robert M. Entman, Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S.. Foreign Policy. Public Opin. Q. 69324–26 [Google Scholar]
  44. Gamson WA, Modigliani A. 1987. The changing culture of affirmative action. In Research in Political Sociology ed. RD Braungart 3:137–77 Greenwich, CT: JAI [Google Scholar]
  45. Gamson WA, Modigliani A. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. Am. J. Sociol 95:1–37 [Google Scholar]
  46. Gerber AS, Green DP. 2000. The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: a field experiment. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev 3:653–63 [Google Scholar]
  47. Grant JT, Rudolph TJ. 2003. Value conflict, group affect, and the issue of campaign finance. Am. J. Polit. Sci 47:453–69 [Google Scholar]
  48. Gross K. 2000. The limits of framing: how framing effects may be limited or enhanced by individual level predispositions Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc. Chicago, IL: [Google Scholar]
  49. Gross K, D’Ambrosio L. 2004. Framing emotional response. Polit. Psychol 25:1–29 [Google Scholar]
  50. Haider-Markel DP, Joslyn MR. 2001. Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: the conditional influence of issue frames. J. Polit 63:520–43 [Google Scholar]
  51. Higgins ET. 1996. Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles ed. ET Higgins, AW Kruglanski pp. 133–68 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
  52. Hirschman AO. 1989. Having opinions—one of the elements of well-being. Am. Econ. Rev 79:75–79 [Google Scholar]
  53. Iyengar S. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible?: How Television Frames Political Issues Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  54. Iyengar S, Kinder DR. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  55. Iyengar S, Kinder DR, Peters MD, Krosnik JA. 1984. The evening news and presidential evaluations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 46:778–87 [Google Scholar]
  56. Jacoby WG. 2000. Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. Am. J. Polit. Sci 44:750–67 [Google Scholar]
  57. Jones BD. 1994. Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Joslyn MR, Haider-Markel DP. 2001. The two faces of issue framing: examining framing effects on personal opinion and perception of public opinion Presented at Annu. Meet. Western Polit. Sci. Assoc. Las Vegas, NV: [Google Scholar]
  59. Kellstedt PM. 2003. The Mass Media and the Dynamics of American Racial Attitudes New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  60. Kinder DR, Herzog D. 1993. Democratic discussion. In Reconsidering the Democratic Public ed. GE Marcus, RL Hanson pp. 347–77 University Park, PA: Penn. State Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  61. Kinder DR, Sanders LM. 1990. Mimicking political debate with survey questions: the case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. Soc. Cogn 8:73–103 [Google Scholar]
  62. Kinder DR, Sanders LM. 1996. Divided By Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  63. Kuklinski JH, Quirk PJ, Jerit J, Rich RF. 2001. The political environment and citizen competence. Am. J. Polit. Sci 45:410–24 [Google Scholar]
  64. Lau R, Schlesinger M. 2005. Policy frames, metaphorical reasoning, and support for public policies. Polit. Psychol. 26:77–134 [Google Scholar]
  65. Lawrence RG. 2004. Framing obesity: the evolution of news discourse on a public health issue. Press/Politics 9:56–75 [Google Scholar]
  66. Levin D. 2005. Framing peace policies: the competition for resonant themes. Polit. Commun 22:83–108 [Google Scholar]
  67. Liebes T. 2000. Inside a news item: a dispute over framing. Polit. Commun 17:295–305 [Google Scholar]
  68. Lipset SM, Raab E. 1970. The Politics of Unreason: Right-Wing Extremism in America, 1790–1970 New York: Harper & Row [Google Scholar]
  69. Lodge M, Taber C. 2000. Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality ed. A Lupia, MD McCubbins, SL Popkin pp. 183–213 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  70. MacKinnon C. 1993. Only Words Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  71. Matsuda MJ. 1989. Public response to racist speech: considering the victim's story. Mich. Law Rev 87:2320–81 [Google Scholar]
  72. McClosky H, Brill A. 1983. Dimensions of Tolerance: What Americans Believe About Civil Liberties New York: Basic Books [Google Scholar]
  73. McCombs M. 2004. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Inc [Google Scholar]
  74. Miller JM, Krosnick JA. 1996. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: a program of research on the priming hypothesis. In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change ed. DC Mutz, PM Sniderman, RA Brody pp. 79–100 Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press [Google Scholar]
  75. Miller JM, Krosnick JA. 2000. News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. Am. J. Polit. Sci 44:295–309 [Google Scholar]
  76. Nelson TE. 2004. Policy goals, public rhetoric, and political attitudes. J. Polit 66:581–605 [Google Scholar]
  77. Nelson TE, Clawson RA, Oxley ZM. 1997a. Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 91:567–83 [Google Scholar]
  78. Nelson TE, Kinder DR. 1996. Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. J. Polit 58:1055–78 [Google Scholar]
  79. Nelson TE, Oxley ZM. 1999. Issue framing effects and belief importance and opinion. J. Polit 61:1040–67 [Google Scholar]
  80. Nelson TE, Oxley ZM, Clawson RA. 1997b. Toward a psychology of framing effects. Polit. Behav. 19:221–46 [Google Scholar]
  81. Nicholson SP, Howard RM. 2003. Framing support for the Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore. J. Polit 65:676–95 [Google Scholar]
  82. Nisbet MC, Brossard D, Kroepsch A. 2003. Framing science: the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Press/Politics 8:36–70 [Google Scholar]
  83. Petrocik JR. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. Am. J. Polit. Sci 40:825–50 [Google Scholar]
  84. Polletta F, Ho MK. 2006. Frames and their consequences. In The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Studies ed. RE Gooden, C Tilly Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  85. Price V, Na EK. 2000. Citizen deliberation and resistance to framing effects Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Assoc. Public Opin. Res. Portland, OR: [Google Scholar]
  86. Price V, Tewksbury D. 1997. News values and public opinion: a theoretical account of media priming and framing. In Progress in Communication Sciences: Advances in Persuasion ed. GA Barnett, FJ Boster 13173–212 Greenwich, CT: Ablex [Google Scholar]
  87. Rasinski KA. 1989. The effect of question wording on public support for government spending. Public Opin. Q 3:388–94 [Google Scholar]
  88. Rhee JW. 1997. Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: social cognitive account of framing effects. J. Commun 47:26–48 [Google Scholar]
  89. Richardson JD, Lancendorfer KM. 2004. Framing affirmative action: the influence of race on newspaper editorial responses to the Univ. of Michigan cases. Press/Politics 9:74–94 [Google Scholar]
  90. Riker WH. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  91. Riker WH. 1990. Heresthetic and rhetoric in the spatial model. In Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting ed. JM Enelow, MJ Hinich pp. 46–65 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  92. Riker WH. 1996. The Strategy of Rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  93. Scheufele DA. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. J. Commun 49:103–22 [Google Scholar]
  94. Scheufele DA. 2000. Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Commun. Soc 3:297–316 [Google Scholar]
  95. Schudson M. 1995. The Power of News Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  96. Semetko HA, Valkenburg PM. 2000. Framing European politics: a content analysis of press and television news. J. Commun 50:93–109 [Google Scholar]
  97. Shah DV, Watts MD, Domke D, Fan DP. 2002. News framing and cueing of issue regimes: explaining Clinton's public approval in spite of scandal. Public Opin. Q 66:339–70 [Google Scholar]
  98. Shen F, Edwards HH. 2005. Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: a value-based account of framing effects. J. Commun 55:795–809 [Google Scholar]
  99. Sherman SJ, Mackie DM, Driscoll DM. 1990. Priming and the differential use of dimensions in evaluation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B 16:405–18 [Google Scholar]
  100. Simon AF, Xenos M. 2004. Dimensional reduction of word-frequency data as a substitute for intersubjective content analysis. Polit. Anal 12:63–75 [Google Scholar]
  101. Slothuus R. 2005. More than weighting cognitive importance: a dual process model of issue framing effects Presented at Annu. Meet. Midwest Polit. Sci. Assoc. Chicago, IL: [Google Scholar]
  102. Sniderman PM. 1993. The new look in public opinion research. In Political Science: The State of the Discipline ed. AW Finifter pp. 219–45 Washington, DC: Am. Polit. Sci. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  103. Sniderman PM, Bullock J. 2004. A consistency theory of public opinion and political choice. In Studies in Public Opinion ed. WE Saris, PM Sniderman pp. 337–58 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  104. Sniderman PM, Levendusky MS. 2007. An institutional theory of political choice. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior ed. RJ Dalton HD Klingemann. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press. In press [Google Scholar]
  105. Sniderman PM, Theriault SM. 2004. The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In Studies in Public Opinion ed. WE Saris, PM Sniderman pp. 133–65 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  106. Snow D, Benford R. 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In Frontiers of Social Movement Theory ed. AD Morris, CM Mueller pp. 456–72 New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  107. Stapel D, Koomen W, Zeelenberg M. 1998. The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes: accuracy x knowledge accessibility effects. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 74:878–93 [Google Scholar]
  108. Tankard JWJ. 2001. The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In Framing Public Life ed. SD Reese, OH Gandy Jr, AE Grant pp. 95–106 Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  109. Tuchman G. 1978. Making News New York: Free [Google Scholar]
  110. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1987. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In Rational Choice: The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology ed. RM Hogarth, MW Reder pp. 67–94 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  111. Walsh KC. 2003. Talking About Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  112. Williamson J. 1986. A Rage for Order: Black/White Relations in the American South since Emancipation New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  113. Zaller J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion New York: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error