Framing Theory

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]