Americanhttp://abs.sagepub.

com/ Behavioral Scientist

Studying Framing in Political Communication with an Integrative Approach

Paul D'Angelo American Behavioral Scientist 2012 56: 353 originally published online 29 November 2011 DOI: 10.1177/0002764211426332 The online version of this article can be found at: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/56/3/353

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for American Behavioral Scientist can be found at: Email Alerts: http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/56/3/353.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 9, 2012 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Nov 29, 2011 What is This?

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

ABS42633 2
ABS56310.1177/0002764211426332DAngeloAmerican Behavioral Scientist

Article

Studying Framing in Political Communication with an Integrative Approach

Paul DAngelo1

American Behavioral Scientist 56(3) 353364 2012 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0002764211426332 http://abs.sagepub.com

Abstract This article explores the nature of framing as being an inherently integrative approach to political communication research. It proposes a two-part definition of integrative: bring together and fit into. It holds that knowledge about framing is depicted in models that show a shifting landscape of conceptual definitions of frame and framing, arguing that within a given piece of framing research, the bring-together approach leads to a focus on the operational level of design rather than the level of concept explication and theory development, which is the province of the fit-into approach. Although all framing studies must contain an element of each approach, many studies are characterized by a tension between them. Keywords framing, news frames, political communication The research in this impressive project rightly deserves the prestigious platform of a special issue in the American Behavioral Scientist. Its five empirical articles, cogently introduced in a sixth piece by Jrg Matthes, investigate and illuminate how framing permeated the message environment of a national referendum campaign. Drawing from a common pool of data sets, these studies investigate how frames were thought up, thought about, and communicated by political advocates, journalists, and voters
1

The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA

Corresponding Author: Paul DAngelo, Department of Communication Studies, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ 08628 Email: dangelo@tcnj.edu

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

354

American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

during the crucial weeks that led up to the June 2008 vote on the naturalization of immigrants. As I understand it, this was neither the first nor the last Swiss national referendum on immigration and asylum seeking. But each study makes the point that the referendum was particularly dramatic, involving a populist push by the conservative Swiss Peoples Party to change existing immigration policy, a position hotly disputed by the ruling coalition. A political challenge on an issue already in the minds of many Swiss citizens made this event, in Matthes (2012) phrase, a perfect real-world site in which to do framing analysis. No doubt that Matthes is right: This particular referendum was a great site in which to study framing in politics. As he states in his essay, the reason stems from a particular meaning of an integrative approach: An event was singled out, a team was put together, and data about all of the relevant actors who participated in the event were gathered using a consistent operational definition of frame. The overtly literal meaning of integrative that occasionally crops up in the introductionthat integrative research requires more than one study because it takes multiple data sets and different studies to examine each actormasks an interesting claim, that integrative research requires a multimethodological design to examine the framing behaviors occurring within the advocacyjournalismpublic opinion nexus of political communication. There are two things I found interesting as I read through Matthes introductory piece and realized that this is what he meant by an integrated approach. First, it singles out framing as being a catalyst of integrative research, as in, this project is integrative insofar as it analyzes the framing behaviors of politicians, journalists, and voters in context of the Swiss referendum. Second, this is not quite the same meaning of integrative I had in mind in arguing that framing is an integrative approach to doing media research, as in the statement Theoretical integration seems to be an ineluctable part of news framing analysis (see DAngelo & Kuypers, 2010, p. 5), which Matthes cites in his introduction. In this essay, I would like to explore what it means to link framing with the seemingly mundane word integrative. We can begin to understand the difference between what Matthes and I mean by integrative framing research by defining the simpler term first. To integrate means at least two things: (a) to make up or complete to produce a whole, as parts do; and (b) to bring together, unite, or incorporate parts into a whole. Although complementary, these definitions differ in an important way: The former deals with how well an object fits into, and thus completes, a whole situated outside the object; the latter indicates that an object is designed to bring together separate items by drawing on external sources, using items at hand, or constructing items produce a comprehensive whole. What Matthes means by integrative is captured primarily in (b), the bring-together sense. What I meant by integrative is captured in both (a) and (b), fit into and bring together. There are practical and metatheoretical implications to these different approaches. To begin to see what these implications are and what they mean for doing framing analysis, let us first take a look at the project at hand. This project brings together serious framing scholars, each with access to the same data sets about the referendum. In

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

DAngelo

355

fact, each of the five studies had the opportunity to draw from one or more of three data sets: (a) a content analysis of the earned media output of political advocates on both sides of the issue (e.g., their press releases and speeches); (b) a content analysis of two dozen newspapers and news magazines as well as five television programs, in German and French, from various channels of Switzerlands national broadcasting system; and (c) a two-wave panel survey of more than 1,000 adult Swiss citizens. Plainly, these data sets encompass the communication behaviors of advocates (re: their public communications), journalists (re: their products, news stories), and voters (re: their thought process and decisions). Moreover, the same definition of frame was incorporated into each data set. Based on Entmans (1993) four functions, this definition states that any person or group that frames a topic or issue is in practice defining the topic, ascribing its cause, suggesting a remedy, or evaluating it according to some moral framework or value structure. Certainly we learn a great deal from these studies. But if we accept Matthes (2012) point that each and every framing study, to one degree or another, tries to answer framing scholarships inherent call for integrationand I think this point makes sensethen we can use these studies as a basis to sketch out differences between a bring-together and a fit-into approach to doing framing analysis. At this point, all we can say is that this project shows us in a rather literal way what a bringtogether approach is: methods that match content data with survey data and a common measure of frame in data sets available to each researcher. Clearly, there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, the project is in league with other fine projects on European referendum campaigns, some of which employ framing analysis in multimethod designs (e.g., de Vreese, 2004; Schuck & deVreese, 2009). But it was the ambitious purpose of the projectto draw a complete picture of the whole framing process, as Matthes (2012, p. 248; emphasis added) statedthat led me to explore what an integrative approach is in framing analysis. Thus, my point of departure is this: Each of the studies in this project enacts a tension between a bring-together and a fit-into integrative approach that is present, to one degree or another, in every framing study. There cannot not be a bring-together integrative approach in any given study. But those studies without enough of a fit-into integrative approach tend to focus on the operational level of design rather than the level of concept explication and theory development. To begin to see how theory development, concept explication, and design elements relate to the two integrative approaches, we need first to look beyond any given study. The best place to start is with the notion that any area of study matures through rumination. Self-reflection is a key part of healthy social science, noted Peters (1986, p. 527) at the beginning of a long reflection on why the field of communication has had a hard time defining its institutional focus and mission. A tangible manifestation of an area of studys process of self-reflection is the models that scholars produce of relevant constructs and concepts (Babrow, 1993; Rosengren, 1993). Invariably, these models depict the mechanisms that explain connections among these concepts and constructs. There are at least three models that try to depict the whole framing process: Scheufeles (1999, p. 115); that of de Vreese (2005, p. 52), which strikes me as being

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

356

American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

derived from Scheufeles model; and mine (DAngelo, 2002, p. 880). No doubt, there are other models of this ilk in the literature. Of the three, Scheufeles model has proved especially valuable in setting the terms for empirical framing research, as is evident in the articles in this special issue. But each of these models is also part of a family of integrative models, such as Price and Tewksburys (1997) construction activation model, Entmans (2003, 2004) cascading activation model, and others. Altogether, these models manifest a research program in a constant state of rumination. Hardly static drawings, each model depicts a dynamic landscape of definitions, both conceptual and operational, of the core terms frame and framing. Each model anchors diverse definitions of frame and framing in theoretical mechanisms and processes, such as applicability, news values, issue culture, and schema. On this level, the meanings of the mechanisms and processes can differ, even slightly, depending on how particular findings and literature reviews of framing studies are interpreted by the model. Moreover, integrative models stemming from framings iterative process of self-definition and self-understanding often stipulate and sometimes even dictate methods and measures that optimally ground empirical inquiry. Thus, framing models offer a range of guidance regarding how methods and measures should be used to (a) observe frames both in texts and in the contexts of their production, (b) observe frames in the mind of whoever constructs the frame, and (c) observe frames in the mind of whoever is at the receiving end of the topic being framed in a discourse. We can see the two integrative approaches in action (or in tension) within a framing study only in light of the role integrative models play in shaping a studys concept explication, theory development, and operational design. For a study to do the busy work of bring-together integrationfor example, pull strands of conceptualization from this or that literature to state a conceptual definition of frame, develop a theoretical framework for research questions, or devise a suitable operational plan for data collection and analysisit must in principle accept, and in practice communicate within the study, a fit-into notionthat concepts, theories, and plans are embedded in a model that comprehensively yet provisionally arrays and defines constructs related to framing. This, in fact, encapsulates the battle that goes on in many framing studies, whose literature reviews often resound the notion that framing research is in trouble because of a scattered conceptualization of main terms or because types of frames and measures of frames appear to have proliferated. It is as if the study is saying, Framing is scattered, so lets try to fix it in this study. But how a particular study fixes framing analysisor, better, how much it fixes itdepends on how well its concept explication, theories, and design fit into a theoretical model of framing analysis that is comprehensive (e.g., covers many subprocesses) yet offers only provisional definitions of frame and framing. On metatheoretical perspective, as I see it, an undiluted bring-together approach (which no study can implement) strives to slow down the proliferation of conceptual definitions of frame and framing. Apparently uneasy with too many conceptual definitions, it applauds various attempts to standardize conceptual and operational definitions (Shah, McLeod, Gotlieb, & Lee, 2009, pp. 93-94). Conversely, a fit-into

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

DAngelo

357

integrated approach questions this, holding that efforts to standardize conceptual and operational definitions of frame and framing defy the organic nature of the research program. The fit-into integrative approach accepts and even celebrates that knowledge about what frames are and what framing is accumulates because of evolving conceptual and operational definitions of these core terms. The fit-into integrated approach thus advocates that framing scholars learn the craft of doing framing research by doing due diligence . . . in understanding the intellectual traditions that feed communication theory (DAngelo, 2010, p. 365). On a practical level, taking enough of a fit-into approach enables a framing researcher to meaningfully bring together what he or she needs in terms of conceptual definitions, measures, and methods, all to produce a solid piece of research on a portion of the whole framing process. Let us now turn to a few integrative framing models to see how they depict a dynamic landscape of conceptual and operational definitions of frame and framing. Price and Tewksburys (1997) construct activation model (see pp. 186, 195), a wellknown integrative model, focuses on the part of Scheufeles (1999) model called individual-level effects of frames. The Price and Tewksbury model centers on what happens in an individuals mind after he or she has read or viewed a frame encoded in a news story. It is essentially a meditation on the merit of the theoretical position that the effect of exposure to a news frame occurs primarily via the applicability of a subset of ones prior knowledge rather than the seemingly more unconscious mechanism of accessibility, in which whatever thoughts, opinions, or beliefs can be readily retrieved will come to ones mind. More recently, Shah et al. (2009) drew up another integrative message processing model that shares with the Price and Tewksbury model (see p. 92) constructs such as accessibility, activation, and applicability. Simplifying greatly, these integrative models postulate that the human mind categorizes what is already in it and places into those categories attributes of message stimuli that it (re: the person with the mind) comes into contact with. Modeling the mind has demanded theoretical exegesis of such canonic literature as Bartletts (1932) schema theory, Minskys (1975) frame theory, and Rumelharts (1984) theory of mental models to integrate constructs such as prior knowledge and schema into conceptual definitions of a frame in thought, to use Druckmans (2001) eloquent term. The conceptual definition of a frame in thought is both molded and changed by virtue of the conceptual company it keeps. For example, the Price and Tewksbury (1997) model immerses schema into a construct called the knowledge store, a network of concepts that includes information about objects and their attributes (which may be closest to the original meaning of schema), goals, values and motivations, and affective or emotional states (p. 186). The Shah et al. (2009) model has a similar purview but differs somewhat in including expectations in the knowledge store. Some researchers jettison the schema concept but still employ aspects of it in their framing model. For example, Cappella and Jamieson (1997, pp. 59-60) conceived an individuals knowledge of politics as a network of associations between nodes of information. In this vein, the burgeoning area of values-framing research also appears to have jettisoned the schema concept, even though the frames in

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

358

American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

thought that mattervalues, beliefs, and other considerations (e.g., Brewer & Gross, 2005; Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997; Slothuus, 2008; Sniderman & Theriault, 2004) are tied to this concept in other models. Even models that focus on frame building rather than individual-level effects of frames are part of the shifting landscape of conceptual definitions of frames in thought. Perhaps the grandest of all integrative framing models, Gamson and Modiglianis (1989) constructionist framework, employs the concept issue culture to denote that so-called frames in communication (Druckman, 2001) are constructed via the interactions of advocates and journalists. However, the model suggests that an individuals schema is roughly equivalent to the contents of an issue culture, which consists of frames communicated in news stories via catchphrases, arguments about causes, and moral evaluations about public issue. Thus, in holding that frames in thought can be conceptualized as nodal points in public opinion surveys, Gamson and Modigliani (1989, pp. 32-33) proffer another meaning of a frame in thought. Somewhat differently, its conceptual cousin, the constructionist model of framing presented by Neuman, Crigler, and Just (1992, pp. 17-18), eschews the schema concept, preferring to see audience frames as conceptual tools rather than as a hierarchical structure of information and ideas, a definition of frames in thought they feel is implied by the schema concept (p. 60). Another powerful integrative model (though not a constructionist model) is Entmans (2003, 2004) cascading influence model. It poses that framing is initiated by official thoughts and feelings that support a frame (Entman, 2003, p. 418-419). It incorporates constructs and mechanisms, such as networks of association and spreading activation, that are familiar to framing researchers interested in how individuals process frames they encounter in news stories. However, Entmans model spreads out these manifestly cognitive constructs to explainreinsert, reallythe publics role in official frame contests. The point of the foregoing discussion of models is this: A conceptual definition of frames in thought is developed within models that (a) pose specific definitions of concepts that refer to the contents of what we could innocuously call an individuals prior knowledge and (b) pose specific mechanisms that relate frames in thought to frames in communication. This means that conceptual definitions of frames in communication what are typically called media frames or news frames in political communication researchcan vary from model to model and, hence, from study to study, because they are conceptualized in light of (re: in the same model as) certain conceptual definitions of frames in thought. Thus, I argue that we do not haveindeed, we cannot have and we do not needtruly full (read: complete or finished) conceptual definitions of frames in thought or frames in communication. What we need is a fit-into attitude for doing framing research. By fitting into an integrative model, a single study or even a whole research agenda accepts certain conceptual definitions of frame and framing and relies on specified theoretical constructs and mechanisms regarding frame building or framing effects. Only then can the lone researcher or team of researchers get busy bringing together particular conceptual definitions of frame and framing and particular measures of frames needed to set up a specific research design.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

DAngelo

359

It is worth taking a look at what a fit-into attitude means regarding one of the most pressing issues in political framing research today: how to conceptually define a frame in communication, particularly when we consider that, for political communication research, news stories are the preferred site of these frames. Models that focus on the purely cognitive aspects of frames in thought are quite comfortable with defining frames in communication as issue frames. According to Nelson and Willey (2001), issue frames are descriptions of social policies and problems that shape the publics understanding of how the problem came to be and the important criteria by which policy solutions should be evaluated (p. 247). In their view, the news media directly or indirectly tote [issue] frames to their target (Nelson & Willey, 2001, p. 247), a reference to the fact that issue frames are constructed by politicians or other professional communicators to sway public opinion. This view enmeshes journalism with a transportation metaphor: Stories are the circulatory system of public life because they tote issue frames. Although this conception of a frame in communication is contested by those who impute a more active framing role in journalistic practicethose who, for example, conceptually define a news frame as the news values journalists impose on issue frames (e.g., Price & Tewksbury, 1997) or those who consider journalists occupational and ideological biases to favor elite viewpoints as being the essence of a news frame (e.g., Bennett, Lawrence, & Livingston, 2007; Lewis & Reese, 2009)it is a comfortable position for researchers who work on cognitive mechanisms because it brings persuasion into the model and evacuates (or at least, holds steady) uniquely journalistic framing of sources issue frames. In other words, framing research that is interested in finely modeling cognition best operates in a conceptual environment in which frames in communication are defined as persuasive statements from sources that are communicated in news without much interference by journalists. This intellectual environment gives cognition-oriented framing researchers the freedom to precisely fine-tune the mechanisms that link frames in thought with frames in communication. For example, the Shah et al. (2009) model postulates that applicability occurs rather more consciously than the Price and Tewksbury (1997) model would have us believe. So their model brings in another construct, usability, to account for ones volitional matching of schema elements to textual elements of the frame (see Lee, McLeod, & Shah, 2008). Other models of frames in thought stress that ambivalence is a normative state of mind in most everyone who depends on news to understand politics (e.g., Pan & Kosicki, 2005, see especially pp. 177-178; Sniderman & Theriault, 2004), given that conflicting issue framesthat is, conflicting views on some topic that political actors hope will persuade audiencesare often incompatible. Arguments posing specific meanings of terms that refer to cognitive mechanisms are part of the dynamic nature of the framing research program. They help researchers to refine particular conceptual definitions of frames in thought; as well, they aid in refining conceptual definitions of frames in communication. For example, models are beginning to be drawn (e.g., Chong & Druckman, 2007a, p. 638; Chong & Druckman, 2007c, p. 103) to illustrate that people encounter issue frames within a competitive

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

360

American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

elite environment, which is the presentation of conflicting frames on an issue within a given news story. This idea has been around for a while (e.g., Kinder & Herzog, 1993), and the fact that it is beginning to be formalized shows that the conceptual definition of an issue frame is evolving, now slightly imbued with the journalistic norm conflict. A fit-into integrative approach to framing research postulates that such refinements improve our understanding of framing. For example, this attenuated definition of an issue frame supports work that distinguishes framing within competitive elite environments from so-called issue dualism framing. Whereas studies that look at framing within competitive elite environments tend to see journalists as having a rather passive, stenographic role in transmitting source positions, each of which is considered a different frame (e.g., Chong & Druckman, 2007a), work on issue dualism deals with active journalistic framing, seeing different sides within a single story as being framed in terms of strategy or values (see Lee et al., 2008). As noted, the dynamic process by which conceptual definitions of frames in thought are refined leads framing scholars to assess and reassess the conceptual definitions of frames in communication. A current debate is about whether news frames are persuasive (Entman, Matthes, & Pellicano, 2009, p. 183; Pan & Kosicki, 2005, pp. 173-176; Shah et al., 2009, p. 91; Tewksbury & Scheufele, 2009, p. 20). Here, I suspect that Chong and Druckman (2007b) are in the building stage of a good model. Although it is useful to analytically distinguish framing from persuasion, they point out, models that incorporate expectations and ambivalence into the conceptual definition of frames in thought will inevitably have to take into consideration that news frames do not merely circulate persuasive strong frames but actually play a role in how and why they are strong in the first place. By way of concluding, the shifting conceptual climate of frames in communication urges us to take a closer look at Entmans (1993) popular definitiona definition at the heart of the set of studies in this special issue. Entmans definition has emerged, undoubtedly, as an important operational definition of frame (for an opposing view, see Pan & Kosicki, 2005, p. 177), and it is used in a host of studies to set up an empirical analysis, either quantitative or qualitative, of media content or media effects (e.g., Dardis, 2007; Kim, Caravalho, & Davis, 2010; Lawrence & Birkland, 2004; Matthes & Kohring, 2008; Watkins, 2001; Zhou & Moy, 2007). But an indication to me of a bring-together attitude in the set of studies in this special issue is the fact that this definition is primarily used as a measure rather than viewed as a measure rooted in a conceptual model of framing. It seems that the project not only champions this operational definition, it ignores the fact that Entmans definition is rooted in Gamson and Modiglianis (1989) constructionist model, where ascribing causes and consequences and making moral evaluations are part of the reasoning that one must do to frame a topic or issue (see pp. 3-4, especially footnote 2). The stance that the superiority of Entmans definition rests in its operational utility entails the claim that there are too many conceptual, nonoperational definitions of frame and framing (see Entman et al., 2009; Matthes & Kohring, 2008). Ironically, though, one of those conceptual definitions is Gamson and Modiglianis (1987, p. 143) notion of frame as a central

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

DAngelo

361

organizing idea or storyline that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events. This conceptual definition productively accompanies an operationalization that, as just noted, roughly matches Entmans definition. In this case, a fit-into attitude about framing research urges us to conceptually reinvigorate Entmans definition, to see each of Entmans four functions as a conceptual node in a framing model. After all, even the seemingly mundane act of defining a problem can be conceptualized in many ways (see, e.g., Bleich, 2007; Edelman, 1993; Jerit, 2006; Lawrence & Birkland, 2004; Zarefsky, 2004). A fit-into approach to doing news framing analysis tells me that framing research will someday be better off when someone devises a model that incorporates one or more of Entmans functions into a comprehensive whole. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Babrow, A. S. (1993). The advent of multiple-process theories of communication. Journal of Communication, 43(3), 110-118. Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bennett, L., Lawrence, R. G., & Livingston, S. (2007). When the press fails: Political power and the news media from Iraq to Katrina. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bleich, S. (2007). Is it all in a word? The effect of issue framing on public support for U.S. spending on HIV/AIDS in developing countries. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(2), 120-132. Brewer, P. R., & Gross. K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quality. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929-948. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). The spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637-655. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007c). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99-118. DAngelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multi-paradigmatic research program: A response to Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870-888. DAngelo, P. (2010). Conclusion: Arriving at the horizons of news framing analysis. In P. DAngelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 356-368). New York, NY: Routledge.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

362

American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

DAngelo, P., & Kuypers, J. A. (2010). Introduction: Doing news framing analysis. In P. DAngelo & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 1-13). New York, NY: Routledge. Dardis, F. E. (2007). The role of issue-framing functions in affecting beliefs and opinions about a sociopolitical issue. Communication Quarterly, 55(2), 247-265. de Vreese, C. H. (2004). Political campaigning in referendums: Framing the referendum issue. London, UK: Routledge. de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13(1), 51-62. Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225-256. Edelman, M. (1993). Contestable categories and public opinion. Political Communication, 10(3), 231-242. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. Entman, R. M. (2003). Cascading activation: Contesting the White Houses frame after 9/11. Political Communication, 20(4), 415-432. Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Entman., R. M., Matthes, J., & Pellicano, L. (2009). Nature, sources, and effects of news framing. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies (pp. 175-190). New York, NY: Routledge. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. G. Braungart & M. M. Braungart (Eds.), Research in political sociology (pp. 137-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1-37. Jerit, J. (2006). Reform, rescue, or out of money? Problem definition in the Social Security reform debate. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(1), 9-28. Kim, S.-H., Carvalho, J. P., & Davis, A. G. (2010). Talking about poverty: News framing of who is responsible for causing and fixing the problem. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 87(3/4), 563-581. Kinder, D. R., & Herzog, D. (1993). Democratic discussion. In G. E. Marcus & R. L. Hanson (Eds.), Reconsidering the democratic public (pp. 347-377). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press. Lawrence, R. G., & Birkland, T. A. (2004). Guns, Hollywood, and school safety: Defining the school-shooting problem across public arenas. Social Science Quarterly, 85(5), 1193-1207. Lee, N.-J., McLeod, D. M., & Shah, D. (2008). Framing policy debates: Issue dualism, journalistic frames, and opinions on controversial policy issues. Communication Research, 35(5), 695-718. Lewis, S., & Reese, S. D. (2009). What is the war on terror? Framing through the eyes of journalists. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(1), 85-102. Matthes, J. (2012). Framing politics: An integrative approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 247-259.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

DAngelo

363

Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58(2), 258-279. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211-277). New York: McGraw-Hill. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246. Nelson, T. E., & Willey, E. A. (2001). Issue frames that strike a balance: A political psychology perspective. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 245-266). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. N. (1992). Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (2005). Framing and the understanding of citizenship. In S. Dunwoody, L. B. Becker, D. M. McLeod, & G. M. Kosicki (Eds.), The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod (pp. 166-204). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Peters, J. D. (1986). Institutional sources of intellectual poverty in communication research. Communication Research, 13(4), 527-559. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barnett & F. E. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 13, pp. 173-212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. Rosengren, K. E. (1993). From field to frog ponds. Journal of Communication, 43(3), 6-17. Rumelhart, D. E. (1984). Schemata and the cognitive system. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognitioan (Vol. 1, pp. 161-188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122. Schuck, A. R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2009). Reversed mobilization in referendum campaigns: How positive news framing can mobilize the skeptics. The International Journal of Press/ Politics, 14(1), 40-66. Shah, D. V., McLeod, D. M., Gotlieb, M. R., & Lee, N. (2009). Framing and agenda setting. In R. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 83-98). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual-process model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology, 29(1), 1-28. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 133-165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tewksbury, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). News framing theory and research. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 17-33). New York, NY: Routledge. Watkins, S. C. (2001). Framing protest: News frames of the Million Man March. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18(1), 83-101.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012

364

American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

Zarefsky, D. (2004). Presidential rhetoric and the power of definition. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34(3), 607-619. Zhou, Y., & Moy, P. (2007). Parsing framing processes: The interplay between online political opinion and media coverage. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 79-98.

Bio
Paul DAngelo is an associate professor in the Department of Communication Studies at The College of New Jersey. He is the editor of Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives (Routledge, 2010; with Jim A. Kuypers). His research focuses on content and effects of news framing in political campaigns and on the disciplinary historiography of political communication in the United States.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com by guest on April 5, 2012