Framing (social sciences)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Framing (English frame : "Frame") is the process of embedding of events and issues in interpretation grid. Complex information is selected and prepared in a structured manner so that a certain problem definition, causal attribution, moral assessment and / or recommendation for action is emphasized in the respective topic. In journalism , a heterogeneous conceptual understanding prevails. While some understand frames based on the schema concept as cognitive structures, interpretation and interpretation patterns for information processing, others speak of deep structures on which media texts are based. A common definition comes from Robert Entman :

“To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and / or treatment recommendation for the item described. ”

"Framing means selecting some aspects of a perceived reality and highlighting them in a text in such a way that a certain problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and / or recommendation for action is promoted for the object described."

- Robert Entman : Framing: Towards a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm, 1993.

Issue and classification

Many topics are extremely complex, which is why their complexity is reduced, with certain aspects and narratives being selected. Certain perspectives and information are emphasized, others are placed in the background - depending on which authority we get the topics from. One could thus speak of a kind of 'struggle for interpretative sovereignty'. Social actors try to gain perspectives on political issues. Among them are news organizations, politicians or commercial companies . At the same time, the recipients also have a say in the framing : They select the framed news topics according to individual patterns and insert them into their own interpretation categories. The basic premise of framing research is based on the assumption that social issues are never conveyed in their complete complexity, but are always standardized by perspective. Framing research "tries to clarify how the frames of individual actors arise, how they change and how they influence each other."

Framing and reporting

With the help of frames, for example, one can understand why Western reporting often associates topics such as Islam and terrorism . Political election campaigns are often compared in journalism with horse races, so that the competitive character comes to the fore. A third frame example would be the David versus Goliath metaphor, which was used in the past to frame the Israel-Palestine conflict . This reduced it to a fight between two unequal opponents, with the supposedly inferior party being shown sympathy.

"To the extent that the media succeeds in [...] directing streams of attention to publicly relevant objects, [...] they gain an impact that goes far beyond thematising and topic structuring effects: They not only set topics, they also challenge official politics and even suggest certain courses of action. "

- Frank Marcinkowski : Agenda setting as a paradigm relevant to political science. 2002

Framing and agenda setting

See also: agenda setting

The issue of framing research can, however, be further differentiated. After all, their approaches are similar to related theories of impact research such as agenda setting , priming and the attitude concept . They all examine phenomena of selection, perspective and prioritization of social issues. In communication science , there is still a great deal of confusion about how agenda setting and framing theory relate to one another. While some are of the opinion that there are no differences, others see framing as an extension of agenda setting. While agenda research raises the question of which topics are selected in the media, the framing approach deals with how these selected topics are put into perspective . It is precisely this question that is also the subject of the 'second level agenda setting'. It is therefore quite possible that both approaches will converge in the future.

Framing and priming

See also: media priming

There are greater differences in so-called priming: Here the focus is particularly on electoral research and the thesis that social issues can be 'tagged' to politicians or associated with them. "Concentrating on certain topics [...] in the election campaign supposedly strengthens the ability of a politician to solve this problem." Framing is more concerned with the selection and highlighting of thematic information, priming with the reaction, the preceding information (primes) to certain target stimuli Trigger (targets) .

Framing and setting

See also: attitude (psychology)

It is even more difficult to distinguish the communication science terms 'frame' and 'attitude'. Both theories describe cognitive, affective and conative perspectives on certain topics and objects. On the other hand, the attitude concept is more about behavior that individuals develop through their thought patterns. However, framing is increasingly concerned with selection mechanisms that take place in the media and in one's own memory .

Framing and constructivism

See also: constructivism (psychological school)

If one looks for further theoretical references, framing research also has large interfaces with the psychological school of constructivism. Here, too, it is about the construction of social reality, which takes place through the selection of experiences and the establishment of thought categories. By 'framing' the complex information from our environment, we also construct our everyday reality. Framing can therefore also be understood as a 'moderate constructivist approach'.

Development of framing research

origin

The origin of the scientific term “frame” goes back to the psychiatrist Gregory Bateson , who used it to describe psychological phenomena in 1972, namely the exclusion and inclusion of certain information in messages. As an interdisciplinary research approach, the framing concept developed in parallel from the 1970s in disciplines such as psychology , linguistics , political science , sociology and economics . Conceptual synonyms such as schema , script or map were often used. As the three most influential roots, the sociological, psychological and communication history of framing research are briefly described here.

Erving Goffman

Frame Analysis (1974) by Erving Goffman is considered a milestone in sociology . He took over the term frame from Gregory Bateson to explain human behavior in everyday life. According to Goffman, frames are definitions of situations that reflect events in structures of meaning. Their function for the social actor is to recognize situations and to derive behavior and instructions for action from them. In contrast to communication science, the term frame was not applied to mass, but to everyday communication. However, Goffman still lacks empirical approaches.

Schema theory

See also: scheme (psychology)

In cognitive psychology , the term “ schema ” has established itself instead of “frame” . The concept is less concerned with the phenomena of public communication than with information processing , knowledge acquisition and memory formation on the intrapsychic level. The differences between 'frame' and 'schema' are not clearly defined. While some understand both terms synonymously, others view frames as a bundle of schemes. There is agreement to the extent that framed media content is processed by recipients according to the scheme. Susan Fiske and Patricia Linville define the term as follows:

“The schema concept refers to cognitive structures of organized prior knowledge, abstracted from experience with specific instances; schema guide the processing of new information and the retrieval of stored information. "

- Susan Fiske and Patricia Linville: What does the schema-concept buy us? (1980)

Information or knowledge about events, situations and objects are thus incorporated into a network of associations through schemes . It is therefore assumed that memory is structured in a similar way to a “cognitive map” or that knowledge is classified in a kind of “flexible system of drawers”. Concrete information is stored within abstract interpretation patterns, so that Hans-Bernd Brosius understands schemes as a “set of attributes, dimensions and slots that objects share in a certain category.” The concept is based on the idea that people are due to the immense flood of information tend to reduce complexity due to environmental stimuli . Schemas are primarily used for information processing: the incoming input is either integrated into existing knowledge complexes '' ( top-down information processing) or linked to new schemes ( bottom-up ), whereby the complex flow of information is reduced to abstract contexts of meaning. The schema concept thus explains how people assign sense and order to their environment in order to find their way around it.

The schema theory was received relatively late in empirical communication science, but experienced a real popularity boom. Doris Graber took the concept over into impact research in 1984 and carried out studies on the processing of information on political issues. The essay Framing: Towards a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm (1993) by Robert Entman was decisive for the success . The studies of Shanto Iyengar, who differentiates between episodic and thematic frames, were also groundbreaking. The framing concept was applied to media content and (political) reporting for the first time due to the reception of schema theory in communication studies.

AI research

See also: Artificial Intelligence

As a conclusion to the interdisciplinary development of framing research, it should be noted that the concept has meanwhile gained a foothold in other disciplines such as computer science : AI research (research on artificial intelligence) aims to reconstruct natural intelligence. A central problem here, however, is that computers process information only in a purely logical manner and not in a schema-oriented manner. A self-learning computer would, however, have to be able to develop and further educate its own schemes by forming abstract knowledge relationships from complex environmental stimuli.

Theoretical foundations

Definition according to Robert Entman

The English frame term (in German: (interpretation) frame ) basically describes a metaphor . Like many other terms in journalism , it was transferred from everyday language to a scientific term and is no longer identical with its original meaning. The frames discussed here also have little in common with the structure of websites ( frame elements) or film stills ( frames ). But even in journalism there is a heterogeneous understanding of the term. Framing research is based less on a coherent theoretical structure and more on a network of theoretical statements. While some understand frames based on the schema concept as cognitive structures, interpretation and interpretation patterns for information processing, others speak of deep structures on which media texts are based.

"To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in communicating text, in such way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and / or treatment recommendation for the item described."

- Robert Entman: Framing: Towards a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm (1993)

Robert Entman understands frames as perspectives on political issues - interpretation patterns that select and structure information in all phases of mass media communication. The definition of Entman concretizes the term through four frame elements: Thus the frames in media texts contain a problem definition , cause attribution , moral evaluation and recommendation for action , whereby not always all four elements have to be contained in a frame. This can be seen, for example, from the Iraq war propaganda after September 11, 2001 : The attacks ( attribution to the cause) were condemned in the strongest possible terms (moral assessment) and were considered to be a reason for tougher crackdowns ( recommendation for action) against Islamist terrorists (problem definition) . Depending on whether all four elements of a frame are recognizable in messages or are only mentioned indirectly, one can speak of explicit or implicit frames.

Functions of frames

The functions of frames can be summarized in different ways: Michael Schenk speaks of the exclusion and inclusion of interpretations on a topic. Instead, Matthias Potthoff believes that frames restrict thematic aspects ( selection ), emphasize ( salience ) and present them in a coherent way ( coherence ). Doris Graber differentiates between four functions: Schemas or frames help to perceive, structure and supplement information and to refer to possible actions. In addition, Shanto Iyengar emphasizes that frames always assign responsibilities in reporting. In his habilitation on the topic of everyday rationality, Hans-Bernd Brosius also explains that frames also function as heuristics : "Heuristics are decision-making aids or rules of thumb that shorten the weighing and evaluation of the available information." In spontaneous, everyday decision-making situations, people access frames or Schemas back to assess objects, people or events. This sometimes explains the formation of prejudices , which does not take place in a logical-rational, but schema-oriented manner.

Typologies

The definition of various frame typologies is just as heterogeneous as the functions. While Shanto Iyengar speaks of episodic and thematic frames, linguistics distinguishes between situational and text schemes. Due to the variety of terms, only four frame subdivisions are listed below.

Subject-dependent and subject-independent frames

The first frame typology relates to the relationship between the terms 'subject' and 'frame'. Urs Dahinden sees frames more as long-term reporting and perception patterns that can be applied to various topics due to their metaphorical abstraction. For Jörg Matthes, however, frames are topic-specific and concrete. Potthoff succeeds in combining both views by distinguishing between subject-dependent and subject-independent frames.

Message frames

Other frame types that are used particularly for the analysis of journalistic texts are news frames. They serve as a routine for journalists by helping to identify and contextualize information about news events. At the same time, they facilitate communication between journalist and recipient. News frames explain why supposedly objective reports can never exist independently of the thematic perspectives of the journalists and at the same time clarify the responsibility of journalists to never present topics 'one-sided'.

Media and recipient frames

This frame categorization relates to the article Framing as a Theory of Media Effects (1999) by Dietram A. Scheufele . A distinction is made between two directions in framing research: Studies that deal more with media frames or recipient frames. While media frames or textual frames are more of a deep structure in reporting, recipient frames or cognitive frames are understood to mean “internal structures of the mind” - that is, deep structures in the memory (cf. schema theory ). Depending on the research question, media and recipient frames can be examined as dependent or independent variables. Scheufele distinguishes the interaction between the two terms using two processes: frame setting and frame building . He understands frame setting to be the influence that media frames have on recipient frames - quasi the opinion-forming processes that have an impact on individual memory through topic perspective. The reverse process - the influence of the recipient frames on the media frames - he calls frame building . This includes the already mentioned 'struggle for the sovereignty of interpretation': Social actors try to enforce their perspectives on certain topics through the media. “Framing effects are always based on complex interactions between media frames, recipient frames and context factors.” Depending on which aspects are examined within this interaction, the independent and dependent variables must be selected differently.

Diagnostic, prognostic, motivational frames

Framing using the example of a water glass: By choosing the frame, a negative interpretation (half empty water glass) or a positive interpretation (half full water glass) can be created.

A distinction is made between diagnostic framing, which focuses on the presentation of problems and blaming, prognostic framing, in which problem solutions and strategies are suggested, and motivational framing, which relates to the mobilization of participants and sympathizers. Other typical frames (according to Semetko and Valkenburg) are the subdivisions into conflict, human interest , economic consequences, moral judgment and responsibility. So z. If, for example, there is a discussion about cutting social spending in politics , this debate can be “framed” as follows: Either the conflict (of the political actors but also of other people involved, such as trade unions or charities ), the way of life and the problems are presented of a social welfare recipient (human interest), the economic consequences (both for recipients and for public budgets), through a moral assessment (how much money do you need to survive?), or by looking for responsible persons (inflexible labor market, unmotivated job seekers, etc.) Ä.).

Framing, i.e. the linguistic framework in which factual information is embedded, can also influence the mood and motivation of a counterpart. Information can be formulated very differently and thus cause very different reactions (the best-known example: “The glass is half full” vs. “The glass is half empty”). However, the same content can also be packaged differently during therapy (“This therapy works in 90% of all cases” vs. “This therapy doesn't work at all in 10% of patients”). A more positive formulation can bring about better cooperation on the part of the patient.

methodology

As with many approaches in journalism , framing research is also struggling to operationalize theoretical concepts . How can theoretical foundations be methodologically translated in order to be able to conduct empirical research ? One of the biggest difficulties is that 'frames' are relatively abstract objects that are difficult to verify. "[...] there is danger in this kind of lone-scholar analysis that the identification of a set of possible frames can be arbitrary." There is a risk that scientists will only analyze subjective researcher frames - i.e. only the frames that they want to read out of the research material. Framing studies often lack clear definitions. The identification criteria remain unclear and fall into a methodological ' black box '.

Meta-studies currently differentiate between two different types of empirical framing research: The first focuses on media frames and their formation (frame building) and tries to identify frames in media texts using analytical methods. The second is recipient-frame-oriented and examines the different processes that 'framed' media texts exert on recipients (frame setting) .

Frame building

In linguistics , the existence of frames is proven through ambiguous texts. For example, the sentences “Peter called the waiter. He orders himself wine “understood by most readers to mean that Peter orders the wine. The 'restaurant' scheme suggests that Peter orders drinks as a guest and the waiter takes these orders. In fact, it is not clear from the sentences which of the two is asking for wine. In addition to interviews with media players that forms content analysis of media coverage (Engl. Content Analysis ) is currently the basis for empirical frame identification. On this basis, a distinction is made between different approaches: While Urs Dahinden names three (inductive-qualitative, deductive-quantitative and inductive-quantitative) , Jörg Matthes differentiates between four methods (qualitative, manual-holistic, manual-dimension-reducing, computer-based) .

Inductive-qualitative analysis

The most common method to date has been inductive-qualitative analysis . Frames are virtually 'read out' by the researcher from the media text. This offers the advantage of working directly on the research material. However, the frame acquisition is basically based on the subjective imagination and intuition of the researcher. Standardized criteria for assessing the quality of the frames found are largely dispensed with.

Deductive-quantitative analysis

The deductive-quantitative approach is similar to the inductive-qualitative analysis : The frames to be examined are predefined and only then checked against the media texts. Of course, this method can only identify the frames that were previously defined by the researcher. Other frames cannot be checked empirically.

Inductive quantitative analysis

In the meantime, numerous inductive-quantitative analysis methods have emerged. You try to filter out frames from media texts using predefined criteria.

"The basic idea is as follows: If you understand a frame as a certain, unmistakable pattern of a text that is composed of several elements selectively selected by journalists and observable by recipients, then you can also determine this pattern empirically."

- Jörg Matthes: Framing. Concepts. Approaches in Media and Communication Studies (2014)

Matthes also includes manual-holistic, manual-dimension-reducing and computer-based methods. They all try to define identification criteria (mostly deductively determined variables) by means of which an indefinite number of frames from the respective reporting can be recorded. These predefined variables for content analysis are also called coding instructions.

If you examine media texts for previously encoded frame definitions, Matthes speaks of the manual-holistic identification method . It has the advantage of fast analysis , but is very similar to the deductive method. In addition, the codings are often abstract, making clear frame assignments difficult. The manually-dimension-process instead goes by the Robert Entman'schen from thesis that frames consist of four frame elements. It is not the frames that are encoded, but more concrete frame parts (such as problem definition, attribution of cause, moral evaluation and recommended action).

Example of a coding instruction for the manual-holistic frame analysis on the subject of genetic engineering
Frame description
progress Article mentions new developments, breakthroughs, or historical events; Conflict between progress or regression
Economic opportunities Article focuses on economic opportunities and potential
ethics Ethical principles are placed in the foreground and limits are named
Pandora's Box Article views genetic engineering as an unknown risk, disaster, or threat
Runaway Article conveys post-event fatalism; no more control over future consequences and developments
Nature / Nurture Article discusses environmental impact versus genetic determination; Heredity and Genetics
Public responsibility The focus is on the call for public control, participation and regulation; private versus public interests
globalization A global perspective is required vs. national regulations

"If certain patterns of variable characteristics appear over several texts and if these patterns can be interpreted, the frames can be named."

- Jörg Matthes: Framing. Concepts. Approaches in Media and Communication Studies (2014)

The identification process is thus divided into two sub-steps: In the first, predefined frame elements are filtered from the respective media texts. In the second, these elements are related via clusters and interpreted as frames. The advantage of this method lies in the precise operationalization . However, it takes a lot of time and statistical evaluation processes.

Last but not least, the computer-based frame analysis uses a method also known as 'frame mapping'. The basic premise here is that frames can also be recognized by word groups. Key terms are identified and networked with the help of computer algorithms in the media texts (hence the term 'mapping'). The problem with this method remains that the extracted word clusters are often more topics than frames. In addition, words have context-dependent meanings and can provide central references to frames even if they are not mentioned frequently in reporting.

Frame setting

See also: framing effect

Empirical studies on frame effects deal with the question of how media frames influence recipient frames (frame setting) .

"In terms of time, it is assumed that if a recipient is cumulatively confronted with consonant media frames, the probability should increase that these frames will have effects on the attitudes."

- Jörg Matthes: framing effects. On the influence of political reporting on the attitudes of recipients (2007)

Thus, questions are taken up that u. a. Are relevant for research into political communication and campaign research. According to Bertram Scheufele, frame effects research differentiates between four types of frame effects that can occur in the process of frame setting: Either existing recipient frames are changed (scheme transformation) or the links between existing schemes. Frame setting can also lead to the establishment of new frames or (fourth) to a change in the behavior of the recipient.

Studies that investigate these effects usually use the 'classical repertoire of methods' of communication studies . Qualitative impact studies usually carry out guided interviews; survey studies use questionnaires in combination with content analyzes . There are also experimental studies that demonstrate frame effects under laboratory conditions : At least two test groups are presented with different media texts and possible confounding variables are reduced to a minimum. The aim is usually to draw conclusions about possible (long-term or short-term) framing effects from changes in attitudes or behavior of the test persons .

Exemplary influences of framing research

It would go beyond the scope to refer to all the pioneering studies that have been published in framing research so far. Nevertheless, three influential examples should be mentioned that provide insights into application-related framing research.

Asian disease problem

See also: Prospect Theory

The first example is a study by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman from 1981, which became famous under the keyword 'Asian disease problem'. The researchers demonstrated experimentally that information that is framed in different contexts (or frames) leads to different decisions. The test groups were confronted with a fictitious decision-making situation: an epidemic has broken out and 600 people are threatened with death if no appropriate action is taken. Measure A saves the lives of exactly 200 people; Measure B will save 600 people with a probability of one third, and none of two thirds; measure C will kill exactly 400 people; with measure D, there is a third probability that nobody will die, and two thirds of all. The first test groups had to choose between A and B, the second between C and D. Although A is identical to C and B is identical to D, 72 percent of the test subjects in the AB dilemma decided for A and 78 percent for the CD candidates. Tversky and Kahneman explained this behavior by the existence of two frames, which Facts are logically equivalent, but classify differently in terms of language: A gain frame (profit perspective) and a loss frame (loss perspective). From this they developed the so-called ' Prospect Theory '. "According to the prospectus theory, people behave risk-averse when it comes to potential profits [by choosing measure A instead of B] and looking for risk in the event of potential losses [by choosing D instead of C]." a. Use in health campaigns. It says that when advertising drugs for low-risk diseases, gain frames are more likely to be used (presentation of the positive consequences after ingestion). In the case of drugs for high-risk or fatal diseases, however, loss frames are used, which illustrate the consequences of refusing to take them.

News events

A decisive research work for the further development of the framing concept comes from Hans-Bernd Brosius and Peter Eps from the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz . They were able to prove that the choice of topics for unusual news events (such as the Chernobyl reactor accident , September 11th or tsunami disasters ) can no longer be explained using news value theory . Instead, these key events are contextualized or 'framed' differently depending on the reporting phase: In the first phase, information about the actual events and causes are brought into focus. Finally, there is a historical framework by making references to past events. In a third wave, medialized events follow (politician statements , talk shows ) until the topic finally ebbs away in an avalanche of pseudo-events (further press conferences, appeals).

journalism

Thirdly, the framing research shows how much media content is framed by social actors. The individual journalist plays a crucial role, especially when it comes to the process of news frame building . After all, filtering and processing information is a large part of daily work. Viewers and readers receive news in order to get orientation on complex topics (control motive) . Media frames that are needed by journalists therefore make a decisive contribution to the evaluation of events and facts. It is therefore all the more important for journalists not to convey topics 'one-sidedly'. A second imperative for journalistic professional practice arises from the awareness of the frame setting processes : Recipients always process news in a scheme-controlled manner. A more conscious handling of information processing can help to formulate media texts that stick more effectively in the memory. In any case, the framing theory appeals for a more responsible use of news and viewer perspectives.

Criticism and future prospects

Blur

In the course of the affair over the “framing manual”, which the linguist Elisabeth Wehling had written for ARD, the concept received increased public attention in 2019. On Telepolis, Olaf Arndt criticizes the vague use of the term in connection with political communication. In numerous cases it is what was previously referred to as spin doctoring .

popularity

“Framing is undoubtedly one of the central areas of research in political communication research. Hardly any other term is currently enjoying such great popularity and ensures a comparable flow of research work both in German-speaking and internationally. "

- Jörg Matthes: Framing. Concepts. Approaches in Media and Communication Studies (2014)

The framing approach owes its popularity to its broad applicability in qualitative and quantitative studies. It is also known as the bridge concept , as it can be used to explain numerous phenomena from political communication science .

Framing as a bridge concept

In communication science, the framing theory not only enables a comprehensive understanding of mass media processes and thus different areas of impact research to be linked (bridging concept) - it also helps to explain various phenomena in other disciplines such as psychology , linguistics , computer science , sociology , political science and economics . Furthermore, the framing approach does not represent the information processing of recipients as a passive selection process, but as a mechanism of active construction of meaning. The interdisciplinary application of the theory leads to some disadvantages at the same time: There is still a lack of integration and accumulation of different research findings. Studies often neglect explicit frame definitions, so that different views coexist at the level of theory and terminology. At the same time, the unclear definitions make empirical verification more difficult, so that a great deal of reflection is required on the methods of various studies in order to verify their scientific content. Critics also point out that the concept differs only slightly from agenda setting , priming and attitudes theory. In addition, it remains unclear what influences media frames have on recipient frames and vice versa. A large number of current studies on frame effects mainly deal with the frame building process, so that stimulus - in contrast to recipient-oriented perspectives - dominate.

Framing as a paradigm

See also: Thomas S. Kuhn

In his 1993 essay, Robert Entman raised the question of the importance of the framing approach for communication studies. He himself spoke of a paradigm , so that to this day there is a discussion about whether framing is an influential theory or rather a metatheory that has led to a fundamental new understanding of communication science phenomena. So far there has not been a notable paradigm shift that originated in social and communication science, so that its existence would be of immense importance for the history of the subject. The concept of paradigm goes back to Thomas S. Kuhn , who sometimes formulated meaning standards for scientific theories. Kuhn gave five qualitative values ​​with which the content of scientific theories can be assessed: factual conformity (empirical content), consistency (with regard to already established theories), range (of the phenomena to be explained), simplicity (to order complex facts) and Fertility (in relation to new research). On the basis of these criteria, Dahinden regards the framing approach as free of contradictions in terms of related theories ( agenda setting , priming , attitude ), fruitful in relation to the number of previous publications and far-reaching in terms of the range of phenomena to be explained. However, the heterogeneous understanding of the term is anything but easy . When it comes to empirical identification criteria, too, framing research is not always factual .

It is therefore premature to speak of a paradigm. In addition, many scientists suspect that framing and schema research has not yet reached its peak. Whether framing will wither away as a 'scientific fad' or acquire the status of a metatheory depends above all on the understanding of common theoretical and methodological foundations.

“Without a hard core, that is, without a consensus on what exactly a frame is, the integration potential of the approach is nowhere near. […] [Otherwise] we have the problem that the various works within a framing 'paradigm' no longer investigate the same thing, but only use the phrase 'frame' or 'framing'. If studies differ in their basic conception from frames, they also differ in their hard core. "

- Jörg Matthes: Framing. Concepts. Approaches in Media and Communication Studies (2014)

At the moment, however, it seems utopian to break down the expanding network of scientific papers on a common basis.

See also

literature

  • Gregory Bateson: Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. Chicago 1972.
  • L. Berkowitz, KH Roger: A Priming Effect Analysis of Media Influences . In: J. Bryant, D. Zillmann (Eds.): Perspectives on Media Effects. Hillsdale. London 1986, pp. 57-81.
  • Heinz Bonfadelli, Thomas N. Friemel: Media Effects Research . 5th edition. Constance 2015.
  • Hans-Bernd Brosius : Everyday rationality in news reception. A model for the perception and processing of message content. Opladen 1995.
  • Hans-Bernd Brosius: Agenda Setting and Framing as Concepts of Impact Research. In: Jürgen Wilke (Ed.): The topicality of the beginnings. 40 years of media studies at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. Cologne 2005, pp. 125-143.
  • Hans-Bernd Brosius, Peter Eps: Do key events change journalistic selection criteria? Framing using the example of reporting on attacks against foreigners and Aylanten . In: Rundfunk und Fernsehen, 41 (4). Mainz 1993, pp. 512-530.
  • Hans-Bernd Brosius, Peter Eps: Prototyping through key events: News selection in the case of violence against aliens and asylum seekers in Germany. In: European Journal of Communication, 10. 1995, pp. 391-412.
  • JN Cappella, KH Jamieson: Spiral of cynicism. The press and the public good. Oxford 1997.
  • Urs Dahinden: Framing. An integrative theory of mass communication. Constance 2006.
  • P. D'Angelo: News framing as a multi-paradigmatic research program: A response to Entman. In: Journal of Communication, 52 (4). 2002, pp. 870-888.
  • Wolfgang Donsbach: journalist. In: Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, Winfried Schulz, Jürgen Wilke (Hrsg.): Fischer Lexikon Publizistik Massenkommunikation. Frankfurt am Main 2009, pp. 81–128.
  • Lyombe Eko: Framing and Priming Effects. In: Gerald Stone, Michael Gingletary, Virginia Richmond (Eds.): Clarifying Communication Theories. A hands-on approach. 1999, pp. 276-288.
  • Robert Entman: Framing: Towards a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. In: Journal of Communication, 43 (3). 1993. pp. 51-58.
  • Phil Erwin: Attitudes and Persuasion. Hove, Psychology Press, 2001.
  • Gail T. Fairhurst, Robert A. Sarr: The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership. Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1996.
  • Jeffrey Feldman: Framing the Debate: Famous Presidential Speeches and How Progressives Can Use Them to Control the Conversation (and Win Elections). Ig Publishing, Brooklyn, NY 2007.
  • Susan Fiske, Patricia Linville: What does the schema concept buy us? In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6. 1980, pp. 543-557.
  • WA Gamson: News as framing. Comments on Graber. American Behavioral Scientist. 33 (2). 1989, pp. 157-161.
  • Erving Goffman: Frame Analysis. New York 1974.
  • Doris A. Graber: Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide. New York 1984.
  • JK Hertog, DM McLeod: A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field guide. In: S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, A. E. Grant (Eds.): Framing public life: Perspective of media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah 2001, pp. 139-161.
  • Shanto Iyenga: Is Anyone Responsible? How Television frames Political Issues. Chicago 1991.
  • Shanto Iyengar: How TV News Influences Voters: From Setting Themes to Developing Evaluation Standards . In: J. Wilke (Ed.): Public opinion. Theory, methods, findings. Munich / Freiburg 1992, pp. 123-142.
  • Constanze Jecker: Entman's framing approach. Theoretical foundation and empirical implementation. Konstanz / Munich 2014, p. 24.
  • Reinhard Keil-Slawik : The cognitive battlefield. In: Bernhard Irrgang, Jörg Klawitter (Ed.): Artificial Intelligence. Stuttgart 1990, pp. 79-97.
  • Hans Mathias Kepplinger: Effect of the mass media. In: Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, Winfried Schulz, Jürgen Wilke (Hrsg.): Fischer Lexikon Publizistik Massenkommunikation. Frankfurt am Main 2009, pp. 651–702.
  • Donald R. Kinder, Lynn M. Sanders: Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. In: Social Cognition, 1990, pp. 73-103.
  • Thomas S. Kuhn: The emergence of the new. Studies on the structure of the history of science. In: L. Krüger (Ed.): The emergence of the new. Studies on the structure of the history of science. Chicago 1977, pp. 421-445.
  • George Lakoff, Elisabeth Wehling: Quietly into the brain. Political language and its secret power. Carl-Auer Verlag, Heidelberg 2008.
  • Jörg Matthes: Framing Effects. On the influence of political reporting on the attitudes of the recipients. Munich 2007.
  • Jörg Matthes: Framing. Concepts. Approaches in media and communication studies. Baden-Baden 2014.
  • Jörg Matthes, Matthias Kohring: The face (s) of biotech in the nineties: how the German press framed modern biotechnology . In: Public Understanding of Science, February 11, 2002, pp. 143–154.
  • Jörg Matthes, Matthias Kohring: The empirical recording of media frames. In: Medien & Kommunikationwissenschaft , 52 (1). 2004, pp. 56-75.
  • Jörg Matthes, Matthias Kohring: The Content Analysis of Media Frames: Towards Improving Reliability and Validity. In: Journal of Communication, 58. 2008, pp. 258-279.
  • Maxwell E. McCombs, Donald L. Shaw, David Weaver (Eds.): Communication and Democracy. Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory. London 1997.
  • MM Miller, BP Reichert: Frame mapping: A quantitative method for investigating issues in the public sphere. In: M. D. West (Ed.): Theory, method, and practice in computer content analysis. Nordwood 2001, pp. 61-76.
  • Philipp Neuweiler: An overview and insight into empirical framing research. Mainz 2015.
  • Z. Pan, GM Kosicki: Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation. In: SD Reese, OH Gandy Jr., AE Grant (Eds.): Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world. , Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 2001, pp. 35-66.
  • Vincent Price, David Tewksbury: New Values ​​and Public Opinion: A Theoretical Account of Media Priming and Framing. In: G. A. Barnett, F. J. Boster (Eds.): Progress in Communication Science: Advances in Persuasion. Vol. 13, Greenwich 1997, pp. 173-212.
  • Vincent Price, David Tewksbury, Elizabeth Powers: Switching Trains of Thought. The Impact of News Frames on Readers' Cognitive Response. In: Communication Research, 24 (5). 1997, pp. 481-506.
  • Matthias Potthoff: Media frames and their creation. Dissertation at the Westphalian Wilhelms University of Münster. Wiesbaden 2012.
  • Katja Rüter: Priming. In: Hans-Werner Bierhoff, Dieter Frey (Hrsg.): Manual of social psychology and communication psychology. Göttingen 2006, pp. 287-293.
  • Michael Schenk: Media Effects Research. 2nd Edition. Tübingen 2002.
  • Bertram Scheufele: Frames - Framing - Framing Effects. Theoretical and methodological foundation of the framing approach as well as empirical findings on news production. Wiesbaden 2003.
  • Dietram A. Scheufele: Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. In: Journal of Communication, 49 (1). 1999, pp. 103-122.
  • Winfried Schulz: communication process. In: Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, Winfried Schulz, Jürgen Wilke (Hrsg.): Fischer Lexikon Publizistik Massenkommunikation. Frankfurt am Main 2009, pp. 169-200.
  • DA Snow, EB Rochford, SK Worden, RD Benford: Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. In: American Sociological Review, 51.1986, pp. 464-481.
  • JW Tankard: An empirical approach to the study of media framing. In: S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, A. E. Grant (Eds.): Framing public life: Perspectives of media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah 2001, pp. 95-106.
  • Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman: The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. In: Science, 211. 1981, pp. 453-458.
  • Baldwin Van Gorp: Where is the Frame? A Quest of the Surplus Value in Framing Research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association Conference in Washington DC, May 24–28, Antwerp 2001.
  • Baldwin Van Gorp: The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back. In: Journal of Communication, 57 (1). 2007, pp. 60-78.
  • Elisabeth Wehling : Political Framing. How a nation persuades its thinking - and turns it into politics . Herbert von Halem, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-86962-208-8 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac Jörg Matthes: Framing. Concepts. Approaches in media and communication studies. Baden-Baden 2014.
  2. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Urs Dahinden: Framing. An integrative theory of mass communication. Constance 2006.
  3. ↑ a b Cf. Frank Marcinkowski : Agenda Setting as a paradigm relevant to political science . In: Winard Gellner , Gerd Strohmeier (Hrsg.): Freedom and common good - policy fields and policy communication at the beginning of the 21st century . Nomos, Baden-Baden 2002.
  4. ↑ a b c d e f Matthias Potthoff: Media frames and their creation. Dissertation at the Westphalian Wilhelms University of Münster. Wiesbaden 2012.
  5. ↑ a b c d Constanze Jecker: Entman's framing approach. Theoretical foundation and empirical implementation. Konstanz / Munich 2014, p. 24.
  6. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s Heinz Bonfadelli, Thomas N. Friemel: Media Effects Research . 5th edition. Constance 2015.
  7. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l Philipp Neuweiler: An overview and insight into empirical framing research . Mainz 2015 ( philipp-neuweiler.de [PDF]).
  8. ^ A b c d Robert Entman: Framing: Towards a Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (3). 1993. pp. 51-58.
  9. ↑ a b c d e f g h Michael Schenk: Media Effects Research. 2nd Edition. Tübingen 2002.
  10. ^ A b Wolfgang Donsbach: Journalist. In: Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, Winfried Schulz, Jürgen Wilke (Hrsg.): Fischer Lexikon Publizistik Massenkommunikation. Frankfurt am Main 2009, pp. 81–128.
  11. ↑ JN Cappella, KH Jamieson: Spiral of cynicism. The press and the public good. Oxford 1997.
  12. ↑ Lyombe Eko: Framing and Priming Effects. In: Gerald Stone, Michael Gingletary, Virginia Richmond (Eds.): Clarifying Communication Theories. A hands-on approach. 1999, pp. 276-288.
  13. ↑ Maxwell E. McCombs, Donald L. Shaw, David Weaver (Eds.): Communication and Democracy. Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory. London 1997.
  14. ↑ a b c d Hans Mathias Kepplinger: Effect of the mass media. In: Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, Winfried Schulz, Jürgen Wilke (Hrsg.): Fischer Lexikon Publizistik Massenkommunikation. Frankfurt am Main 2009, pp. 651–702.
  15. ↑ Katja Rüter: Priming. In: Hans-Werner Bierhoff, Dieter Frey (Hrsg.): Manual of social psychology and communication psychology. Göttingen 2006, pp. 287-293.
  16. ^ Phil Erwin: Attitudes and Persuasion. Hove, Psychology Press, 2001.
  17. ^ Baldwin Van Gorp: The Constructionist Approach to Framing: Bringing Culture Back. In: Journal of Communication, 57 (1). 2007, pp. 60-78.
  18. ↑ Peter L. Berger, Thomas Luckmann: The social construction of reality . Frankfurt am Main 1969.
  19. ↑ Gregory Bateson: Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology. Chicago 1972.
  20. ^ A b Erwin Goffman: Frame Analysis. New York 1974.
  21. ^ P. D'Angelo: News framing as a multi-paradigmatic research program: A response to Entman. In: Journal of Communication, 52 (4). 2002, pp. 870-888.
  22. ↑ a b Bertram Scheufele: Frames - Framing - Framing Effects. Theoretical and methodological foundation of the framing approach as well as empirical findings on news production. Wiesbaden 2003.
  23. ^ A b Susan Fiske, Patricia Linville: What does the schema concept buy us? In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6. 1980, pp. 543-557.
  24. ↑ Hans-Bernd Brosius : Scheme theory: An approach in impact research? In: Publizistik 36, H. 3. 1991, pp. 285–297.
  25. ^ A b Doris A. Graber: Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide. New York 1984.
  26. ↑ a b Shanto Iyenga: Is Anyone Responsible? How Television frames Political Issues. Chicago 1991.
  27. ↑ Reinhard Keil-Slawik: The cognitive battlefield. In: Bernhard Irrgang, Jörg Klawitter (Ed.): Artificial Intelligence. Stuttgart 1990, pp. 79-97.
  28. ↑ a b c Jörg Matthes: Framing Effects. On the influence of political reporting on the attitudes of the recipients. Munich 2007.
  29. ↑ Shanto Iyengar: How TV News Influences Voters: From Setting Themes to Developing Evaluation Standards . In: J. Wilke (Ed.): Public opinion. Theory, methods, findings. Munich / Freiburg 1992, pp. 123-142.
  30. ↑ Hans-Bernd Brosius: Everyday rationality in news reception. A model for the perception and processing of message content. Opladen 1995.
  31. ↑ a b Hans-Bernd Brosius: Agenda Setting and Framing as Concepts of Impact Research. In: Jürgen Wilke (Ed.): The topicality of the beginnings. 40 years of media studies at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz. Cologne 2005, pp. 125-143.
  32. ↑ Vincent Price, David Tewksbury, Elizabeth Powers: Switching Trains of Thought. The Impact of News Frames on Readers' Cognitive Response. In: Communication Research, 24 (5). 1997, pp. 481-506.
  33. ↑ a b c Dietram A. Scheufele: Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. In: Journal of Communication, 49 (1). 1999, pp. 103-122.
  34. ^ Donald R. Kinder, Lynn M. Sanders, Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks. In: Social Cognition, 1990, pp. 73-103.
  35. ^ WA Gamson: News as framing. Comments on Graber. In: American Behavioral Scientist, 33 (2). 1989, pp. 157-161.
  36. ^ JW Tankard: An empirical approach to the study of media framing. In: S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, A. E. Grant (Eds.): Framing public life: Perspectives of media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah 2001, pp. 95-106.
  37. ↑ Jörg Matthes, Matthias Kohring: The empirical recording of media frames. In: Medien & Kommunikationwissenschaft , 52 (1). 2004, pp. 56-75.
  38. ↑ MM Miller, BP Reichert: Frame mapping: A quantitative method for investigating issues in the public sphere. In: M. D. West (Ed.): Theory, method, and practice in computer content analysis. Nordwood 2001, pp. 61-76.
  39. ↑ JK Hertog, DM McLeod: A multiperspectival approach to framing analysis: A field guide. In: S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, A. E. Grant (Eds.): Framing public life: Perspective of media and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah 2001, pp. 139-161.
  40. ^ Amos Tversky, Daniel Kahneman: The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. In: Science, 211. 1981, pp. 453-458.
  41. ↑ Hans-Bernd Brosius, Peter Eps: Do key events change journalistic selection criteria? Framing using the example of reporting on attacks against foreigners and Aylanten . In: Rundfunk und Fernsehen, 41 (4). Mainz 1993, pp. 512-530.
  42. ↑ Olaf Arndt: Schockwellenreiter. Retrieved May 18, 2020 .
  43. ↑ Thomas S. Kuhn: The emergence of the new. Studies on the structure of the history of science. In: L. Krüger (Ed.): The emergence of the new. Studies on the structure of the history of science. Chicago 1977, pp. 421-445.
  44. ↑ Baldwin Van Gorp: Where is the Frame? A Quest of the Surplus Value in Framing Research. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association Conference in Washington DC, 24. – 28. May, Antwerp 2001.