What's it all about?: Framing in political science

Perspectives on Framing

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 279-301

  Druckman, James N ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84921262967     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (113)

1. Aarøe, L. (2008). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Unpublished paper, Aarhus University.
2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
3. Ajzen, I., & Sexton, J. (1999). Depth of processing, belief congruence, and attitude-behavior correspondence. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 117-140). New York: Guilford Press.
4. Althaus, S. L., & Kim, Y. M. (2006). Priming effects in complex environments. Journal of Politics, 68, 960-976.
5. Ansolabehere, S., & Snyder, J. M. (2004). Using term limits to estimate incumbency advantages when officeholders retire strategically. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29, 487-515.
6. Arceneaux, K. (2009). Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments. Unpublished paper, Temple University.
7. Bargh, J. A. (2006). What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 147-168.
8. Bargh, J. A., Bond, R. N., Lombardi, W. J., & Tota, M. E. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 869-878.
9. Bargh, J. A., Lombardi, W. J., & Higgins, E. T. (1988). Automaticity of chronically accessible constructs in person X situation effects on perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 599-605.
10. Bartels, L. M. (2003). Democracy with attitudes. In M. B. MacKuen & G. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Electoral democracy (pp. 48-82). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
11. Baumgartner, F. R., De Boef, S. L., & Boydstun, A. E. (2008). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
13. Berinsky, A. J., & Kinder, D. R. (2006). Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics, 68, 640-656.
14. Brewer, P. R., & Sigelman, L. (2002). Political scientists as color commentators: Framing and expert commentary in media campaign coverage. Press/Politics, 7, 23-35.
15. Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73-96). New York: Guilford Press.
16. Chong, D. (1996). Creating common frames of reference on political issues. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 195-224). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
17. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99-118.
18. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655.
19. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007c). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
20. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (in press). Identifying frames in political news. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques. New York: Routledge.
21. Cohen, J. E. (1997). Presidential responsiveness and public policy making. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
22. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23. Dimitrova, D. V., Kaid, L. L., Williams, A. P., & Trammell, K. D. (2005). War on the web: The immediate news framing of Gulf War II. Press/Politics, 10, 22-44.
24. Druckman, J. N. (2001a). On the limits of framing effects. Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
25. Druckman, J. N. (2001b). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225-256.
26. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
27. Druckman, J. N. (2010). Competing frames in a political campaign. In B. F. Schaffner & P. J. Sellers (Eds.), Winning with words: The origins and impact of framing (pp. 101-120). New York: Routledge.
28. Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T. (2009). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Unpublished paper, Northwestern University.
29. Druckman, J. N., & Holmes, J. W. (2004). Does presidential rhetoric matter?: Priming and presidential approval. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 34, 755-778.
30. Druckman, J. N., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeier, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. Journal of Politics, 66, 1205-1227.
31. Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2009a). Campaign communications in U.S. Congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103, 343-366.
32. Druckman, J. N., Kuklinski, J. H., & Sigelman, L. (2009b). The unmet potential of interdisciplinary research: Political psychological approaches to voting and public opinion. Political Behavior, 31, 485-510.
33. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 1-24.
34. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
35. Edy, J. A. (2006). Troubled pasts: News and the collective memory of social unrest. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
36. Enelow, J. M., & Hinich, M. J. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. Boston: Cambridge University Press.
37. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
38. Entman, R. M. (2004). Projects of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. Erikson, R. S., MacKuen, M. B., & Stimson, J. A. (2002). The macro polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40. Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1987). The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs. certain options. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 264-277.
41. Fagley, N. S., & Miller, P. M. (1997). Framing effects and arenas of choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 355-373.
42. Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
43. Ford, T. E., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1995). Effects of epistemic motivations on the use of accessible constructs in social judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 950-962.
44. Furnham, A. (1982). The Protestant work ethic and attitudes towards unemployment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 55, 277-285.
45. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. D. Braungart (Ed.), Research in Political Sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
46. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Grabe, M. E., & Bucy, E. P. (2009). Image bite politics: News and the visual framing of elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
48. Guess, G. M., & Farnham, P. G. (2000). Cases in public policy analysis (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
49. Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002.
50. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford Press.
51. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Social constructs. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
52. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 141-154.
53. Hsee, C. K. (1996). The evaluability hypothesis: An explanation for preference reversals between joint and separate evaluations of alternatives. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 247-257.
54. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
55. Iyengar, S. (2010). Framing research: The next steps. In B. F. Schaffner & P. J. Sellers (Eds.), Winning with words: The origins and impact of framing (pp. 185-191). New York: Routledge.
56. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57. Iyengar, S., Kinder, D. R., Peters, M. D., & Krosnick, J. A. (1984). The Evening News and presidential evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 778-787.
58. Jacobson, G. (2004). The politics of Congressional elections (6th ed.). New York: Pearson Longman.
59. Jamieson, K. H. (2000). Everything you think you know about politics ... and why you're wrong. New York: Basic Books.
60. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61. Johnston, R., Blais, A., Brady, H. E., & Crete, J. (1992). Letting the people decide: Dynamics of a Canadian election. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
62. Jou, J., Shanteau, J., & Harris, R. J. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects. Memory and Cognition, 24, 1-15.
63. Keren, G. (2007). Framing, intentions, and trust-choice incompatibility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 238-255.
64. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65. Kühberger, A. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-55.
66. Lawrence, R. G. (2004). Framing obesity: The evolution of news discourse on a public health issue. Press/Politics, 9, 56-75.
67. Lecheler, S. K., de Vreese, C. H., & Slothuus, R. (2009). Issue importance as a moderator of framing effects. Communication Research, 36, 400-425.
68. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149-188.
69. Lombardi, W. J., Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). The role of consciousness in priming effects on categorization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 411-429.
70. Martin, L. L., & Achee, J. W. (1992). Beyond accessibility. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 195-216). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
71. McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
72. McDermott, R. (1998). Risk taking in international relations: Prospect theory in American foreign policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
73. Miller, P. M., & Fagley, N. S. (1991). The effects of framing, problem variations, and providing rationale on choice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 517-522.
74. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1996). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: A program of research on the priming hypothesis. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 79-100). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
75. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of Presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 295-309.
76. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997a). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583.
77. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects and belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61, 1040-1067.
78. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997b). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221-246.
79. Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Press/Politics, 8, 36-70.
80. O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
81. O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Communication Yearbook, 30, 1-43.
82. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (2001). Framing as a strategic action in publication deliberation. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 35-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
83. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.
84. Petersen, M. B. (2007). Causes of political affect: Investigating the interaction between political cognitions and evolved emotions. Unpublished paper, Aarhus University.
85. Piñon, A., & Gambara, H. (2005). A meta-analytic review of framing effect: Risky, attribute, and goal framing. Psicothema, 17, 325-331.
86. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 13, pp. 173-212). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
87. Purkitt, H. E. (2001). Problem representation and variation in the forecasts of "political experts". Paper presented at the 6th International Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Annapolis, MD.
88. Richardson, J. D., & Lancendorfer, K. M. (2004). Framing affirmative action: The influence of race on newspaper editorial responses to the University of Michigan cases. Press/ Politics, 9, 74-94.
89. Riker, W. H. (1990). Heresthetic and rhetoric in the spatial model. In J. M. Enelow & M. J. Hinich (Eds.), Advances in the spatial theory of voting (pp. 46-65). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
90. Saad, L. (2002). Bush soars into state of the union with exceptional public backing. The Gallup Organization, Poll Analyses, 29 January 2002.
91. Sanger, D. E. (2002, January 30). Bush, focusing on terrorism, says secure U.S. is top priority. New York Times, Section A.
92. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
93. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103-122.
94. Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3, 297-316.
95. Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96. Shen, F., & Edwards, H. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55, 795-809.
97. Sherman, S. J., Mackie, D. M., & Driscoll, D. M. (1990). Priming and the differential use of dimensions in evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 405-418.
98. Sieck, W., & Yates, J. F. (1997). Exposition effects on decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 207-219.
99. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99-118.
100. Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual-process model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology, 29, 1-28.
101. Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2009). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. Unpublished paper, Aarhus University.
102. Sniderman, P. M. (1993). The new look in public opinion research. In A. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 219-245). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
103. 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 (pp. 133-165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
104. Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1998). Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 289-317.
105. Stapel, D., Koomen, W., & Zeelenberg, M. (1998). The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation, comparison, and correction processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 878-893.
106. Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Schwarz, N. (1988). Priming and communication: Social determinants of information use in judgments of life satisfaction. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 429-442.
107. Takemura, K. (1994). Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision. Journal of Psychology, 128, 33-39.
108. Tankard, J. W. Jr. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life (pp. 95-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
109. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
110. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1987). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In R. M. Hogarth & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Rational choice (pp. 67-94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
111. Van Buiten, M., & Keren, G. (2009). Speaker-listener incompatibility: Joint and separate processing in risky choice framing. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 106-115.
112. Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 539-570.
113. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.