Identifying frames in political news

The Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 238-267

  Chong, Dennis ^a   Druckman, James N ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925804387     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203938669     Document Type: Chapter

References (109)

1. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2. Althaus, S., Edy, J. A., & Phalen, P. (2001). Differences in knowledge acquisition among readers of the paper and online versions of a national newspaper. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 457–479.
3. Arceneaux, K. (2008). Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments. Unpublished manuscript. Temple University, Philadelphia PA.
4. Arnold, R. D., Graetz, M. J., & Munnell, A. H. (1998). Framing the Social Security debate: Values, politics, and economics. Washington, DC: National Academy of Social Insurance Conference.
5. Bartels, L. M. (2005). Homer gets a tax cut: Inequality and public policy in the American mind. Perspectives on Politics, 3(1), 15–31.
6. 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.
7. Berinsky, A. J., & Kinder, D. R. (2006). Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics, 68(3), 640–656.
8. Boydstun, A. E. (2006). Agenda-setting and issue-framing dynamics in front-page news. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA.
9. Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(2), 173–201.
10. Brewer, P. R., Graf, J., & Willnat, L. (2003). Priming or framing: Media influence on attitudes toward foreign countries. International Journal for Communication Studies, 65(6), 493–508.
11. Brewer, P. R., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929–948.
12. Brewer, P. R., & Sigelman, L. (2002). Political scientists as color commentators: Framing and expert commentary in media campaign coverage. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(1), 23–35.
13. Cappella, J. N., & Jamieson, K. H. (1997). Spiral of cynicism: The press and the public good. New York: Oxford University Press.
14. Carmines, E. G., & Layman, G. C. (1997). Issue evolution in postwar American politics: Old certainties and fresh tensions. In B. E. Shafer (Ed.), Present discontents: American politics in the very late twentieth century (pp. 89–134). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.
15. Carragee, K. M., & Roefs, W. (2004). The neglect of power in recent framing research. Journal of Communication, 54(2), 214–233.
16. Chong, D. (2006). Free speech and multiculturalism in and out of the academy. Political Psychology, 27(1), 29–54.
17. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99–118.
18. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.
19. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007c). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126.
20. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (in press). Dynamic public opinion. Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review.
21. Cook, F. L. (2005). Navigating pension policy in the United States: From the politics of consensus to the politics of dissensus about Social Security. Tocqueville Review, 26(2), 37–66.
22. de Vreese, C. H. (2004). Primed by the Euro: The impact of a referendum campaign on public opinion and evaluations of government and political leaders. Scandinavian Political Studies 27(1), 45–65.
23. de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal, 13, 51–62.
24. de Vreese, C. H., Peter, J., & Semetko, H. A. (2001). Framing politics at the launch of the euro: A crossnational comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication, 18(2), 107–122.
25. Delgado, R. (1982). Words that wound: A tort action for racial insults, epithets and name calling. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 17, 133–181.
26. Delgado, R. (1991). Campus antiracism rules: Constitutional narratives in collision. Northwestern University Law Review, 85(2), 343–387.
27. 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. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 10(1), 22–44.
28. Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Wackman, D. B. (1998). “Moral referendums”: Values, news media, and the process of candidate choice. Political Communication, 15, 301–321.
29. Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. The Public Interest, 28, 38–50.
30. Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256.
31. Druckman, J. N., Jacobs, L. R., & Ostermeier, E. (2004). Candidate strategies to prime issues and image. Journal of Politics, 66(4), 1205–1227.
32. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2005). Mind, will, and choice: Lessons from experiments in contextual variation. In C. Tilly & R. E. Goodin (Eds.), The Oxford handbook on contextual political analysis (pp. 97–113). Oxford University Press.
33. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745.
34. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
35. Edy, J. A., Althaus, S., & Phalen, P. (2005). Using news abstracts to represent news agendas. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(2), 434–446.
36. Edy, J. A., & Meirick, P. C. (2007). Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57, 119–141.
37. Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Entman, R. M. (2007). Framing bias: Media in the distribution of power. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 163–173.
39. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 268–307.
40. Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2005). Campaign frames: Can candidates influence media coverage? In K. Callaghan & F. Schnell (Eds.), Framing American politics (pp. 54–75). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
41. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. Braungart (Ed.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137–177). Greenwich: JAI Press.
43. 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.
44. Geer, J. G. (2006). In defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45. Gershkoff, A., & Kushner, S. (2005). Shaping public opinion: The 9/11-Iraq connection in the Bush administration’s rhetoric. Perspectives on Politics, 3, 525–537.
46. Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47. Grant, J. T., & Rudolph, T. J. (2003). Value conflict, group affect, and the issue of campaign finance. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 453–469.
48. Gross, K., & Goldman, S. (2005). Framing hate: A comparison of media coverage of anti-gay hate crime in the Washington Post, New York Times and Washington Blade. Unpublished manuscript. George Washington University, Washington DC.
49. Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2005). Off center: The Republican revolution and the erosion of American democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
50. Hansen, K. M. (2007). The sophisticated public: The effect of competing frames on public opinion. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(3), 377–396.
51. Hopkins, D. & King, G. (2007). Extracting systematic social science meaning from text. Unpublished manuscript. Center for the Study of American Politics, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
52. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
54. Jackman, S., & Sniderman, P. M. (2006). The limits of deliberative discussion: A model of everyday political arguments. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 272–283.
55. Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 750–767.
56. Jerit, J. (2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior, 30(1), 1–24.
57. Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). A model of choice for public policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 325–351.
58. Kellstedt, P. M. (2000). Media framing and the dynamics of racial policy preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 239–255.
59. Kellstedt, P. M. (2003). The mass media and the dynamics of American racial attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
60. Kellstedt, P. M. (2005). Media frames, core values, and the dynamics of racial policy preferences. In K. Callaghan & F. Schnell (Eds.), Framing American politics (pp. 167–178). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
61. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62. Laakso, M., & Taagepera, R. (1979). Effective number of parties: A measure with application to West Europe. Comparative Political Science, 12(1), 3–27.
63. Lau, R. R. (1989). Construct accessibility and electoral choice. Political Behavior, 11(1), 5–32.
64. Lawrence, R. G. (2004). Framing obesity: The evolution of news discourse on a public health issue. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(3), 56–75.
65. Lijphart, A. (1994). Electoral systems and party systems: A study of twenty-seven democracies, 1945–1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
66. MacKinnon, C. A. (1993). Only words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
67. Matsuda, M. J. (1989). Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim’s story. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2320–2381.
68. Messaris, P., & Abraham, L. (2001). The role of images in framing news stories. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 215–226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
69. Miller, M. M., & Riechert, B. P. (2001). The spiral of opportunity and frame resonance: Mapping the issue cycle in news and public discourse. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 107–121). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
70. Molinar, J. (1991). Counting the number of parties: An alternative index. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1383–1391.
71. Morowitz, H., Hazen, R., & Trefil, J. (2005, September 2). Intelligent design has no place in the science curriculum. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B6.
72. Mueller, J. E. (1973). War, presidents, and public opinion. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
73. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040–1067.
74. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221–246.
75. Neuendorf, K. A. (2001). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
76. Nicholson, S. P., & Howard, R. M. (2003). Framing support for the Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore. Journal of Politics, 65(3), 676–695.
77. Nisbet, M. C., Brossard D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70.
78. O’Keefe, D. J. (1999). How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Communication Yearbook, 22, 209–249.
79. O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
80. Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1997). Talk show exposure as an opinion activity. Political Communication, 14(3), 371–388.
81. Patterson, T. E. (1993). Out of order. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
82. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
83. Petersen, M. B. (2008). Causes of political affect: Investigating the interaction between political cognitions and evolved emotions. Unpublished manuscript. University of Aarhus, Denmark.
84. Porto, M. P. (2007). Framing controversies: Television and the 2002 presidential election in Brazil. Political Communication, 24(1), 19–36.
85. Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69(2), 179–212.
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. Rae, D. W. (1971). The political consequences of electoral laws. New Haven: Yale University Press.
88. Rahn, W. M., Aldrich, J. H, & Borgida, E. (1994). Individual and contextual variations in political candidate appraisal. American Journal of Political Science, 88, 193–199.
89. Richardson, J. D., & Lancendorfer, K. M. (2004). Framing affirmative action: The influence of race on newspaper editorial responses to the University of Michigan cases. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(4), 74–94.
90. Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (1998). Analyzing media messages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
91. Riker, W. H. (1990). Heresthetic and rhetoric in the spatial model. In J. Enelow & M. Hinich (Eds.), Advances in the spatial theory of voting (pp. 46–65). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
92. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.
93. Schnell, F., & Callaghan, K. (2005). Terrorism, media frames, and framing effects: A macro- and microlevel analysis. In K. Callaghan & F. Schnell (Eds.), Framing American politics (pp. 123–147). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
94. Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2006). Between risk and opportunity: News framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of Communication, 21(1), 5–32.
95. Schudson, M. (1995). The power of news. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96. Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.
97. Shah, D. V., Watts, M. D., Domke, D., & Fan, D. P. (2002). News framing and cueing of issue regimes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(3), 339–370.
98. Shen, F., & Edwards, H. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A valuebased account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55, 795–809.
99. Simon, A. F., & Xenos, M. (2004). Dimensional reduction of word-frequency data as a substitute for intersubjective content analysis. Political Analysis, 12(1), 63–75.
100. Sniderman, P. M. (1993). The new look in public opinion research. In A. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 219–246). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
101. 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.
102. Tankard J. W. Jr. (2001). The empirical approach to the study of media framing. In S. D. Reese, O. H. Gandy Jr., & A. E. Grant (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspectives on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 95–106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
103. Tewksbury, D., Jones, J., Peske, M. W., Raymond, A., & Vig, W. (2000). The interaction of news and advocate frames: Manipulating audience perceptions of a local public policy issue. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 804–829.
104. Tuchman, G. (1978). Making news: A study in the construction of reality. New York: Free Press.
105. Walsh, K. C. (2004). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in American life. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
106. Wittman, D. A. (1995). The myth of democratic failure: Why political institutions are efficient. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
107. Woolley, J. T. (2000). Using media-based data in studies of politics. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 156–173.
108. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
109. Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17–78). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.