Abstract

Framing is a communications theory that involves the presentation of issues from a variety of perspectives that highlight some aspects of the communication and diminish the importance of others. Framing was first conceptualized in 1972 and the literature has grown exponentially in the following years. Framing research is divided into subfields including media framing and individual framing; previous researchers have conceptualized and measured a wide variety of frames including: equivalency frames, emphasis frames, semantic frames, and story frames. Even though it was first conceptualized almost 50 years ago, frame theory remains relevant and applicable to public relations today.

Framing Theory: An Overview and Application

Sally Susie of Sally Susie Realty walked into her client’s apartment. She was dismayed to find that there was barely room to turn around; she thought, “How in the heck am I going to sell this?” The next day she brought a client to visit the listing. As soon as the potential buyer walked in, they remarked on how cramped it was. Sally replied, “Ohh, really? I think it’s quite cozy. Imagine how romantic it would be with some Christmas lights and white curtains! Look at how great this view is.” Sally cut the deal the next day. What allowed Sally to close the deal? Her adept use of framing. Framing theory, is a communications theory that proposes issues and products can be presented via different “frames” or structures that make the issue or product appear better or worse. In this case, Sally Susie focused on the positive attributes of the apartment while glossing over the negative attributes. The study of framing is divided into audience and media frames and there are a wide variety of frames the serve different purposes including equivalency frames, emphasis frames, semantic frames, and story frames. While framing theory was first conceptualized almost 50 years ago, the theory remains useful and applicable today as researchers continue to study various frames and public relations professionals implement frames in campaigns.

Framing theory proposes that issues can be presented from different “frames” that highlight some aspects of the communication and diminish others, leading individuals to interpret the communication in a certain way. Framing theory is similar to agenda setting theory; researchers have argued that framing is a mere extension of agenda setting theory (Park & Zhang, 2012). Both communications theories focus on media portrayal of issues. However, the theories differ because agenda setting theory centers on communicators choosing what is communicated while framing theory goes beyond this looking at how the information is communicated.

Anthropologist, Gregory Bateson is credited with first conceptualizing framing theory. Bateson  introduced framing as “the idea that the same content may be differently understood in the context of different relational cues” (Jorgenson & Steier, 2013). Erving Goffman, a contemporary of Gregory Bateson,  also was an early researcher of framing theory. Goffman defined frames as “schemata of interpretation” (1974). More recent research on framing divides research into media and individual frames. Media frame research focuses on “attributes of the news itself” while individual frames focus on “information-processing schemata” (Jorgenson & Steier, 2013). Scheufele (1991) presented the following conceptual model to visualize framing theory:

This model takes into account both the media frame and the individual frame and shows how the two are related. It specifically visualizes the cycle of media frame and individual frame interaction. The diagram highlights factors that may influence the creation of media frames such as organizational pressures, ideologies, attitudes, other elites, etc. Once the media frame is set, it becomes an audience frame and the individual-level effects of framing influence the attributions of responsibility, attitudes, behaviors, etc. of the audience. These individual effects continue the cycle and go on to impact “journalists as audiences” and the factors that lead to frame building.

The literature surrounding framing theory is disjointed as many researchers have conceptualized their own types of frames. Because of this a wide variety of frames have been created and researched including: equivalency frames, emphasis frames, semantic frames, and story frames (Hallahan, 1999). Equivalency framing involves, “different presentations of essentially the same information [that] can have an impact on people’s choices” (Borah, 2011). This theory could be applied to the media’s coverage of the pandemic. They could frame the issue of pandemic related deaths as “X people died of the corona virus” or  “X people survived the corona virus”. Recipients of the first communication may view the pandemic to be more deadly than recipients of the latter communication even though the messages essentially communicate the same information because of how the communication is framed.

Emphasis framing involves highlighting or stressing certain points of a communication rather than others (Borah, 2011). For example a politician may highlight certain features of a bill to their constituents and gloss over others. Semantic framing involves the “simple alternative phrasing of terms” (Hallan, 1999). A communicator engaging in semantic framing will pay close attention to word choice. One recent example includes media coverage of Amazon stealing employee tips. The New York Times framed this story as “Amazon to Pay Fine for Withholding Tips From Delivery Drivers” (Kang, 2021). According to Borah, storytelling framing involves “selecting key themes that are the focus of the message and incorporating a variety of storytelling or narrative techniques that support that theme” (2011). This may be applied to the current impeachment trial. The impeachment managers selected the theme of “inciting violence and putting democracy at risk”. All of their communication regarding the impeachment focuses on the theme of inciting violence; they are framing what former president Trump said in this way to support the theme.

While framing theory was first conceptualized nearly 50 years ago, it remains a useful tool for public relations practitioners. Storytelling plays a large role in the life of public relations professionals. This may be the cause or the effect of the revolving door between public relations and journalism. Storytelling and framing can be utilized anytime public relations professionals want to convey information in a certain light; they can use framing to represent their client or brand in the best way possible. Nike and the American Health Association are just two of the many brands that utilized framing in their campaigns.

Nike utilized framing in their “Dream Crazy” campaign with Colin Kaepernick. In August 2016, Colin Kaepernick refused to stand for the American National Anthem because of the nation’s racist and oppressive relationship with the Black community. Kaepernick faced criticism from within the NFL, the general public, and even President Trump who called Kaepernick “unpatriotic”. Kaepernick has not played for an NFL team since the season he kneeled during the National Anthem and continues to be a free agent today. With animosity coming at Kaepernick from all directions, no team would touch him. Nike faced this adversity head on and made Kaepernick the face of their 2018 “Dream Crazy” campaign. They framed Kaepernick as a social justice leader instead of “anti-American”. Kaepernick voices over clips of athletes from diverse backgrounds overcoming immense odds and Kaepernick dares viewers to “Believe in something even if it means sacrificing everything” (“Nike/ Dream Crazy (United States,” 2012). By framing Kaepernick as a social justice leader, Nike presented Kaepernick in a good light and positioned their brand as supportive of social justice.

Framing has also been used by the American Health Association in their communications to encourage mask wearing. The American Health Association utilized three different frames in their mask wearing campaign: a public health frame, a return to normalcy frame, and a protecting your friends and loved ones frame.  The public health frame focused on the message “Wear your mask to stop the spread” (“Wear a Mask Campaign”).  While this message may have been effective with audiences concerned about the public good, it may not have been effective with those who feel that they don’t have skin in the public health game. Because of this, the American Health Association also utilized frames including a return to normalcy frame and protecting your loved ones frame. Both of these frames put something at stake for non-mask wearers. The return to normalcy frame focused on messaging with phrases like “For the love of X (birthday parties, live music, coffee with mom, etc.), wear a mask” (“Wear a Mask Campaign”). In addition to framing mask wearing as stopping the spread of the virus or the protection of the mask wearer, the American Health Association, framed the issue of mask wearing as protecting loved ones. They implemented this frame in their “For all the ___” campaign that encouraged social media users to share who they are wearing a mask for (“Wear a Mask Campaign”). Through the use of different frames for the same message, “wear a mask,” the American Health Association was able to appeal to a variety of audiences.

Nike and the American Health Association are just two of the many groups that engage in framing to paint their client, product, or issue in the best light. Framing theory grew exponentially since it’s conception nearly 50 years ago. Frame theory researchers have conceptualized a wide variety of frames including: equivalency frames, emphasis frames, semantic frames, and story frames. Both communication researchers and public relations professionals continue to utilize framing theory today.

References

Borah, P. (2011). Conceptual Issues in Framing Theory: A Systematic Examination of a Decade’s Literature. Journal of Communication, 61(2). doi:https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Norwich: Fletcher & Son.

Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven Models of Framing: Implications for Public Relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(3). doi:https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1207/s1532754xjprr1103_02

Jorgenson, J., & Steier, F. (2013). Frames, Framing, and Designed Conversational Processes:

Lessons From the World Café. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(3), 388–405. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313484511

Kang, C. (2021, February 02). Amazon agrees to $62 million settlement for WITHHOLDING tips to delivery drivers. Retrieved February 10, 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/02/business/amazon-tips.html

Nike/ Dream Crazy (United States) [Video file]. (2018, November 12). Retrieved from https://youtu.be/WW2yKSt2C_A

Park, S.-Y., Holody, K. J., & Zhang, X. (2012). Race in Media Coverage of School Shootings: A Parallel Application of Framing Theory and Attribute Agenda Setting. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(3), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699012448873

Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a Theory of Media Effects. Journal of Communication, 49(Winter), 103-122. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x

Wear a mask campaign: AHA. (n.d.). Retrieved February 11, 2021, from https://www.aha.org/wearamask