Theory of Framing
Katherine Diamond and Nick Allardyce
The Pennsylvania State University
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to explain the communications theory of framing and to explore how it is used in public relations. This will be accomplished through a discussion of academic definitions of framing, the history of the theory, and examples of its application in real public relations campaigns. By the end of the report, readers should have a full understanding of framing as a theory and a communications strategy.
Introduction
Communications is the art of crafting messages that will be impactful to an audience and motivate them to perform a particular action. In order for a message to be successful, it must reach its target audience on a personal level, emphasizing beliefs they already have to support and justify the new information being shared. This is accomplished through framing, which is the crafted manner in which a story is written. More specifically, frames organize the ideas we are confronted with, adding meaning to a series of events and creating a moral hierarchy of ideas. The two main types of frames that will be discussed in this paper are equivalency frames and emphasis frames. Equivalency frames use logically identical, but opposite, phrases to alter an individual’s perception of an issue. Emphasis frames, on the other hand, guide the individual to focus on a specific idea that relates to the issue at hand.
Description of Framing
Framing is a powerful strategy used in several fields including communications, psychology, behavioral economics, political science, and sociology. Framing can transform an old issue into a new, more relevant one by tailoring the argument towards the audience’s existing attitudes. “Attitude” in this case is the “weighted sum of a series of evaluative beliefs about [an] object” (Cacciatore, 2016, p. 105). For example, if a project benefits the economy while hurting the environment, someone’s attitude towards the project would rely on the relative weights of importance they assign to the economy versus the environment. Framing allows a communicator to help someone develop a full narrative around an issue or topic by tapping into their values, attitudes, and experiences.
Framing was first introduced to the field of sociology by Erving Goffman who, in 1974, described the theory as a way for people to interpret and classify the information they are faced with every day (Cacciatore, 2016). In 1981, psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky studied how the phrasing of a question would influence someone’s choices in a hypothetical life or death situation. Most participants chose to save 200 people (out of 600) instead of taking a risk with a 1 out of 3 chance that everyone would survive. However, when the framing of the first option was switched (400 people would die), most people chose to take the risk instead of choosing the option that would kill 400 people, even though both situations would have the same exact result. They discovered that “choices involving gains are often risk averse and choices involving losses are often risk taking,” even when the two options are identical (Kahneman, 1981, p. 453). Figure 1 shows how people’s values steadily increase as gains increase, but they are more displeased with losses than they are pleased with gains, causing the left side of the graph to drop so quickly. Kahneman and Tversky also found that the framing of a situation can some
times affect the experience of the outcome. They explained that “the experience of a change for the worse may vary if the change is framed as an uncompensated loss or as a cost incurred to achieve some benefit” (Kahneman, 1981, 458).
Since the theory’s origin, two distinct categories of frames have been developed and frequently used in the field of communications. They are known as equivalency frames and emphasis frames. Equivalency frames present the same idea in different ways, causing individuals to change their preferences. One example is the Kahneman and Tversky’s study discussed previously. Another example given by Cacciatore (2016, p. 114) is one that many people encounter on a regular basis: “97% fat-free” versus “3% fat.” Although these two statements convey the same information, they will affect an audience very differently. The use of one statement over the other will orient the audience towards a specific consideration and will influence the story that they tell themselves about the product. The product labeled “97% fat-free” will most likely be seen as “healthy” in the eye of the consumer, because people often view “fat” as “unhealthy” and therefore look for items that are “fat-free.” The statement “3% fat” means the exact same thing, but the phrase will serve to remind the consumer of the unhealthy aspects of the product, emphasizing the presence of fat and lowering the desire for that product.
Emphasis framing is based on the idea that people are not simply exposed to one frame of an issue, but instead, they are exposed to several competing frames. When confronted with conflicting frames, consumers choose the one that best aligns with their values and principles (Chong, 2007, p. 112). To benefit from this as a public relations professional, one could frame an organization or an idea in reference to a competitor or use a metaphor to relate it to a favorable idea. Two subsets of study exist to better understand emphasis framing are thematic framing, which places an idea or issue in a larger context to tell a story, and episodic framing, which focuses on a single idea or issue, separate from its context.
For emphasis framing to work, an idea must be stored in a person’s memory and be available as well as accessible for retrieval and use. However, not all beliefs and opinions are accessible at any given moment because “only some are strong enough to be judged relevant or applicable to the subject at hand” (Cacciatore, 2016, p. 111). It is the job of the communicator to use a frame that is already top-of-mind in their target audience. Frames make an issue more noticeable, meaningful, or memorable to audiences and increase the likelihood that consumers will process the meaning of the information and store it in their memory. However, if the frame in question does not match the existing schema of the consumer, there will be no effect. This means that public relations professionals must research the values that are most important to the public they are trying to reach.
Strong frames usually rely on an audience’s critical analysis of symbols, endorsements, existing biases, and ideologies to discover something for themselves instead of telling them information directly (Chong, 2007, p. 111). When the message guides the consumer to a particular realm of thinking while still leaving room for interpretation, it will have a stronger impact because the consumer will relate it to previous experiences and feelings, making it a more personal connection. The goal of framing is to make the consumer categorize a new message within an existing framework in their mind. Figure 2 shows how the attitudes and behaviors of the audience influence the media who in turn builds frames of their own and relays them back to the public, making their internal frames even stronger for when the cycle repeats.
Many scholars believe framing is not entirely separate from other communications theories such as priming, agenda-setting, and persuasion because they all rely on the same basic social phenomenon. Chong thinks the effects of framing and priming are so similar that the two terms should be used interchangeably (2007, p. 126). Cacciatore believes that there is not enough consistency in the types of framing categories that exist, so researchers should “abandon the general term ‘framing’ as a catch-all phrase for a number of distinct media effects models and replace it with the more precise terminological distinction between equivalence and emphasis framing” (2016, p. 23).
Application in PR
Framing is used so frequently in strategic communications that oftentimes the message receivers are not aware that they are experiencing it. People around the world will always view neutral scenarios from completely different perspectives. As a result, they will all have very diverse interpretations of the meanings of the messages. Public relations professionals can alter that neutral scenario to be framed in a specific way that would influence the audience to see it from a specific viewpoint. Framing applies to all forms of communication and is utilized heavily in public relations to sway the audience’s attitudes about a company, product or celebrity.
Framing can be applied in public relations from small interactions such as sending a single tweet from a brand account to larger ones like conducting a worldwide campaign. Every successful campaign starts with a deep understanding of the audience so the message can be tailored directly to their beliefs and values to maximize the effect of the campaign. Presenting a message with the right framing, regardless of the scale of the scenario, is a major factor that can drastically change the outcome of a campaign. A campaign can be equipped with spectacular research, strategy, audience analysis, objectives, and tactics; but if the framing of the message is wrong, it will not have the same impact on the audience and all that hard work would go to waste.
A campaign that relied heavily on framing was Donald Trump’s campaign for President in 2016. He utilized the slogan “Make America Great Again,” which framed his candidacy as a solution to the problems other presidents have caused in this country. By saying “great again,” the slogan implies that the country used to be great, but something has changed and he will fix it so America is superior once again. No matter what political stance you hold, almost every American wants what is best for the country as a whole. Trump’s campaign was framed to focus on something almost every American citizen has in common which is nationwide prosperity. “Make America Great Again” frames all of Trump’s ideas as positive for the country. It steered the mindset of people away from each individual policy and instead at Trump’s entire platform as a savior for the American people. Looking at that slogan with no other context such as policies or beliefs of the candidate, it is an easy slogan to stand behind because it taps into similar feelings as “the American dream” that so many people hold dear. This campaign used emphasis framing to guide voters to contextualize Trump’s policies within a larger political environment. That message was then spread every time a story was written about Trump. Trump and “MAGA” became synonymous, which led to an extremely successful campaign that framed a vote for Trump as a vote for a better America.
The Burger King “WhoppHer” campaign is another campaign that framed its messaging to target a very specific audience and gain favorable public opinion in the general audience. On June 24, 2018, women in Saudi Arabia were finally able to get behind the wheel of a car because the ban that limited this freedom was lifted. Burger King used this historical event to frame their campaign and reach a new audience. The campaign awarded a free Whopper to every Saudi Arabian woman who was in the driver’s seat at a Burger King drive-thru. The burger had custom wrapping that said “WhoppHER” to differentiate it from a traditional Whopper. The campaign offered an experience, not just a product. Women who had been legally banned from operating a vehicle could now take a car to the closest Burger King and get themselves a treat to celebrate their freedoms as women. This campaign was targeted towards Saudi Arabian women who can drive for the first time, but it also gained national attention, framing Burger King as a company that cares about women’s rights on a global scale. The framing was to attract new women drivers in by allowing them to claim their free burger in celebration of finally being allowed to drive by law in Saudi Arabia, but the results of the feminist and political frame helped Burger King set itself apart from competitors who do not invest themselves in global political matters.
Conclusion
Framing is a powerful strategy in communications that allows public relations professionals to craft an impactful story that motivates the audience to react in a specific way towards a business or product. As a public relations professional, the theory of framing can help you decide which information to include in a pitch or a campaign. A PR campaign’s success relies on the ability to frame a message that resonates with the desired audience. If a message is neutral or poorly framed it allows the audience to form their own convictions that may not follow your story or align with your brand image.
References
Cacciatore, M. A., Iyengar, S., & Scheufele, D. A. (2016). The End of Framing as we Know it … and the Future of Media Effects, Mass Communication and Society. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103-126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. https://doi-org.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A., (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683