Pembingkaian

Dalam ilmu sosial, framing atau "pembingkaian" terdiri atas serangkaian sudut pandang konsep dan teoretis tentang bagaimana individu, kelompok, dan organisasi masyarakat melihat dan menyampaikan kenyataan.

Framing dapat terwujud dalam komunikasi atau pikiran antarpribadi. Frame-frame dalam pikiran terdiri atas penggambaran, interpretasi, dan penyederhanaan kenyataan. Frame-frame dalam komunikasi terdiri atas penyampaian frame di antara para pelaku yang berbeda. Framing adalah komponen kunci sosiologi, kajian tentang interaksi sosial di antara para manusia. Framing adalah bagian utuh dari pemrosesan dan penyampaian data dalam keseharian. Teknik-teknik sukses framing dapat digunakan untuk mengurangi ambiguitas topik-topik yang tidak dapat dipahami dengan menghubungkan informasi sedemikian rupa sehingga para penerimanya dapat terhubung dengan apa yang sudah mereka ketahui.

Dalam teori sosial, framing adalah skema interpretasi, sekumpulan anekdot dan stereotipe yang diandalkan oleh para individu untuk memahami dan merespons sebuah peristiwa. Dengan kata lain, orang-orang membangun "filter-filter" serangkaian kejiwaan melalui pengaruh kebudayaan dan biologis. Kemudian, mereka menggunakan filter-filter ini untuk memahami dunia. Pilihan-pilihan yang kemudian mereka buat dipengaruhi oleh penciptaan frame mereka.

Framing melibatkan konstruksi sosial dari fenomena sosial – oleh sumber-sumber media massa, pergerakan-pergerakan sosial atau politik, para pemimpin politik, atau organisasi dan para pelaku lainnya. Keterlibatan dalam komunitas bahasa tentunya memengaruhi persepsi individu mengenai makna yang dikaitkan dengan kata atau frasa. Secara politik, komunitas-komunitas bahasa periklanan, agama, dan media massa banyak diperebutkan, sedangkan framing dalam komunitas bahasa yang kurang dipertahankan mungkin berkembangtanpa terasa dan secara alami melalui kerangka-kerangka waktu kultural, dengan lebih sedikit bentuk-bentuk perdebatan terbuka.

Seseorang dapat memandang framing dalam komunikasi sebagai hal positif atau negatif tergantung pada hadirin dan jenis informasi yang disajikan. Framing dapat berada dalam bentuk emphasis frames, di mana dua atau lebih alternatif ekuivalen secara logis digambarkan dalam cara-cara (lihat framing effect) atau emphasis frames berbeda yang menyederhanakan kenyataan dengan berfokus pada himpunan bagian aspek-aspek relevan dari suatu situasi atau permasalahan. Dalam kasus equivalence frames, informasi yang dihadirkan berdasarkan fakta-fakta yang sama, tetapi kerangka yang tempat ia disajikan berubah sehingga menciptakan persepsi yang bergantung pada referensi.

Dampak framing dapat terlihat dalam jurnalisme: "frame" yang mengelilingi permasalahan dapat mengubah persepsi pembaca tanpa perlu mengubah fakta sebenarnya karena informasi yang sama digunakan sebagai dasarnya. Ini dilakukan melalui pilihan gambar-gambar dan kata-kata tertentu media untuk menutupi sebuah cerita (misalnya penggunaan kata fetus vs. kata bayi). Dalam konteks politik atau komunikasi media-massa, frame menjelaskan pengemasan elemen retorik sedemikian rupa seperti untuk mendorong tafsiran tertentu dan untuk mengecilkan hati orang lain. Untuk tujuan politik, framing sering menyajikan fakta-fakta sedemikian rupa yang mengimplikasikan masalah yang memerlukan solusi. Para anggota partai politik berupaya untuk membingkai permasalahan sedemikian rupa sehingga membuat solusi untuk mendukung kecenderungan politik mereka sebagai tindakan yang paling tepat untuk situasi yang dihadapi.

Sebagai contoh: Saat kita ingin menjelaskan suatu peristiwa, pemahaman kita sering berdasarkan pada tafsiran (frame). Jika seseorang membuka dan menutup mata dengan cepat, kita menanggapi secara berbeda tergantung pada apakah kita menafsirkannya sebagai "physical frame" (mereka mengerjapkan mata) atau "social frame" (mereka berkedip). Mereka mengerjapkan mata mungkin karena butiran debu (menghasilkan ketidaksengajaan dan bukan reaksi berarti lainnya). Mereka berkedip mungkin dapat berarti tindakan sengaja dan penuh arti (misalnya untuk menyampaikan humor hingga persekongkolan).

Para pengamat akan membaca peristiwa-peristiwa yang dilihat sebagai murni fisik atau dalam bingkai "alam" berbeda dari yang dilihat terjadi dengan frame-frame sosial. Namun, kita tidak melihat sebuah peristiwa dan menerapkan frame kepada peristiwa tersebut. Sebaliknya, para individu terus-menerus memproyeksikan frame interpretatif ke dunia sekitar mereka yang memungkinkan mereka untuk memahaminya; kita hanya menggeser frame-frame (atau menyadari kalau kita telah menerapkan frame secara kebiasaan) saat keganjilan membutuhkan pergeseran frame. Dengan kata lain, kita hanya menyadari frame-frame yang telah kita gunakan saat sesuatu memaksa kita untuk mengganti suatu frame dengan frame lainnya.

Meskipun beberapa menganggap framing sama dengan agenda setting, para ilmuwan lain menyatakan adanya perbedaan. Menurut artikel yang ditulis Donald H. Weaver, framing menyeleksi aspek-aspek tertentu dari permasalahan dan membuatnya lebih menonjol untuk memperoleh interpretasi tertentu dan penilaian-penilaian masalah, sedangkan agenda setting mengenalkan topik masalah untuk meningkatkan arti penting dan keterkaitannya.

Efek-efek framing dalam penelitian komunikasi

Dalam komunikasi, framing menggambarkan bagaimana media berita membentuk opini publik.

Tulisan Richard E. Vatz tentang penciptaan makna retoris secara langsung mengarah kepada framing, walaupun beliau hanya merujuknya sedikit. Intinya, pengaruh-pengaruh framing mengacu pada strategi-strategi sikap atau perilaku dan/untuk hasil yang ada tergantung bagaimana potongan informasi yang diberikan dibingkai dalam wacana publik. Dewasa ini, banyak volume jurnal-jurnal komunikasi ternama berisi naskah-naskah tentang frame media dan pengaruh-pengaruh framing. Pendekatan-pendekatan yang digunakan dalam naskah-naskah tersebut secara umum dapat diklasifikasikan ke dalam dua kelompok: kajian framing sebagai variabel bebas dan kajian framing sebagai variabel terikat. Awalnya biasanya berurusan dengan frame building (yaitu bagaimana frame-frame menciptakan wacana masyarakat mengenai sebuah masalah dan bagaimana frame-frame yang berbeda diangkat oleh para jurnalis) dan kemudian mengulas frame setting (yaitu bagaimana media framing memengaruhi pemirsa).

Frame building

Penelitian frame-building biasanya mengenali setidaknya tiga rangkaian utama pengaruh yang dapat memengaruhi cara jurnalis membingkai suatu masalah:

• Sistemik (misalnya karakteristik media atau sistem politik dalam latar studi tertentu).
• Organisatoris (misalnya fitur organisasi media seperti orientasi politik, rutinitas profesional, hubungan dengan pemerintah dan para elit, dan sebagainya).
• Temporal-kontekstual (misalnya berlalunya waktu setelah peristiwa menggemparkan).

Erving Goffman menekankan peran konteks budaya sebagai pembentuk frame-frame saat beliau mengemukakan bahwa maksud frame mengandung akar-akar budaya.Ketergantungan konteks frame-frame media ini telah digambarkan sebagai 'resonansi budaya' atau 'kesetiaan naratif'. Sebagai contoh, kebanyakan orang mungkin tidak menyadari frame dalam kisah-kisah tentang pemisahan gereja dan negara karena umumnya media tidak membingkai kisah-kisah tersebut dari sudut pandang agama.

Frame setting

Saat masyarakat dihadapkan pada bingkai berita baru, mereka akan menerima konstruksi yang dibuat berlaku untuk sebuah masalah, tetapi secara signifikan mereka lebih mungkin untuk melakukannya saat mereka memiliki skema yang ada untuk konstruksi tersebut. Inilah yang disebut efek penerapan. Artinya, ketika frame-frame baru mengundang orang untuk menerapkan skema yang ada pada masalah, implikasi dari penerapan itu sebagian bergantung pada apa yang ada di dalam skema tersebut. Oleh karena itu, secara umum, lebih banyak pendengar mengetahui tentang permasalahan, lebih efektif frame-frame tersebut.

Terdapat sejumlah level dan tipe pengaruh framing yang telah diteliti. Contohnya, para ilmuwan berfokus pada perubahan sikap dan tindakan, derajat kepentingan masalah yang dirasakan, keputusan pemungutan suara, dan pembentukan opini. Para ilmuwan lain tertarik pada proses-proses psikologis daripada penerapan. Misalnya, Iyengar mengungkapkan bahwa berita tentang permasalahan sosial dapat memengaruhi tanggung jawab atribusi kausal dan pengobatan, pengaruh yang diamati dalam penilaian-penilaian dan respons kognitif pemimpin politik, atau ilmuwan lain melihat kepada efek framing terhadap gaya pemrosesan penilaian dan kompleksitas pikiran anggota pendengar mengenai permasalahan. Kajian-kajian frame setting juga membahas bagaimana frame-frame dapat memengaruhi bagaimana seseorang berpikir tentang masalah (kognitif) atau merasakan masalah (afektif).

Dalam penelitian komunikasi massa

Media berita membingkai semua butir berita dengan menekankan nilai-nilai tertentu, fakta-fakta, dan pertimbangan lainnya dan memberikan mereka dengan penerapan nyata yang lebih besar untuk membuat keputusan-keputusan terkait. Media berita mendukung definisi, tafsiran, evaluasi, dan rekomendasi khusus.

Landasan dalam penelitian komunikasi

Anthropologis Gregory Bateson pertama kali mendefinisikan framing sebagai "ikatan spasial dan temporal dari serangkaian pesan-pesan interaktif" (dalam A Theory of Play and Fantasy, 1954, diproduksi kembali dalam buku Steps to an Ecology of Mind pada tahun 1972).

Sumber sosiologis penelitian media framing

Penelitian media framing mempunyai akar psikologis dan sosiologis. Framing sosiologis berfokus pada "kata-kata, gambar-gambar, frasa-frasa, dan gaya presentasi" yang digunakan para komunikator saat menyampaikan informasi kepada penerima. Penelitian frame-frame dalam penelitian media yang digerakkan secara sosiologis umumnya meneliti pengaruh "norma-norma dan nilai-nilai sosial, kendala-kendala dan tekanan-tekanan organisatoris, tekanan kelompok-kelompok kepentingan, rutinitas jurnalistik, dan orientasi-orientasi ideologis atau politis jurnalis" dalam frame-frame yang berada dalam konten media.

Todd Gitlin, dalam analisisnya tentang cara media berita meremehkan gerakan New Left siswa pada tahun 1960-an termasuk yang pertama meneliti frame-frame dari sudut pandang sosiologis. Gitlin menulis, frame-frame adalah "pola-pola tetap kognisi, tafsiran-tafsiran, dan presentasi pilihan [dan] menekankan ... [bahwa] sebagian besar tidak diucapkan dan diakui ... [dan] mengatur dunia bagi para jurnalis [serta] kami yang membaca pemberitaan mereka".

Sumber psikologis penelitian media framing

Penelitian tentang frame-frame dalam media penelitian berbasis psikologi umumnya menguji pengaruh-pengaruh frame-frame media terhadap mereka yang menerimanya. Sebagai contoh, Iyengar menjelajahi pengaruh episodik dan tematik frame-frame berita terhadap atribusi tanggung jawab untuk permasalahan politik termasuk kejahatan, terorisme, kemiskinan, pengangguran, dan ketidaksetaraan ras. Menurut Iyengar, frame berita episodik "mengambil bentuk studi kasus atau pemberitaan berorientasi acara dan menggambarkan permasalahan publik dalam ketentuan contoh-contoh konkret", dengan kata lain berfokus pada tempat spesifik dalam waktu khusus. Frame berita tematik "menempatkan permasalahan publik dalam beberapa konteks umum abstrak ... mengarah kepada hasil atau kondisi umum, contohnya menjelajahi kesamaan yang terjadi di sejumlah waktu dan tempat. Iyengar menemukan bahwa kebanyakan laporan berita, contohnya kemiskinan, adalah laporan berita episodik. Kenyataannya, pada analisis konten enam tahun berita televisi, Iyengar menemukan bahwa penonton berita biasa akan dua kali lebih mungkin menjumpai laporan berita episodik daripada laporan berita televisi tematik tentang kemiskinan.

Selanjutnya, hasil-hasil percobaan menunjukkan para pemirsa yang lebih dari dua kali menonton liputan berita episodik kemiskinan lebih mungkin mengaitkan tanggung jawab kemiskinan kepada masyarakat miskin itu sendiri alih-alih masyarakat umum daripada pemirsa yang menonton liputan berita tematik kemiskinan. Berkaitan dengan keunggulan framing episodik tentang kemiskinan, Iyengar memperdebatkan bahwa berita televisi mengalihkan tanggung jawab kemiskinan dari pemerintah dan masyarakat ke orang miskin itu sendiri. Setelah meneliti analisis konten dan data percobaan terhadap permasalahan politik dan kemiskinan, Iyengar menyimpulkan bahwa frame-frame berita episodik mengalihkan atribusi tanggung jawab politik warga negara dari masyarakat dan para elit politik, memungkinkan mereka lebih sedikit mendukung upaya-upaya pemerintah untuk mengatasi masalah-masalah itu dan mengaburkan hubungan-hubungan di antara permasalahan tersebut dan tindakan-tindakan resmi terpilih mereka atau kekurangannya.

Visual Framing

Visual framing mengacu pada proses penggunaan gambar-gambar untuk menggambarkan bagian-bagian tertentu dari kenyataan.

Visual dapat digunakan untuk mewujudkan makna di samping framing tekstual. Bentuk teks dan bentuk visual berfungsi paling baik secara bersamaan. Kemajuan dalam teknologi berbasis layar dan cetak telah menghasilkan penggabungan dua bentuk tersebut dalam penyebaran informasi. Karena tiap-tiap bentuk punya batasannya, mereka paling bagus digunakan bersama dan saling dikaitkan dalam membentuk makna.

Gambar-gambar lebih disukai daripada teks karena membutuhkan lebih sedikit muatan kognitif dan lebih sedikit membosankan daripada kata-kata. Dari sudut pandang psikologis, gambar-gambar mengaktifkan sel-sel saraf pada mata untuk mengirim informasi ke otak. Gambar-gambar juga memiliki nilai atraksi tinggi dan dapat membangkitkan daya tarik emosional yang lebih kuat. Dalam konteks framing, gambar-gambar dapat mengaburkan fakta-fakta dan permasalahan dalam usaha untuk membingkai informasi. Visual-visual terdiri dari alat-alat retoris seperti metafora, penggambaran, dan simbol-simbol untuk menggambarkan adegan atau konteks peristiwa secara grafis dalam upaya untuk membantu kita memahami lebih baik dunia di sekitar kita. Gambar-gambar dapat memiliki keterkaitan satu per satu antara apa yang ditangkap kamera dan representasinya di dunia nyata.

Bersamaan dengan meningkatkan pemahaman, visual juga dapat meningkatkan tingkat penyimpanan dannmembuat informasi lebih mudah untuk diingat. Karena sifat gambar yang seimbang, aturan-aturan tata bahasa tidak berlaku.

Menurut para peneliti, framing tercermin dalam empat model tingkata yang mengidentifikasi dan menganalisis frame-frame visual sebagai berikut: visual-visual sebagai sistem denotatif, visual-visual sebagai sistem semiotika-stilistika, visual-visual sebagai sistem konotatif, dan visual sebagai perwakilan ideologis.

Para peneliti berhati-hati agar tidak hanya mengandalkan gambar-gambar untuk memahami informasi. Karena gambar-gambar lebih banyak memegang kekuatan dan lebih terkait pada kenyataan, kita dapat mengabaikan potensi manipulasi dan pembabakan dan salah menganggap ini sebagai bukti.

Gambar-gambar dapat menjadi perwakilan ideologi dengan memastikan prinsip-prinsip dasar yang membentuk atribut-atribut dasar kita dengan mengombinasikan simbol dan fitur gaya gambar ke dalam proses penafsiran koheren.

Suatu penelitian menunjukkan visual framing menonjol dalam liputan berita, terutama dalam kaitannya terhadap politik. Gambar-gambar yang bermuatan emosi dipandang sebagai alat menonjol untuk membingkai pesan-pesan politik. Visual framing bisa menjadi efektif dengan menaruh penekanan dalam aspek spesifik sebuah masalah, taktik yang biasa digunakan dalam penggambaran berita konflik dan perang dikenal sebagai empathy framing. Visual framing yang memiliki daya tarik emosional bisa dibilang lebih menonjol.

Tipe framing ini dapat diterapkan ke konteks lain, termasuk atletik-atletik dalam kaitannya dengan disabilitas atletik. Visual framing dalam konteks ini dapat menafsirkan kembali sudut pandang tentang ketidakmampuan atletik dan fisik, suatu stereotipe media yang sudah ada sebelumnya.

Mengklarifikasi dan membedakan "paradigma retak"

Kemungkinan karena penggunaannya dalam lintas ilmu-ilmu sosial, frame telah ditetapkan dan digunakan dalam banyak cara yang terpisah. Entman menyebut framing "konseptualisasi yang menyebar" dan "paradigma retak" yang "sering ditetapkan secara begitu saja dengan banyak diserahkan kepada pemahaman diam-diam yang diasumsikan pembaca". Dalam upaya menyediakan lebih banyak kejelasan konseptual, Entman menunjukkan bahwa frame-frame "memilih beberapa aspek kenyataan yang dirasakan dan membuatnya lebih menonjol dalam teks berkomunikasi sedemikian rupa sehingga mendorong definisi masalah tertentu, penafsiran kausal, evaluasi moral, dan/atau rekomendasi perawatan untuk barang yang digambarkan". Konseptualisasi framing Entmanyang menyebutkan frame-frame bekerja dengan mengangkat potongan-potongan tertentu dalam arti penting, berada sejalur dengan penelitian awal tentang dasar-dasar psikologis framing effect (lihat juga Iyengar yang memperdebatkan jika aksesbilitas adalah penjelasan utama psikologis untuk keberadaan pengaruh-pengaruh framing). Wyer dan Srull menjelaskan susunan aksesibilitas sebagai berikut.

1. Orang-orang menyimpan potongan-potongan informasi yang berkaitan dalam "tempat penyimpanan referensi" dalam memori jangka panjang mereka.
2. Orang-orang mengatur "tempat penyimpanan referensi" sehingga lebih banyak potongan-potongan informasi yang sering dan baru-baru ini digunakan disimpan di bagian atas tempat penyimpanan tersebut. Jadi, potongan-potongan informasi tersebut lebih mudah diakses.
3. Karena orang-orang cenderung hanya mengambil secuil informasi dari memori jangka panjang saat membuat penilaian, mereka cenderung mengambil potongan-potongan yang paling mudah diakses untuk digunakan membuat penilaian-penilaian itu.

Argumen yang mendukung aksesibilitas sebagai proses psikologis yang mendasari dapat diringkas sebagai berikut: Karena masyarakat sangat mengandalkan media berita untuk informasi peristiwa-peristiwa publik, informasi yang paling mudah diakses tentang peristiwa-peristiwa publik sering hadir dari peristiwa-peristiwa publik yang mereka konsumsi. Argumen ini juga disebut sebagai dukungan dalam debat mengenai apakah framing harus dimasukkan oleh teori agenda-setting sebagai bagian level kedua dari agenda setting. McCombs dan para peneliti agenda-setting lainnya secara umum setuju jika framing harus digabungkan bersama priming, di bawah ruang lingkup agenda setting sebagai model kompleks efek-efek media yang menghubungkan produksi media, konten, dan efek-efek pemirsa. Tentu saja, McCombs, Llamas, Lopez-Escobar, dan Rey membenarkan percobaan mereka untuk menggabungkan penelitian framing dan agenda-setting dengan asumsi penghematan.

Namun, Scheufele membantah bahwa tak seperti agenda setting dan priming, framing tidak bersandar sepenuhnya terhadap aksesibilitas sehingga tidak tepat untuk menggabungkan framing dengan agenda seeting dan priming untuk kepentingan penghematan. Bukti-bukti empiris kelihatannya mempertahankan klaim Scheufele. Sebagai contohnya, Nelson, Clawson, dan Oxley secara empiris menunjukkan bahwa penerapan adalah kuncinya, alih-alih ciri khas. Mengukur aksesibilitas dalam ketentuan-ketentuan latensi jawaban-jawaban responden yang hasil-hasil informasinya lebih mudah diakses dalam waktu-waktu respons yang lebih cepat, Nelson, Clawson, dan Oxley menunjukkan bahwa aksesibilitas diperhitungkan hanya untuk proporsi kecil terhadap perubahan dalam efek-efek framing, sementara penerapan diperhitungkan untuk perubahan proporsi besar. Akan tetapi, menurut Nelson dan rekan-rekan, "frame-frame memengaruhi pendapat dengan menekan nilai-nilai spesifik, fakta-fakta, dan pertimbangan-pertimbangan lain, memberikannya dengan relevansi nyata yang lebih besar terhadap masalah daripada yang tampaknya mereka miliki di bawah frame alternatif."

Dengan kata lain, ketika penelitian awal mengesankan bahwa dengan menyoroti aspek-aspek tertentu permasalahan, frame membuat pertimbangan tertentu lebih mudah diakses dan lebih mungkin digunakan dalam proses penilaian, penelitian terkini mengesankan bahwa frame bekerja dengan membuat pertimbangan tertentu lebih mudah diterapkan dan lebih relevan pada proses penilaian.

Equivalency versus emphasis: dua tipe frame dalam penelitian media

Chong dan Druckman mengacu penelitian framing memiliki fokus utama pada dua tipe frame: equivalency frames dan emphasis frames. Equivalency frames mengesankan "frasa-frasa berbeda, tetapi ekuivalen secara logis", yang menyebabkan para individu mengubah pilihan mereka. Equivalency frames sering diucapkan dalam istilah-istilah "keuntungan" versus "kekalahan". Contohnya, Kahneman dan Tversky meminta para pemirsa memilih di antara dua tanggapan kebijakan "gain-framed" terhadap hipotesis wabah penyakit yang diperkirakan membunuh 600 orang. Respons A akan menyelamatkan 200 orang, Respons B memiliki sepertiga kemungkinan menyelamatkan semua orang, tetapi dua pertiga kemungkinan tidak menyelamatkan siapa-siapa. Para partisipan A sangat memilih Respons A yang dirasa lebih sedikit opsi berisikonya. Kahneman dan Tversky meminta para partisipan lain untuk memilih di antara dua respons kebijakan "loss-framed" ekuivalen terhadap wabah penyakit yang sama. Pada kondisi ini, Respons A akan membunuh 400 orang, Respons B memiliki sepertiga kemungkinan tidak membunuh siapa pun, tetapi dua pertiga kemungkinan membunuh semua orang. Walaupun pilihan-pilihan ini identik secara matematis dengan opsi yang diberikan dalam kondisi "gain-framed", para partisipan sangat memilih Respons B, opsi yang berisiko. Kemudian, Kahneman dan Tversky membuktikan bahwa saat diutarakan dalam istilah-istilah potential gains, masyarakat cenderung memilih opsi yang mereka rasa lebih sedikit risikonya (yaitu sure gain). Kebalikannya, saat dihadapkan dengan potential loss, masyarakat cenderung memilih opsi yang berisiko.

Tak seperti equivalency frames, emphasis frames mengesankan "pertimbangan yang berbeda secara kualitatif, tetapi relevan secara potensial" yang digunakan para individu untuk membuat penilaian. Perlu dicatat jika framing berbeda dengan agenda-setting. Emphasis framing mewakili perubahan dalam struktur komunikasi untuk membangkitkan skema kognitif tertentu. Agenda setting bergantung pada frekuensi atau keunggulan pesan-pesan permasalahan untuk memberi tahu masyarakat apa yang harus dipikirkan. Emphasis framing mengacu pada pengaruh struktur pesan dan agenda setting mengacu pada pengaruh kepentingan konten. Contohnya, Nelson, Clawson, dan Oxley menampakkan pada para partisipan berita yang menampilkan rencana Ku Klux Klan untuk menjalankan rapat. Para partisipan dalam suatu keadaan membaca berita yang membingkai isu tersebut dalam istilah masalah keamanan publik, sedangkan para partisipan dalam keadaan lain membaca berita yang membingkai isu tersebut dalam istilah pertimbangan kebebasan berbicara. Para peserta yang tertuju pada kondisi keamanan publik memandang penerapn keamanan publik untuk menentukan apakah Klan harus diperbolehkan untuk mengadakan rapat dan seperti yang diperkirakan, menunjukkan toleransi lebih rendah terhadap hak-hak Klan untuk mengadakan rapat. Namun, para partisipan yang tertuju pada kondisi kebebasan berbicara memandang penerapan kebebasan berbicara untuk memutuskan apakah Klan perlu diizinkan untuk mengadakan rapat, seperti yang diperkirakan, menunjukkan toleransi lebih besar terhadap hak-hak Klan untuk mengadakan rapat.

Framing Dalam Keuangan

Pembalikan preferensi dan fenomena terkait lainnya memiliki relevansi yang lebih luas dalam ekonomi perilaku karena bertentangan dengan prediksi pilihan rasional, dasar ekonomi tradisional. Framing biases memengaruhi keputusan investasi, peminjaman, membuat salah satu tema behavioral finance.

Framing dalam psikologi dan ekonomi

Daniel Kahneman

Artikel utama: Framing effect (psychology)

Amos Tversky dan Daniel Kahneman telah menunjukkan jika framing dapat sangat memengaruhi hasil akhir dari choice problems (yakni pilihan yang dibuat seseorang) sehingga sejumlah aksioma klasik dari pilihan rasional tidaklah benar. Hal ini mengarah kepada perkembangan teori prospek.

Konteks atau framing of problems diangkat oleh hasil-hasil pembuat keputusan dalam decision-makers results in part from extrinsic manipulation of the decision-options offered, as well as from forces intrinsic to decision-makers, e.g., their norms, kebiasaan-kebiasaan, and unique temperament.

Desmonstrasi eksperimental

Tversky dan Kahneman (1981) mendemonstrasikan secara sistematik saat masalah yang sama disajikan dalam cara-cara berbeda, misalnya pada masalah penyakit Asia. Para partisipan diminta untuk "membayangkan jika U.S. bersiap untuk wabah penyakit Asian tak biasa yang diperkirakan membunuh 600 orang. Dua program alternatif untuk melawan wabah penyakit telah diajukan. Simpulkan perkiraan ilmiah yang tepat dari konsekuensi program sebagai berikut."

Kelompok partisipan pertama disajikan dengan pilihan di antara program-program: Dalam kelompok 600 orang,

• Program A: "200 orang akan diselamatkan"
• Program B: "ada 1/3 kemungkinan bahwa 600 orang diselamatkan, dan 2/3 kemungkinan bahwa tak ada orang yang diselamatkan"

72 persen partisipan lebih memilih program A (28% sisanya memilih program B).

Grup partisipan kedua disajikan dengan pilihan sebagai berikut, yakni dalam kelompok 600 orang,

• Program C: "400 orang akan meninggal"
• Program D: "ada 1/3 kemungkinan tidak ada orang meninggal, dan 2/3 kemungkinan jika 600 orang akan meninggal"

Dalam frame keputusan ini, 78% lebih memilih program D, dengan 22% sisanya memilih program C.

Programs A dan C are identik, begitu pula program B dan D. Perubahan dalam frame penentuan di antara dua kelompok partisipan menghasilkan pembalikan preferensi: saat program-program disajikan dengan istilah penyelamatan nyawa, para partisipan lebih memilih program yang aman, A (= C). Saat program disajikan dalam istilah kematian yang diperkirakan, partisipan memilih risiko D (= B).

Pengaruh mutlak dan relatif

Pengaruh-pengaruh framing timbul karena seseorang dapat sering membingkai keputusan menggunakan banyak scenario yang which one may express benefits either as a relative risk reduction (RRR), atau sebagai absolute risk reduction (ARR). Kendai ekstrinsik terhadap perbedaan-perbedaan kognitif (antara risk tolerance dan reward anticipation) yang diangkat para pembuat keputusan dapat terjadi lewat mengubah presentasi relative risks dan absolute benefits.

Umumnya masyarakat lebih memilih keputusan mutlak yang melekat pada a positive framing-effect yang menawarkan jaminan perolehan. Saat opsi-opsi keputusan muncul dibingkai sebagai likely gain, pilihan-pilihan yang menolak risiko menonjol.

A shift toward risk-seeking behavior occurs when a decision-maker frames decisions in negative terms, or adopts a negative framing effect.

Dalam pembuatan keputusan medis, framing bias paling baik dihindari dengan menggunakan ukuran mutlak kemanjuran.

Penelitian frame-manipulation

Para peneliti menemukan bahwa masalah-masalah keputusan framing dalam sorotan positif umumnya menghasilkan pilihan yang lebih sedikit risikonya; dengan framing negatif permasalahan, cenderung lebih berisiko pilihannya.

Pada sebuah penelitian oleh para peneliti Dartmouth Medical School, 57% subjek memilih pengobatan saat disajikan dengan keuntungan-keuntungan dalam istilah-istilah relatif chose a medication when presented with benefits in relative terms, whereas only 14.7% chose a medication whose benefit appeared in absolute terms. Further questioning of the patients suggested that, because the subjects ignored the underlying risk of disease, they perceived benefits as greater when expressed in relative terms.

Model-model teoretis

Para peneliti telah mengajukan bermacam-macam model menjelaskan pengaruh framing:

• cognitive theories, such as the fuzzy-trace theory, attempt to explain the framing-effect by determining the amount of cognitive processing effort devoted to determining the value of potential gains and losses.
• prospect theory explains the framing-effect in functional terms, determined by preferences for differing perceived values, based on the assumption that people give a greater weighting to losses than to equivalent gains.
• motivational theories explain the framing-effect in terms of hedonic forces affecting individuals, such as fears and wishes—based on the notion that negative emotions evoked by potential losses usually out-weigh the emotions evoked by hypothetical gains.
• cognitive cost-benefit trade-off theory defines choice as a compromise between desires, either as a preference for a correct decision or a preference for minimized cognitive effort. This model, which dovetails elements of cognitive and motivational theories, postulates that calculating the value of a sure gain takes much less cognitive effort than that required to select a risky gain.

Neuroimaging

Cognitive neuroscientists have linked the framing effect to neural activity in the amygdala, and have identified another brain-region, the orbital and medial prefrontal cortex (OMPFC), that appears to moderate the role of emotion on decisions. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to monitor brain-activity during a financial decision-making task, they observed greater activity in the OMPFC of those research subjects less susceptible to the framing effect.

Dalam sosiologi

Teori framing dan analisis frame memberikan pendekatan teoretis luas yang telah digunakan analis dalam communication studies, news (Johnson-Cartee, 1995), politics, and social movements (among other applications).

Menurut Bert Klandermans, the "social construction of collective action frames" involves "public discourse, that is, the interface of media discourse and interpersonal interaction; persuasive communication during mobilization campaigns by movement organizations, their opponents and countermovement organizations; and consciousness raising during episodes of collective action".

Sejarah

Word-selection has been a component of rhetoric.

Most commentators attribute the concept of framing to the work of Erving Goffman on frame analysis and point to his 1974 book, Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Goffman used the idea of frames to label "schemata of interpretation" that allow individuals or groups "to locate, perceive, identify, and label" events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding actions. Goffman's framing concept evolved out of his 1959 work, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, a commentary on the management of impressions. These works arguably depend on Kenneth Boulding's concept of image.

Gerakan-gerakan sosial

Sociologists have utilized framing to explain the process of social movements. Movements act as carriers of beliefs and ideologies (compare memes). In addition, they operate as part of the process of constructing meaning for participants and opposers (Snow & Benford, 1988). Sociologists deem the mobilization of mass-movements "successful" when the frames projected align with the frames of participants to produce resonance between the two parties. Researchers of framing speak of this process as frame re-alignment.

Frame-alignment

Snow and Benford (1988) regard frame-alignment as an important element in social mobilization or movement. They argue that when individual frames become linked in congruency and complementariness, "frame alignment" occurs, producing "frame resonance", a catalyst in the process of a group making the transition from one frame to another (although not all framing efforts prove successful). The conditions that affect or constrain framing efforts include the following:

• "The robustness, completeness, and thoroughness of the framing effort". Snow and Benford (1988) identify three core framing-tasks, and state that the degree to which framers attend to these tasks will determine participant mobilization. They characterize the three tasks as the following:
  1. diagnostic framing for the identification of a problem and assignment of blame
  2. prognostic framing to suggest solutions, strategies, and tactics to a problem
  3. motivational framing that serves as a call to arms or rationale for action
• The relationship between the proposed frame and the larger belief-system; centrality: the frame cannot be of low hierarchical significance and salience within the larger belief system. Its range and interrelatedness, if the framer links the frame to only one core belief or value that, in itself, has a limited range within the larger belief system, the frame has a high degree of being discounted.
• Relevance of the frame to the realities of the participants; a frame must seem relevant to participants and must also inform them. Empirical credibility or testability can constrain relevancy: it relates to participant experience, and has narrative fidelity, meaning that it fits in with existing cultural myths and narrations.
• Cycles of protest (Tarrow 1983a; 1983b); the point at which the frame emerges on the timeline of the current era and existing preoccupations with social change. Previous frames may affect efforts to impose a new frame.

Snow and Benford (1988) propose that once someone has constructed proper frames as described above, large-scale changes in society such as those necessary for social movement can be achieved through frame-alignment.

Tipe-tipe

Frame-alignment comes in four forms: frame bridging, frame amplification, frame extension and frame transformation.

1. Frame bridging involves the "linkage of two or more ideologically congruent but structurally unconnected frames regarding a particular issue or problem" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 467). It involves the linkage of a movement to "unmobilized [sic] sentiment pools or public opinion preference clusters" (p. 467) of people who share similar views or grievances but who lack an organizational base.
2. Frame amplification refers to "the clarification and invigoration of an interpretive frame that bears on a particular issue, problem, or set of events" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 469). This interpretive frame usually involves the invigorating of values or beliefs.
3. Frame extensions represent a movement's effort to incorporate participants by extending the boundaries of the proposed frame to include or encompass the views, interests, or sentiments of targeted groups (Snow et al., 1986, p. 472).
4. Frame transformation becomes necessary when the proposed frames "may not resonate with, and on occasion may even appear antithetical to, conventional lifestyles or rituals and extant interpretive frames" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 473).

When this happens, the securing of participants and support requires new values, new meanings and understandings. Goffman (1974, pp. 43–44) calls this "keying", where "activities, events, and biographies that are already meaningful from the standpoint of some primary framework, in terms of another framework" (Snow et al., 1986, p. 474) such that they are seen differently. Two types of frame transformation exist:

1. Domain-specific transformations, such as the attempt to alter the status of groups of people, and
2. Global interpretive frame-transformation, where the scope of change seems quite radical—as in a change of world-views, total conversions of thought, or uprooting of everything familiar (for example: moving from communism to market capitalism, or vice versa; religious conversion, etc.).

As rhetorical criticism

Although the idea of language-framing had been explored earlier by Kenneth Burke (terministic screens), political communication researcher Jim A. Kuypers first published work advancing frame analysis (framing analysis) as a rhetorical perspective in 1997. His approach begins inductively by looking for themes that persist across time in a text (for Kuypers, primarily news narratives on an issue or event) and then determining how those themes are framed. Kuypers's work begins with the assumption that frames are powerful rhetorical entities that "induce us to filter our perceptions of the world in particular ways, essentially making some aspects of our multi-dimensional reality more noticeable than other aspects. They operate by making some information more salient than other information...."

In his 2009 essay "Framing Analysis" in Rhetorical Criticism: Perspectives in Action and his 2010 essay "Framing Analysis as a Rhetorical Process", Kuypers offers a detailed conception for doing framing analysis from a rhetorical perspective. According to Kuypers, "Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner. Frames operate in four key ways: they define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies. Frames are often found within a narrative account of an issue or event, and are generally the central organizing idea." Kuypers's work is based on the premise that framing is a rhetorical process and as such it is best examined from a rhetorical point of view. Curing the problem is not rhetorical and best left to the observer.

In environmental discourse

History of Climate Activism

Climate Activism is constantly shaped and reshaped by dialogue at the local, national, and international level pertaining to climate change as well as by evolving societal norms and values.

Beginning with the 19th century transcendental movement in which Henry David Thoreau penned his novel On Walden Pond detailing his experiences with the natural environment and augmented by the work of other transcendentalists such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, climate activism has taken many forms. John Muir, also from the late 19th century, advocated for the preservation of Earth for its own sake, establishing the Sierra Club. Aldo Leopold’s 1949 collection of essays, A Sand County Almanac, established a “land ethic” and has set the stage for modern environmental ethics, calling for conservation and preservation of nature and wilderness. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, published in 1962, revealed the environmental and human health harms of pesticides and successfully advocated for the cessation of DDT usage.

The concept of global climate change and subsequently the activism space pertaining to the climate took off in the 1970’s. The first Earth Day took place on April 22, 1970. The decades following witnessed the establishment of Greenpeace, Earth First!, the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Landmark climate documents in the last 30 years include the Rio Declaration, Kyoto Protocol, Paris Climate Agreement, Global Youth Climate Action Declaration, among others.

Most recently, the Peoples’ Climate March and Global Climate Strike have evolved into events attended by millions of activists and citizens around the world annually. Climate activism has been reinvigorated by an insurgence of young people on the frontlines of dialogue and advocacy. Greta Thunberg, a young Swedish woman, founded the initiative Fridays for Future which now has active chapters in scores of countries around the world. Other active youth-led climate groups include Extinction Rebellion, the Sunrise Movement, SustainUS, the Global Youth Climate Action Declaration (GYCAD), ZeroHour, among others working at both the transnational and local levels.

Individual motivation & acceptance

Individual motivation to address climate change is the bedrock on which collective action is built. Decision-making processes are informed by a myriad of factors including values, beliefs, and normative behaviors. In the United States, individuals have been most effectively motivated to support climate change policies when a public health frame has been employed. This frame reduces the sense of ambiguity and dissociation often elicited by talk of melting ice sheets and carbon emissions by placing climate issues in a local context for the individual, whether in their country, state, or city.

Climate change, as an issue that has yet to be established as a normative belief, is often subject to dissent in the face of activism and advocacy. Activists engaging in interpersonal, grassroots advocacy in order to elicit more pro-environmental conduct within their social groups, even those engaged in polite confrontation, are subject to negative reactions and social consequences in the face of opposition. Moreover, climate change has the capacity to be defined as a moral issue due to anthropogenic effects on the planet and on other human life, however there are psychological barriers to the acceptance of climate change and subsequent motivation to act in response to the need for intervention. An article in the journal Nature Climate Change by Ezra Markowitz and Azim Shariff emphasizes six psychological challenges, listed below, posed by climate change to the human moral judgement system:

1. Abstractness and cognitive complexity: the abstract nature of climate change makes it non-intuitive and cognitively effortful to grasp
2. The blamelessness of unintentional action: The human moral judgement system is finely tuned to react to intentional transgressions
3. Guilty bias: Anthropogenic climate change provokes self-defensive biases
4. Uncertainty breeds wishful thinking: The lack of definitive prognoses results in unreasonable optimism
5. Moral tribalism: The politicization of climate change fosters ideological polarization
6. Long time horizons and faraway places: Out-group victims fall by the wayside

Dire Messaging

Climate activism manifests itself through a range of expressions. One aspect of climate change framing that is commonly observed is the frame of dire messaging that has been criticized as alarmist and pessimistic, resulting in a dismissal of evidence-based messages.

The just-world theory supports the notion that some individuals must rely on their presupposition of a just-world in order to substantiate beliefs. “Research on just-world theory has demonstrated that when individuals’ need to believe in a just world is threatened, they commonly employ defensive responses, such as dismissal or rationalization of the information that threatened their just-world beliefs”. In the case of climate change, the notion of dire messaging is critical to understanding what motivates activism. For example, having a fear of climate change “attributed to the self’s incapacity to prevent it may result in withdrawal, while considering someone else responsible may result in anger”.

In 2017 study, it was found that activist interviewees from the Global North embrace fear as a motivation, but “emphasize hope, reject guilt, and treat anger with caution. Interviewees from the Global South indicated that they are “instead more acutely frightened, less hopeful, and more angered, ascribing guilt – responsibility – to northern countries. These differences may indicate a relatively depoliticized activist approach to climate change in the north, as opposed to a more politicized approach in the south”.

A 2017 study shows that fear motivates action through raising awareness of the threat of climate catastrophe. Fear’s paralyzing potential is mediated by hope: Hope propels action, while collective action generates hope while also managing fear. The danger-alerting capacity of fear is embraced ‘internally’, but is rejected as an effective emotion in motivating people to mobilize.

Research has shown that dire messaging reduces the efficacy of advocacy initiatives through demotivation of individuals, lower levels of concern, and decreased engagement.

Positive framing

Research contends that prognostic framing—which offers tangible solutions, strategies, targets, and tactics—coupled with motivational framing is most efficacious in moving people to act. Especially as it relates to climate change, the power of positive psychology is made evident when applied by activists and others generating interventions.

The four main tenets of motivation as elucidated by Positive Psychology are agency, compassion, resilience, and purpose. When applied to climate action, the 4th edition textbook Psychology for Sustainability, further expands upon these tenets as they relate to sustainability and as catalysts of action:

1. Agency: Choosing, planning, and executing situation-relevant behavior
2. Compassion: Noticing, feeling, and responding to others’ suffering arising from a sense of connectedness
3. Purpose: Striving toward meaningful activity
4. Resilience: Recovering from, coping with, or developing new strategies for resisting adversity

Hope augments a sense of purpose and agency, while enhancing resilience. For climate activists, it is infeasible to decouple hope from fear. However, when deconstructing the hope that others will take necessary actions, hope is generated through faith in one’s own capacity, indicating that “trust in ‘one’s own’ collective action seems to be the essence of the hope that activists talk about”. Additionally, creating a link between climate action and positive emotions such as gratitude and pride, improvements in subjective well-being, and potential for impact permits individuals to perceive their own actions to better the climate as a sustainable, rewarding manner rather than as demotivating.

Another approach that has proven to be efficacious is the projection of a future utopian society in which all pressing issues have been resolved, offering creative narratives that walk individuals from current problems to future solutions and allow them to choose to serve as a bridge between the two. This intergenerational, positive approach generates a sense of excitement about climate action in individuals and offers creative solutions that they may choose to take part in. For example, a public service announcement pertaining to climate change could be framed as follows:

“It’s 2050, your electric vehicle is parked and ready to go next to your zero emission home, but you choose to take the extremely efficient, green, clean, rapid transit system that is accessible from most places in the United States and subsidized for low-income citizens. Maybe you live in the beautiful Appalachian mountains of West Virginia, where the coal industry became supplanted by massive hubs for green energy jobs and innovation. You can commute easily to DC or New York. Your food is locally grown and distributed through the Urban Agricultural Co-op that educates children about how to grow food, the importance of localization, and how to be more sustainable.”

Political ideology

Political communication scholars adopted framing tactics since political rhetoric was around. However, advances in technology have shifted the communication channels they were delivered on. From oral communication, written material, radio, television, and most recently, social media have played a prominent role in how politics is framed. Social media, in particular, allows politicians to communicate their ideologies with concise and precise messaging. Using emotional triggering words, focusing on eliciting fear or anger, to change the way the public feels about a policy is facilitated by the short attention span created by social media ().

In recent decades, climate change has become deeply politicized and often, initiatives to address or conceptualize climate change are palatable to one contingency, while deeply contentious to the other. Thus, it is important to frame climate activism in a way that is tangible for the audience, finding means of communicating while minimizing provocation. In the context of the United States, left-leaning “liberals” share the core values of care, openness, egalitarianism, collective good, possess a tolerance for uncertainty or ambiguity, and an acceptance of change; while right-leaning “conservatives” share the core values of security, purity, stability, tradition, social hierarchy, order, and individualism.

A study examining various predictors of public approval for renewable energy usage in the Western United States used seven varying frames in order to assess the efficacy of framing renewable energy. Neoliberal frameworks that are often echoed by conservatives, such as support for the free market economy, are posited against climate action interventions that inherently place constraints on the free economy through support for renewable energy through subsidies or through additional tax on nonrenewable sources of energy. Thus, when climate activists are in conversation with conservative-leaning individuals, it would be advantageous to focus on framing that does not provoke fear of constraint on the free market economy or that insinuates broad-sweeping lifestyle changes. Results of the same study support the notion that “non-climate-based frames for renewable energy are likely to garner broader public support” relative to political context and demonstrate the polarized response to climate-based framing, indicating a deep political polarization of climate change.

The idea of political framing is derived from loss aversion. Politicians want to make their idea less of a risk to potential voters since “People pay more attention to losses than to gains, just as they tend to engage in particular behaviors in the face of losses. Specifically, people take risks when they believe it helps them avert a loss, but when they face again, they opt for risk-averse strategies that maintain status quo”. They will communicate it in a way that can convince themselves that they are not losing by agreeing with their ideology.

Political framing has also affected other policies besides climate change. Welfare, for example, has been subjected to political framing to shift public opinion on the implementation of the policy. The sheer flux of different frames is conducive to the change of public opinion throughout the years. It affects how people look at “deservedness” when it comes to welfare. One end can be seen as political credit, claiming where in-need citizens have a right to claim welfare as a necessity. It is framed as a duty from the government to citizens. In this frame, no one losses because government is doing its duty to maximize the quality of life for its entire society. The other side sees welfare retrenchment as necessary by using framing tactics to shift the blame and responsibility from the government to the citizens. The idea is to convince the public that welfare should be pushed back for their benefit. Contemporary rhetoric, championed by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, has made the idea of “hard work” their frame to say welfare wouldn’t be necessary if people “worked harder.” With this contrasting frame, wealthier people are now losing because they are losing money in helping fund welfare benefits to those that "work less" than them. This different frame makes welfare seem like a zero-sum game.

Gender norms

The framing of climate change varies according to the intended audience and their perceived responses to various approaches to activism. In Sweden, research evaluating sustainability in the male-dominated transportation sector suggests that the norms provided by femininity are more likely to advance sustainability endeavors, while subsequently lowering the overall CO2 emissions of the sector. This is evident throughout the study, which goes on to indicate that the “mobility patterns, behavior, and attitudes of women suggest norms that are more conducive to decarbonized and more sustainable transport policies”. This suggests that masculinity is often portrayed as the norm in many sectors and substantiates the link between women and a sustainability ethic that is critically missing from many male-dominated sectors and industries.

Studies indicate that consumers who exhibit a predisposition to environmentally conscious, “green” behaviors are perceived across the gender spectrum as being more feminine, enforcing a “Green Feminine” stereotype. Climate activism is viewed as an effeminate act, undermining hallmarks of masculinity and underscoring the gender gap in a care-based concern for the climate. Additionally, as a result of theories pertaining to gender-identity maintenance, “men’s environmental choices can be influenced by gender cues, results showed that following a gender-identity (vs. age) threat, men were less likely to choose green products”. Attributes that are associated with femininity and substantiate the cognitive association between women and green behavior include empathy and the capacity for self-transcendence.

Hukum

Edward Zelinsky has shown that framing effects can explain some observed behaviors of legislators.

Dalam media

The role framing plays in the effects of media presentation has been widely discussed, with the central notion that associated perceptions of factual information can vary based upon the presentation of the information.

Contoh-contoh media berita

In Bush's War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age, Jim A. Kuypers examined the differences in framing of the War on Terror between the Bush administration and the U.S. mainstream news media between 2001 and 2005. Kuypers looked for common themes between presidential speeches and press reporting of those speeches, and then determined how the president and the press had framed those themes. By using a rhetorical version of framing analysis, Kuypers determined that the U.S. news media advanced frames counter to those used by the Bush administration:

The press actively contested the framing of the War on Terror as early as eight weeks following 9/11. This finding stands apart from a collection of communication literature suggesting the press supported the President or was insufficiently critical of the President's efforts after 9/11. To the contrary, when taking into consideration how themes are framed, [Kuypers] found that the news media framed its response in such a way that it could be viewed as supporting the idea of some action against terrorism, while concommitantly opposing the initiatives of the President. The news media may well relay what the president says, but it does not necessarily follow that it is framed in the same manner; thus, an echo of the theme, but not of the frame. The present study demonstrates, as seen in Table One [below], that shortly after 9/11 the news media was beginning to actively counter the Bush administration and beginning to leave out information important to understanding the Bush Administration's conception of the War on Terror. In sum, eight weeks after 9/11, the news media was moving beyond reporting political opposition to the President—a very necessary and invaluable press function—and was instead actively choosing themes, and framing those themes, in such a way that the President's focus was opposed, misrepresented, or ignored.

Table One: Comparison of President and News Media Themes and Frames 8 Weeks after 9/11

Themes	President's Frame	Press Frame
Good v. Evil	Struggle of good and evil	Not mentioned
Civilization v. Barbarism	Struggle of civilization v. barbarism	Not mentioned
Nature of Enemy	Evil, implacable, murderers	Deadly, indiscriminant Bush Administration
Nature of War	Domestic/global/enduring War	Domestic/global/longstanding War or police action
Similarity to Prior Wars	Different kind of war	WWII or Vietnam?
Patience	Not mentioned	Some, but running out
International Effort	Stated	Minimally reported

In 1991 Robert M. Entman published findings surrounding the differences in media coverage between Korean Air Lines Flight 007 and Iran Air Flight 655. After evaluating various levels of media coverage, based on both amount of airtime and pages devoted to similar events, Entman concluded that the frames the events were presented in by the media were drastically different:

By de-emphasizing the agency and the victims and by the choice of graphics and adjectives, the news stories about the U.S. downing of an Iranian plane called it a technical problem, while the Soviet downing of a Korean jet was portrayed as a moral outrage… [T]he contrasting news frames employed by several important U.S. media outlets in covering these two tragic misapplications of military force. For the first, the frame emphasized the moral bankruptcy and guilt of the perpetrating nation, for the second, the frame de-emphasized the guilt and focused on the complex problems of operating military high technology.

Differences in coverage amongst various media outlets:

Amounts of Media coverage dedicated to each event	Korean Air	Iran Air
Time Magazine and Newsweek	51 pages	20 pages
CBS	303 minutes	204 minutes
New York Times	286 stories	102 stories

In 1988 Irwin Levin and Gary Gaeth did a study on the effects of framing attribute information on consumers before and after consuming a product (1988). In this study, they found that in a study on beef, people who ate beef labeled as 75% lean rated it more favorably than people whose beef was labelled 25% fat.

In politics

Linguist and rhetoric scholar George Lakoff argues that, in order to persuade a political audience of one side of an argument or another, the facts must be presented through a rhetorical frame. It is argued that, without the frame, the facts of an argument become lost on an audience, making the argument less effective. The rhetoric of politics uses framing to present the facts surrounding an issue in a way that creates the appearance of a problem at hand that requires a solution. Politicians using framing to make their own solution to an exigence appear to be the most appropriate compared to that of the opposition. Counter-arguments become less effective in persuading an audience once one side has framed an argument, because it is argued that the opposition then has the additional burden of arguing the frame of the issue in addition to the issue itself.

Framing a political issue, a political party or a political opponent is a strategic goal in politics, particularly in the United States of America. Both the Democratic and Republican political parties compete to successfully harness its power of persuasion. According to The New York Times:

Even before the election, a new political word had begun to take hold of the party, beginning on the West Coast and spreading like a virus all the way to the inner offices of the Capitol. That word was 'framing.' Exactly what it means to 'frame' issues seems to depend on which Democrat you are talking to, but everyone agrees that it has to do with choosing the language to define a debate and, more important, with fitting individual issues into the contexts of broader story lines.

— 

Because framing can alter the public's perception, politicians disagree on how issues are framed. Hence, the way the issues are framed in the media reflects who is winning the battle. For instance, according to Robert Entman, professor of Communication at George Washington University, in the build-up to the Gulf War the conservatives were successful in making the debate whether to attack sooner or later, with no mention of the possibility of not attacking.

One particular example of Lakoff's work that attained some degree of fame was his advice to rename trial lawyers (unpopular in the United States) as "public protection attorneys". Though Americans have not generally adopted this suggestion, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America did rename themselves the "American Association of Justice", in what the Chamber of Commerce called an effort to hide their identity.

The New York Times depicted similar intensity among Republicans:

In one recent memo, titled 'The 14 Words Never to Use,' [Frank] Luntz urged conservatives to restrict themselves to phrases from what he calls ... the 'New American Lexicon.' Thus, a smart Republican, in Luntz's view, never advocates 'drilling for oil'; he prefers 'exploring for energy.' He should never criticize the 'government,' which cleans our streets and pays our firemen; he should attack 'Washington,' with its ceaseless thirst for taxes and regulations. 'We should never use the word outsourcing,' Luntz wrote, 'because we will then be asked to defend or end the practice of allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.'

— 

From a political perspective, framing has widespread consequences. For example, the concept of framing links with that of agenda-setting: by consistently invoking a particular frame, the framing party may effectively control discussion and perception of the issue. Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in Trust Us, We're Experts illustrate how public-relations (PR) firms often use language to help frame a given issue, structuring the questions that then subsequently emerge. For example, one firm advises clients to use "bridging language" that uses a strategy of answering questions with specific terms or ideas in order to shift the discourse from an uncomfortable topic to a more comfortable one. Practitioners of this strategy might attempt to draw attention away from one frame in order to focus on another. As Lakoff notes, "On the day that George W. Bush took office, the words "tax relief" started coming out of the White House." By refocusing the structure away from one frame ("tax burden" or "tax responsibilities"), individuals can set the agenda of the questions asked in the future.

Cognitive linguists point to an example of framing in the phrase "tax relief". In this frame, use of the concept "relief" entails a concept of (without mentioning the benefits resulting from) taxes putting strain on the citizen:

The current tax code is full of inequities. Many single moms face higher marginal tax rates than the wealthy. Couples frequently face a higher tax burden after they marry. The majority of Americans cannot deduct their charitable donations. Family farms and businesses are sold to pay the death tax. And the owners of the most successful small businesses share nearly half of their income with the government. President Bush's tax cut will greatly reduce these inequities. It is a fair plan that is designed to provide tax relief to everyone who pays income taxes.

— 

Alternative frames may emphasize the concept of taxes as a source of infrastructural support to businesses:

The truth is that the wealthy have received more from America than most Americans—not just wealth but the infrastructure that has allowed them to amass their wealth: banks, the Federal Reserve, the stock market, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the legal system, federally sponsored research, patents, tax supports, the military protection of foreign investments, and much much more. American taxpayers support the infrastructure of wealth accumulation. It is only fair that those who benefit most should pay their fair share.

— 

Frames can limit debate by setting the vocabulary and metaphors through which participants can comprehend and discuss an issue. They form a part not just of political discourse, but of cognition. In addition to generating new frames, politically oriented framing research aims to increase public awareness of the connection between framing and reasoning.

Examples

• The initial response of the Bush administration to the assault of September 11, 2001 was to frame the acts of terror as crime. This framing was replaced within hours by a war metaphor, yielding the "War on Terror". The difference between these two framings is in the implied response. Crime connotes bringing criminals to justice, putting them on trial and sentencing them, whereas as war implies enemy territory, military action and war powers for government.
• The term "escalation" to describe an increase in American troop-levels in Iraq in 2007 implied that the United States deliberately increased the scope of conflict in a provocative manner and possibly implies that U.S. strategy entails a long-term military presence in Iraq, whereas "surge" framing implies a powerful but brief, transitory increase in intensity.
• The "bad apple" frame, as in the proverb "one bad apple spoils the barrel". This frame implies that removing one underachieving or corrupt official from an institution will solve a given problem; an opposing frame presents the same problem as systematic or structural to the institution itself—a source of infectious and spreading rot.
• The "taxpayers money" frame, rather than public or government funds, which implies that individual taxpayers have a claim or right to set government policy based upon their payment of tax rather than their status as citizens or voters and that taxpayers have a right to control public funds that are the shared property of all citizens and also privileges individual self-interest above group interest.
• The "collective property" frame, which implies that property owned by individuals is really owned by a collective in which those individuals are members. This collective can be a territorial one, such as a nation, or an abstract one that does not map to a specific territory.
• Program-names that may describe only the intended effects of a program but may also imply their effectiveness. These include the following:
  • "Foreign aid" (which implies that spending money will aid foreigners, rather than harm them)
  • "Social security" (which implies that the program can be relied on to provide security for a society)
  • "Stabilisation policy" (which implies that a policy will have a stabilizing effect).
• Based on opinion polling and focus groups, ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm, has advanced the position that global warming is an ineffective framing due to its identification as a leftist advocacy issue. The organization has suggested to government officials and environmental groups that alternate formulations of the issues would be more effective.
• In her 2009 book Frames of War, Judith Butler argues that the justification within liberal-democracies for war, and atrocities committed in the course of war, (referring specifically to the current war in Iraq and to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay) entails a framing of the (especially Muslim) 'other' as pre-modern/primitive and ultimately not human in the same way as citizens within the liberal order.
• Political leaders provide their personal photographers and videographers with access to private moments that are off-limits to journalists. The news media then faces an ethical dilemma of whether to republish freely available digital handouts that project the politician's desired frame but which might be newsworthy.

Effectiveness

According to Susan T. Fiske and Shelley E. Taylor, human beings are by nature "cognitive misers", meaning they prefer to do as little thinking as possible. Frames provide people a quick and easy way to process information. Hence, people will use the previously mentioned mental filters (a series of which is called a schema) to make sense of incoming messages. This gives the sender and framer of the information enormous power to use these schemas to influence how the receivers will interpret the message. A recently published theory suggests that judged usability (i.e., the extent to which a consideration featured in the message is deemed usable for a given subsequent judgment) may be an important mediator of cognitive media effects like framing, agenda setting, and priming. Emphasizing judged usability leads to the revelation that media coverage may not just elevate a particular consideration, but may also actively suppress a consideration, rendering it less usable for subsequent judgments. The news framing process illustrates that among different aspects of an issue, a certain aspect is chosen over others to characterize an issue or event. For example, the issue of unemployment is described in terms of the cheap labor provided by immigrants. Exposure to the news story activates thoughts correspond to immigrants rather than thoughts related to other aspects of the issue (e.g., legislation, education, and cheap imports from other countries) and, at the same time, makes the former thoughts prominent by promoting their importance and relevance to the understanding of the issue at hand. That is, issue perceptions are influenced by the consideration featured in the news story. Thoughts related to neglected considerations become relegated to the degree that thoughts about a featured consideration are magnified.

See also

• Anecdotal value
• Alternative facts
• Argumentation theory
• Bias
• Choice architecture
• Code word (figure of speech)
• Communication theory
• Connotation
• Cultural bias
• Decision making
• Definition of the situation
• Demagoguery
• Died by suicide vs committed suicide
• Domain of discourse
• Echo chamber (media)
• Fallacy of many questions
• Figure of speech
• Filter bubble
• Freedom of speech
• Free press
• Idea networking
• Language and thought
• Meme
• Metaphorical Framing
• Newspeak
• Overton window
• Plus-size rather than fat
• Political correctness
• Power word
• Rhetorical device
• Semantics
• Semantic domain
• Social heuristics
• Sophism
• Spin doctor
• Stovepiping
• Thought Reform (book)
• Trope
• Unspeak (book)
• Virtue word

References

Bibliography

• Levin, Irwin P.; Gaeth, Gary J. (1988). "How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product". Journal of Consumer Research. 15 (3): 374–378. doi:10.1086/209174. JSTOR 2489471. 

Further reading

• Baars, B. A cognitive theory of consciousness, NY: Cambridge University Press 1988, ISBN 0-521-30133-5.
• Boulding, Kenneth E. (1956). The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society. Michigan University Press.
• Carruthers, P. (2003). "On Fodor's Problem". Mind and Language. 18 (5): 502–23. doi:10.1111/1468-0017.00240. 
• Clark, A. (1997), Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Cutting, Hunter and Makani Themba Nixon (2006). Talking the Walk: A Communications Guide for Racial Justice: AK Press
• Dennett, D. (1978), Brainstorms, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Fairhurst, Gail T. and Sarr, Robert A. 1996. The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of Leadership. Jossey-Bass, Inc.
• Feldman, Jeffrey. (2007), Framing the Debate: Famous Presidential Speeches and How Progressives Can Use Them to Control the Conversation (and Win Elections). Brooklyn, NY: Ig Publishing.
• Fodor, J.A. (1983), The Modularity of Mind, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Fodor, J.A. (1987), "Modules, Frames, Fridgeons, Sleeping Dogs, and the Music of the Spheres", in Pylyshyn (1987).
• Fodor, J.A. (2000), The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Ford, K.M. & Hayes, P.J. (eds.) (1991), Reasoning Agents in a Dynamic World: The Frame Problem, New York: JAI Press.
• Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. London: Harper and Row.
• Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
• Gonzalez, Cleotilde; Dana, Jason; Koshino, Hideya; Just, Marcel (2005). "The framing effect and risky decisions: Examining cognitive functions with fMRI" (PDF). Journal of Economic Psychology. 26: 1–20. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2004.08.004. Diarsipkan dari versi asli (PDF) tanggal June 11, 2007. 
• Goodman, N. (1954), Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Hanks, S.; McDermott, D. (1987). "Nonmonotonic Logic and Temporal Projection". Artificial Intelligence. 33 (3): 379–412. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(87)90043-9. 
• Haselager, W.F.G. (1997). Cognitive science and folk psychology: the right frame of mind. London: Sage
• Haselager, W.F.G.; Van Rappard, J.F.H. (1998). "Connectionism, Systematicity, and the Frame Problem" (PDF). Minds and Machines. 8 (2): 161–79. doi:10.1023/A:1008281603611. 
• Hayes, P.J. (1991), "Artificial Intelligence Meets David Hume: A Reply to Fetzer", in Ford & Hayes (1991).
• Heal, J. (1996), "Simulation, Theory, and Content", in Theories of Theories of Mind, eds. P. Carruthers & P. Smith, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–89.
• Johnson-Cartee, K. (2005). News narrative and news framing: Constructing political reality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Kendall, Diana, Sociology In Our Times, Thomson Wadsworth, 2005, ISBN 0-534-64629-8 Google Print, p. 531
• Klandermans, Bert. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980), Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Leites, N. & Wolf, C., Jr. (1970). Rebellion and authority. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company.
• Martino, De; Kumaran, D; Seymour, B; Dolan, RJ (2006). "Frames, Biases, and Rational Decision-Making in the Human Brain". Science. 313 (5787): 684–87. Bibcode:2006Sci...313..684D. doi:10.1126/science.1128356. PMC 2631940 . PMID 16888142. 
• McAdam, D., McCarthy, J., & Zald, M. (1996). Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Framing Processes—Toward a Synthetic, Comparative Perspective on Social Movements. In D. McAdam, J. McCarthy & M. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements; Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press.
• McCarthy, John (1986). "Applications of circumscription to formalizing common-sense knowledge". Artificial Intelligence. 28 (1): 89–116. doi:10.1016/0004-3702(86)90032-9. 
• McCarthy, J. & Hayes, P.J. (1969), "Some Philosophical Problems from the Standpoint of Artificial Intelligence", in Machine Intelligence 4, ed. D.Michie and B.Meltzer, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 463–502.
• McDermott, D. (1987), "We've Been Framed: Or Why AI Is Innocent of the Frame Problem", in Pylyshyn (1987).
• Mithen, S. (1987), The Prehistory of the Mind, London: Thames & Hudson.
• Nelson, T. E.; Oxley, Z. M.; Clawson, R. A. (1997). "Toward a psychology of framing effects". Political Behavior. 19 (3): 221–46. doi:10.1023/A:1024834831093. 
• Pan, Z.; Kosicki, G. M. (1993). "Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse". Political Communication. 10 (1): 55–75. doi:10.1080/10584609.1993.9962963. 
• Pan. Z. & Kosicki, G. M. (2001). Framing as a strategic action in public deliberation. 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. 35–66). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Pan, Z. & Kosicki, G. M. (2005). Framing and the understanding of citizenship. In S. Dunwoody, L. B. Becker, D. McLeod, & G. M. Kosicki (Eds.), Evolution of key mass communication concepts, (pp. 165–204). New York: Hampton Press.
• Pylyshyn, Zenon W. (ed.) (1987), The Robot's Dilemma: The Frame Problem in Artificial Intelligence, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Stephen D. Reese, Oscar H. Gandy and August E. Grant. (2001). Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understanding of the Social World. Maywah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. ISBN 978-0-8058-3653-0
• Russell, S. & Wefald, E. (1991), Do the Right Thing: Studies in Limited Rationality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Scheufele, DA; Dietram, A. (1999). "Framing as a theory of media effects". Journal of Communication. 49 (1): 103–22. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x. 
• Shanahan, Murray P. (1997), Solving the Frame Problem: A Mathematical Investigation of the Common Sense Law of Inertia, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 0-262-19384-1
• Shanahan, Murray P. (2003), "The Frame Problem", in The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, ed. L.Nadel, Macmillan, pp. 144–50.
• Simon, Herbert (1957), Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting, New York: John Wiley. OCLC 165735
• Snow, D. A.; Benford, R. D. (1988). "Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization". International Social Movement Research. 1: 197–217. 
• Snow, D. A.; Rochford, E. B.; Worden, S. K.; Benford, R. D. (1986). "Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation". American Sociological Review. 51 (4): 464–81. doi:10.2307/2095581. JSTOR 2095581. 
• Sperber, D.; Wilson, D. (1996). "Fodor's Frame Problem and Relevance Theory". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 19 (3): 530–32. doi:10.1017/S0140525X00082030. 
• Tarrow, S. (1983a). "Struggling to Reform: social Movements and policy change during cycles of protest". Western Societies Paper No. 15. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
• Tarrow, S. (1983b). "Resource mobilization and cycles of protest: Theoretical reflections and comparative illustrations". Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Detroit, August 31 – September 4.
• Triandafyllidou, A.; Fotiou, A. (1998). "Sustainability and Modernity in the European Union: A Frame Theory Approach to Policy-Making". Sociological Research Online. 3 (1): 60–75. doi:10.5153/sro.99. 
• Tilly, C., Tilly, L., & Tilly, R. (1975). The rebellious century, 1830–1930. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
• Turner, R. H., & Killian, L. M. (1972). Collective Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• Tversky, Amos; Kahneman, Daniel (1986). "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions" (PDF). The Journal of Business. 59 (4): S251–S278. doi:10.1086/296365. JSTOR 2352759. 
• Wilkerson, W.S. (2001). "Simulation, Theory, and the Frame Problem". Philosophical Psychology. 14 (2): 141–53. doi:10.1080/09515080120051535. 
• Willard, Charles Arthur. Liberalism and the Social Grounds of Knowledge Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 199

Pranala luar

• The Framing Wars. The New York Times 17 July 2005
• Curry, Tom. 2005. "Frist chills talk of judges deal (Page 2)." "The question in the poll was not framed as a matter of whether nominee ought to get an up-or-down vote. And that framing of the issue, Republican strategists believe, is the most advantageous one..."; MSNBC
• HBS.edu – 'Fixing Price Tag Confusion'(interview), Sean Silverthorne (December 11, 2006)
• "'Framing effect' influences decisions: Emotions play a role in decision-making when information is too complex", Charles Q. Choi, NBC (August 3, 2006)