All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Typology of Framing Research: It needs to be tangible
Unformatted Document Text:  A Typology of Framing Research-- 3 Framing Research in Confusion The notion that there exist lots of definitions of framing inconsistent with one another in terms of their terminological or conceptual form (Brosius & Eps, 1995; Entman, 1993; Scheufele, 1999) seems reasonable considering the following various labels implying framing effects: “a perceptual illusion” (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984), “accessibility bias” (Iyengar, 1990, 1991), “availability heuristic” (Shrum & O’Guinn, 1993), “applicability effect” (Price, Tewksbury, & Powers, 1997a, 1997b), and “belief importance change effect” (Nelson & Oxley, 1999; Nelson, Oxley, & Calwson, 1997). Taken into consideration of the terminological and conceptual pedigrees of framing (i.e., sociology and psychology), such a mixed-up appearance is not hard to understand, in a sense. Psychologists typically refer framing effects to changes in choice associated with presenting manner of equivalent ones. The sociological perspective on framing, on the other hand, tends to “focus on the use of story lines, symbols, and stereotypes in media presentations and this literature typically defines news frames in terms of ideological or value perspectives” (Iyengar, 1993, p.369). A very unbelievable thing, however, is the fact that why lots of framing research has failed to distinguish differences in theoretical assumptions from the pedigrees, with jumbled conceptualization of framing being formed. Indeed, a sizable confusion can be attributed to a unrestrained manner in which incompatible or explicitly different theoretical statements were shared unwittingly among explicitly different research approaches, especially, for example, when quoting the classic and widely cited Kahneman and Tversky (1984)’s Asian disease problem. Taking Iyengar (1991)’s and Entman (1993)’s work as instances of misapplication seems appropriate considering their huge influences on succeeded research.

Authors: Choi, Jinmyung.
first   previous   Page 3 of 32   next   last



background image
A Typology of Framing Research-- 3
Framing Research in Confusion
The notion that there exist lots of definitions of framing inconsistent with one another in
terms of their terminological or conceptual form (Brosius & Eps, 1995; Entman, 1993; Scheufele,
1999) seems reasonable considering the following various labels implying framing effects: “a
perceptual illusion” (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984), “accessibility bias” (Iyengar, 1990, 1991),
“availability heuristic” (Shrum & O’Guinn, 1993), “applicability effect” (Price, Tewksbury, &
Powers, 1997a, 1997b), and “belief importance change effect” (Nelson & Oxley, 1999; Nelson,
Oxley, & Calwson, 1997).
Taken into consideration of the terminological and conceptual pedigrees of framing (i.e.,
sociology and psychology), such a mixed-up appearance is not hard to understand, in a sense.
Psychologists typically refer framing effects to changes in choice associated with presenting
manner of equivalent ones. The sociological perspective on framing, on the other hand, tends to
“focus on the use of story lines, symbols, and stereotypes in media presentations and this
literature typically defines news frames in terms of ideological or value perspectives” (Iyengar,
1993, p.369). A very unbelievable thing, however, is the fact that why lots of framing research
has failed to distinguish differences in theoretical assumptions from the pedigrees, with jumbled
conceptualization of framing being formed.
Indeed, a sizable confusion can be attributed to a unrestrained manner in which
incompatible or explicitly different theoretical statements were shared unwittingly among
explicitly different research approaches, especially, for example, when quoting the classic and
widely cited Kahneman and Tversky (1984)’s Asian disease problem. Taking Iyengar (1991)’s
and Entman (1993)’s work as instances of misapplication seems appropriate considering their
huge influences on succeeded research.


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 3 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.