Framing

Framing (social sciences)

A frame is a perceptual filter - built through experience and influences – that creates a collection of stereotypes that helps people make a sense of their world and respond to it. Example : a wink from a friend is different from a wink by a stranger. The wink is the same but the “frame” is “friend vs stranger”.  1. Erving Goffman says we all create frames or labels that allow us  "to locate, perceive, identify, and label" events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding our actions.

People do not first “see” and then apply “frame”; rather, we constantly see the world in terms of “frames” / “stereotypes” / “words” and the reality is perceived through them. For example, every person is either a “friend” or a “stranger”.

We change frames only when forced to do so by a dissonance. Can a “friend” be a “beggar” ? But suppose it does happen – then you create a new “frame” called “friend-begger”.

Framing is so effective because it is a heuristic – a mental shortcut - a 'rule of thumb'.

Fiske and Taylor call human beings are “cognitive misers” : they prefer to do as little thinking as possible in order to operate in this world. Framing provides people a quick way to process information.

Tversky and Kahneman have shown that framing can affect the outcomes through the choices one makes to such an extent that “rational choice” axiom does not hold. The choices depend also on norms / values, habits/experience, unique personality. They demonstrated that people’s choice changes when the same data is presented in different frames.

Imagine a group of 600 people is in danger of being attacked by a killer disease. We have 2 programs A and B to combat the disease. Program A has a possibility that  200 people will be saved. Program B has a 67% probability that all 600 will die.  

72 % preferred program A !

Individuals proved risk averse when presented with value-increasing options; but when faced with value decreasing contingencies, they tended towards increased risk-taking

·         Surety of gains : Positive framing effect : triggers risk averse choices

·         Likelihood of losses : Negative framing effect : creates preference for riskier options

FRAMING IS STRONGER

1.      When the cognitive processing effort  devoted to determining the value of potential gains and losses is high.

2.      When people give greater weight to avoiding losses than to equivalent gains.

3.      compromise between “correct decision” and “minimized cognitive effort”.  Calculating the value of a sure gain takes much less cognitive effort than that required to select a risky gain.

Sociologists have utilized framing to explain the process of social movements (mobilization) which act as carriers of beliefs and ideologies and are a part of the process of constructing meaning for participants and opposers. Movements are "successful" when “projected” frames of the resonate with the actual frames of the participants. Thus frame-alignment is important in social mobilization.

What may promote or constrain the framing effort :

1)      Snow and Benford say there are 3 core framing-tasks to create mobilization

a)      Diagnosis : what is the problem and who / what is to blame

b)      Prognosis :what is the solution, strategy and tactics to address a problem

c)      Motivation : call to arms or action or rationale for action ( Chale Jao)

2)      How “central” is the frame to the recipient is the frame – how close it is to the larger / core beliefs. The frame may fail to mobilize if it has a limited salience within the larger belief system.

3)      How “relevant” is the frame to the realities of the participants. Does it fit within existing cultural myths and narrations.

 Frame-alignment which promotes social movement happens in four forms

1.      Frame bridging : It involves the linkage of a movement to "unmobilized sentiment pools or public opinion preference clusters" of similar grievances but who lack organizational base.

2.      Frame amplification : Clarification and strengthening of a frame on a given issue, problem, or set of events.

3.       Frame extensions : Extending the boundaries of the proposed frame to include or encompass the views, interests, or sentiments of targeted groups

4.      Frame transformation: becomes necessary when the old frames may not resonate with – and even may appear opposing to – the frames of new  participants and support bases – and this leads to new values, new meanings and understandings. For example – change in the world view -  uprooting of everything familiar - moving from communism to market capitalism; religious conversion

Kuypers says, "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."  

·         “Episodic framing” : focuses on a single event as if an individual is responsible. “A boy sentenced Rs 500 for stealing a loaf of bread”.

·         “Thematic framing” : puts matters in abstract context as if it is a trend ( everyone is to blame). “Urban parental neglect drives a boy to steal bread and pay Rs 500”. As if the boy is not to blame.

Framing a political issue, a political party or a political opponent is a strategic goal in all formal and democratic politics. The parties diagnose, suggest remedies and call for action. Because framing has the ability to alter the public’s perception, politicians engage in battles to determine how issues are framed. Hence, the way the issues are framed in the media reflects who is winning the battle.

For instance, in the build up to the Gulf War, the conservatives framed the debate as to whether US should attack sooner or later - with no mention of not attacking. The media picked this up and also framed the debate in this fashion, the conservatives won.

One particular example of Lakoff's work was his advice to rename  trial lawyers (unpopular in the United States) as "public protection attorneys". Though this has not been adopted, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America  renamed itself the "American Association of Justice", in what the Chamber of Commerce called an effort to hide their identity.  His advice “14 Words Never to Use'

·         Never advocate  'drilling for oil'; say 'exploring for energy.'

·         Never criticize the 'government,' that cleans streets and pays firemen; attack  'Washington'

·         Never “outsource” allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.'

By consistently invoking a particular frame, a political party controls discussion & perceptions.

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 initial response to Sep 11 attack on WTC was an act of terror and crime but within hours this was replaced by a war metaphor “War on Terror”. The difference is between the implied response. Crime connotes bringing criminals to justice, trial and sentences whereas as a war implies war powers for government to take military action against unseen enemy.

Recent popularization of the term "escalation" to describe an increase in American troop-levels in Iraq  implies that the US has deliberately increased the scope of conflict in a provocative manner and that it entails a long-term military presence whereas  campaign framing implies a powerful but brief, transitory increase in intensity.

The "bad apple" frame, implies removing a corrupt official from an institution will solve a given problem as opposed to a frame presenting the same problem as systematic or structural to the institution itself - source of infectious and spreading rot.

The "taxpayers money" frame, rather than public or government funds frame, implies that the  individual taxpayers have a right to set government policy based upon their payment of tax rather than their status as citizens or voters .

Program-names that may only describe the intended effects of a program but can also imply their effectiveness. These include: "Foreign Aid"^[33] (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).

Some have advanced the position that global warming is an ineffective framing due to its identification as a advocacy issue and suggested  that crime against nature would be more effec