Framing as a Theory of Media Effects
by Dietram A. Scheufele
In this article Scheufele takes the concept of “framing” and outlines the variety of ways in which it has
been used as a theoretical concept in the past. He believes that the diversity of meanings associated
with the term has hindered scholars from using the term productively as a theoretical model; this has
therefore limited the comparisons that could be made between related work. The variety of uses of the
term framing have, for example, conflated this process with priming and agenda-setting, or alternately
used the idea of frames, scripts, and schemas interchangeably.
To counter this tendency and reactivate the term as a useful tool for theory-building, he creates a
comprehensive model for approaching the concept of framing along two dimensions: “the type of
frame examined (media frames vs. audience frames) and the way frames are operationalized
(independent variable or dependent variable)” (p103). He goes on to identify four processes that
should be the focus of future research: “frame building, frame setting, individual level process of
framing, and a feedback loop from audiences to journalists” (p103).
The concept of framing is tied up with the history of theories about the “strong effects” of media. This
theory has gone through various paradigm shifts. Initially developed in response to propaganda related
to WWI, “strong effects” was used to describe the influence of media on attitudes. Ending in the
1960's, the second stage posed that personal influence on attitudes was primary, and campaigns
typically act to reinforce existing attitudes. By the beginning of the 70's, a renewed search for “strong
effects” within mass media began, although the simplistic dependent variable of “attitude change” was
traded in for more complicated theories around the cognitive effects of media.
The fourth stage started in the 80's and Scheufele proposes is still ongoing (article published in 1999);
this stage revolves around “social constructivist” theories and combines the concepts of strong and
limited effects. Strong effects of media are the ways in which this mediation “frames” and thereby
constructs social reality in patterned and predictable ways. However, these effects are limited by the
interaction between media and its recipients; public opinion works as a feedback system to which
content producers (journalists and others) are attuned when developing content. Thus the construction
of meaning is theorized as an interactive process involving both content producers and consumers.
Therefore, Scheufele argues that frames must be considered at two levels: media frames and individual
frames.
Various theorists have historically worked with the concept of media frames; Gamson and Modigliani
(1987), for example define it as, “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an
unfolding strip of events...The frame suggests what the controversy is about, the essence of the issue”
(p106)1. Similarly, the concept of individual frames has been theorized previously as, for example,
“mentally stored clusters of ideas that guide individuals' processing of information” (p106)2.
Individual frames can further be broken down into two frames of reference: long-term, global political
views versus issue-related, short-term frames.
Framing can be conceptualized as an independent variable, for example defining the “why” behind how
1 Gamson, W.A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R.G. Braungart & M.M.
Braungart (Eds.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Quote from p. 143)
2 Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 5158. Quote from p. 53
journalists present an issue. Alternately, framing can be considered as the dependent variable in studies
that try to define the factors influencing frame creation or change. An example of this approach would
be a study of the way that media coverage impacts the short-term individual frames of reference
audience members use to assess a political issue.
From this basic schema, Scheufele creates a typology matrix in which past and future studies can be
categorized into four types:
 media frames as dependent variable
 media frames as independent variable
 individual frame as dependent variable
 individual frame as independent variable
Schuefele describes some previous research and the way it fits his proposed typology. For example, he
notes several studies that consider media frames as the independent variable and individual frames as
the dependent variable, or outcome. Some of the conclusions of these studies include:
 audiences do to a certain extent absorb the media frames presented to them, but place different
levels of emphasis, for example prioritizing a moral framing of an issue over the rational frame
presented by the media (p112)3
 media frames are related to audience frames in differing ways, contingent upon the issue at
stake (p112)4
 According to Gamson, formations of frames among audience members interacting in a group
can be typified as: cultural, personal, and integrated (p113)5
 individuals' frames are influenced by media coverage as well as their own thoughts (p113)6
Another popular type of study are those that treat audience frames as the independent variable,
mapping the extent to which these frames lead to particular types of action, such as mobilization within
a social movement.
Next, in order to ground the concept of framing firmly in theory, Scheufele maps out the way that the
variables involve are linked to one another. Framing is conceptualized as a process “where outcomes
of certain processes serve as inputs for subsequent processes: frame building; frame setting,
individual-level effects of framing; and a link between individual frames and media frames (i.e.,
journalists' and elites' susceptibility to framing processes)” (p115).
Some of the inputs that influence the frames journalists build include professional values,
organizational restraints, peer or external influence, or the perceived expectation of audiences. More
research into how these processes shape frame building is needed. There has also been research into
the relative impact of perceived importance of frames as opposed to their salience when it comes to
public opinion; this question warrants further research. While studies have described the effects of
media frames on audiences, Scheufele states that there has been no explanation as to how and why
3 Huang, K.S. (1996, May). A comparison between media frames and audience frames: The case of the Hill-Thomas
controversy. Paper presented at the annual conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Neuman, R.W., Just, M.R., Crigler, A.N. (1992). Common knowledge. News and the construction of political meaning.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4 Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
5 Gamson, W.A. (1992b). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6 Price, V., Tewksbury, D., & Powers, E. (1997). Switching trains of thought: The impact of news frames on readers'
cognitive responses. Communication Research, 24, 481-506.
linkages between the two variables exist; this is another hole in the research. Finally, research is
needed on “journalists as audiences,” and the factors involved with their individual-level framing.
Ultimately Scheufele hopes that other scholars will take up his typology and process-model of framing,
utilizing them to answer the many questions he and others continue to raise within this dynamic field of
theory.
Implications for discussion: Like the typology of democratic theories outlined in Ferree et al.'s piece
two weeks ago, this example of metatheory does important work in clarifying a topic of enquiry and the
ways in which it might be engage more fruitfully. It might be worth discussing how metatheories are
developed, and the impact they have subsequently on their respective subfields.