In the social sciences, framing is a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. Framing can manifest in thought or interpersonal communication. Frames in thought consist of the mental representations, interpretations, and simplifications of reality. Frames in communication consist of the communication of frames between different actors. Framing is a key component of sociology, the study of social interaction among humans. Framing is an integral part of conveying and processing data daily. Successful framing techniques can be used to reduce the ambiguity of intangible topics by contextualizing the information in such a way that recipients can connect to what they already know.
In social theory, framing is a schema of interpretation, a collection of anecdotes and stereotypes, that individuals rely on to understand and respond to events.Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. In other words, people build a series of mental "filters" through biological and cultural influences. They then use these filters to make sense of the world. The choices they then make are influenced by their creation of a frame. Framing involves social construction of a social phenomenon – by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. Participation in a language community necessarily influences an individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases. Politically, the language communities of advertising, religion, and mass media are highly contested, whereas framing in less-sharply defended language communities might evolveDietram A. Scheufele, David Tewksbury, Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models, Journal of Communication, Volume 57, Issue 1, March 2007, Pages 9–20, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x imperceptibly and organically over cultural time frames, with fewer overt modes of disputation.
One can view framing in communication as positive or negative – depending on the audience and what kind of information is being presented. The framing may be in the form of equivalence frames, where two or more logically equivalent alternatives are portrayed in different ways (see framing effect) or emphasis frames, which simplify reality by focusing on a subset of relevant aspects of a situation or issue. In the case of "equivalence frames", the information being presented is based on the same facts, but the "frame" in which it is presented changes, thus creating a reference-dependent perception.
The effects of framing can be seen in journalism: the frame surrounding the issue can change the reader's perception without having to alter the actual facts as the same information is used as a base. This is done through the media's choice of certain words and images to cover a story (e.g. using the word fetus vs. the word baby). In the context of politics or mass-media communication, a frame defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric in such a way as to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others. For political purposes, framing often presents facts in such a way that implicates a problem that requires a solution. Members of political parties attempt to frame issues in a way that makes a solution favoring their own political leaning appear as the most appropriate course of action for the situation at hand.
Examples When we want to explain an event, our understanding is often based on our interpretation (frame). If someone rapidly closes and opens an eye, we react differently based on if we interpret this as a "physical frame" (they blinked) or a "social frame" (they winked). The blink may be due to a speck of dust (resulting in an involuntary and not particularly meaningful reaction). The wink may imply a voluntary and meaningful action (to convey humor to an accomplice, for example).
Observers will read events seen as purely physical or within a frame of "nature" differently from those seen as occurring with social frames. But we do not look at an event and then "apply" a frame to it. Rather, individuals constantly project into the world around them the interpretive frames that allow them to make sense of it; we only shift frames (or realize that we have habitually applied a frame) when incongruity calls for a frame-shift. In other words, we only become aware of the frames that we always already use when something forces us to replace one frame with another.This example borrowed from Clifford Geertz: Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology (1983), Basic Books 2000 paperback: Goffman offers the example of the woman bidding on a mirror at an auction who first examines the frame and surface for imperfections, and then "checks" herself in the mirror and adjusts her hat. See Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1986. , p. 39. In each case, the mirror represents more than simply a physical object.
Though some consider framing to be synonymous with agenda setting, other scholars state that there is a distinction. According to an article written by Donald H. Weaver, framing selects certain aspects of an issue and makes them more prominent in order to elicit certain interpretations and evaluations of the issue, whereas agenda setting introduces the issue topic to increase its salience and accessibility.
In sociology Framing theory provides a broad theoretical approach that analysts have used in communication studies, news (Johnson-Cartee, 1995), politics, and social movements (among other applications). According to 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".Bert Klandermans. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell, p. 45
History 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. On p. 7 of Frame Analysis, Goffman credits Gregory Bateson with introducing him to frames, writing "it is in Bateson's paper ("A Theory of Play and Fantasy") that the term 'frame' was proposed in roughly the sense in which I want to employ it." 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.Erving Goffman (1974). Frame Analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1974, p. 21. 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.Kenneth Boulding: The Image: Knowledge in Life and Society, University of Michigan Press, (1956)
Social movement theory 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. 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. Ultimately, effective framing can shape movement outcomes by influencing public perception, strengthening collective identity, and opening political opportunities.
Framing is not a static process but an ongoing negotiation shaped by discursive, strategic, and contested processes. Movements create narratives through discussion and storytelling, strategically align their messages with broader cultural themes, and continuously adapt to opposition. Strategies such as bridging (connecting with related movements), amplification (emphasizing key themes), extension (broadening issues to attract new supporters), and transformation (redefining societal meanings) all play a role in shaping movement discourse. However, movements must also contend with counterframing from opponents, internal frame disputes, and the evolving relationship between frames and real-world events.
The success of a movement's framing efforts is influenced by external factors such as political opportunities, cultural resonance, and audience reception. Political conditions can facilitate or constrain framing efforts, while cultural narratives determine how well movement messages resonate with the public. Additionally, movements often tailor their frames to appeal to different audiences, from policymakers and the media to grassroots activists and potential recruits.
One example of framing being used by organizations is to change the way that their image looks towards the public. On the issue of abortion, one side proclaims they are Pro-Life, and the other, Pro-Choice. Both of these titles are inherently a good thing. A person who does not have a stance on this issue would see both of these titles reflecting values that are important to everyone. No person will be against Life or Choice, which is why these titles were strategically chosen by the organizations. However, framing can be used to try and paint the opposition as the "bad guys". One example of this is how protest signs are used at Pro-Choice protests, one of the most popular things to write on a sign is "Abortion Kills". Everyone can agree that killing a person is bad, which is why they use this wording to oppose Pro-Choice. When it is framed in such a way, the way you think about the issue changes. The countermovement against pro-choice uses rhetoric and language to sway the public opinion.McCaffrey, D., & Keys, J. (2000). Competitive Framing Processes in the Abortion Debate: Polarization-vilification, Frame Saving, and Frame Debunking. Sociological Quarterly., 41(1), 41–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2000.tb02365.x
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: diagnostic framing for the identification of a problem and assignment of blame prognostic framing to suggest solutions, strategies, and tactics to a problem 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.