Construct · 4 fields · 8 citations

Where does framing collide?

One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.

● jingle · one name, four constructs Nearest construct by meaningframecompare the meanings
How to read this

Every construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to framing is frame.

Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.

GOFFMAN → ENTMANEQUIVALENCE VS EMPHASISframing4 CONSTRUCTSCommunicationENTMAN · SALIENCESociologyGOFFMAN · SNOW · BENFORDLinguistics & AIFILLMORE · MINSKY · SLOTSDecision scienceGAINS · LOSSES · RISK

Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.

1974Sociology1975Linguistics & AI1981Decision science1993Communication
2026

Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.

Communication & political communication

selecting some aspects of reality and making them salient in a text to promote a problem definition or interpretation.

To select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating text, so as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, or treatment recommendation. Entman wrote that sentence in 1993 to give a "fractured paradigm" one definition, and located frames in four places at once: the communicator, the text, the receiver, and the culture. Chong and Druckman's 2007 review sorted the resulting literature into frames in communication (what a speaker emphasizes) and frames in thought (what a listener considers), and made the framing effect the change in the second produced by the first. The distinctive claim is that the same facts, emphasized differently, move opinion.[1][2]

Unit
A message and the audience that receives it
Recovery means
Not applicable, effects are measured, not reversed; competing frames can cancel one another
Measured by
Content analysis of frame elements in texts; survey experiments comparing opinion across frame conditions

Sociology & social movements

a schema of interpretation that lets people locate, perceive, identify, and label what is going on in an activity.

A schema of interpretation that lets people locate, perceive, identify, and label what is going on in a strip of activity. Goffman's 1974 book is about the frames that answer the question "what is it that's going on here?" and about the keyings and fabrications that transform one frame into another, as play transforms fighting. Snow, Benford, and colleagues carried the term into social-movement research, and Benford and Snow's 2000 review fixed the collective-action frame with three tasks (diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational) and a set of processes, including frame alignment and frame resonance. Frames here are interactional accomplishments, not message features and not individual decisions.[3][4]

Unit
A situation, or a movement's shared interpretation of a grievance
Recovery means
Not applicable, a frame is re-keyed or contested, not recovered
Measured by
Ethnographic and textual analysis; coding of diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing in movement documents

Linguistics & artificial intelligence

a structured background of knowledge that a word evokes and against which its meaning is understood.

A structured background of knowledge that a word evokes and against which its meaning is understood: to know what "buy" means is to know the commercial-transaction frame with its buyer, seller, goods, and money. Fillmore set out frame semantics in 1982 and it became the basis of FrameNet. Minsky proposed in 1975 that a frame is a data structure for a stereotyped situation, with slots that take default values and are filled by observation, as a way for a program to represent a room or a birthday party. The two frames were named independently and are cousins: both are mental or machine structures that organize expectations, and neither says anything about persuasion.[5][6]

Unit
A lexical item or a stereotyped situation
Recovery means
Not applicable, a frame is instantiated or replaced when its defaults fail
Measured by
Annotated frame elements in corpora (FrameNet); slot-filling accuracy in knowledge representation systems

Behavioral economics & decision psychology

a change in preference produced by describing logically equivalent options in different terms, such as gains versus losses.

A change in preference produced by describing logically equivalent options in different terms, most famously as lives saved versus lives lost. Tversky and Kahneman's 1981 paper defined the decision frame as the decision-maker's conception of the acts, outcomes, and contingencies of a choice, and showed that a frame stated as gains produces risk aversion while the same choice stated as losses produces risk seeking. Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth's 1998 typology split the effect three ways (risky-choice, attribute, and goal framing) after finding that studies under one name were measuring different things. The defining feature is equivalence: the options do not change, only the description does.[7][8]

Unit
A choice between options, within a person or between groups
Recovery means
Not applicable, debiasing is studied as a separate effect
Measured by
Preference reversal between equivalent gain and loss descriptions; attribute ratings; compliance rates

Next

Run it through the Collider, or take the citations with you.

See how framing sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.

Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collision

Nearby collisions

polarization6 fields · 11 citationsjingle · one name, six constructsdiscourse6 fields · 10 citationsjingle · one name, six constructsrepresentation7 fields · 9 citationsjingle · one name, six constructsframe3 fields · 3 citationsjingle · one word, three constructs

References

  1. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
  2. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
  3. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harper & Row.
  4. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.611
  5. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–137). Hanshin.
  6. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. 211–277). McGraw-Hill.
  7. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
  8. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804

Cited on this page?

Confirm your construct, or correct us.

If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.

Claim your construct