See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254074406

Framing Politics: An Integrative Approach

Article  in  American Behavioral Scientist · March 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0002764211426324

CITATIONS READS

153 3,554

1 author:

Jörg Matthes
University of Vienna
243 PUBLICATIONS   7,731 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SMART?Phone. Consequences of Smartphone Use in Children's and Adolescents' Everyday Lives. View project

Ph.D. Project: Objects of Desire. Content and Effects of Sexualizing Media View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jörg Matthes on 20 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Americanhttp://abs.sagepub.com/
Behavioral Scientist

Framing Politics : An Integrative Approach

Jörg Matthes
American Behavioral Scientist 2012 56: 247 originally published online 15 December
2011
DOI: 10.1177/0002764211426324

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://abs.sagepub.com/content/56/3/247

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for American Behavioral Scientist can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://abs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://abs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://abs.sagepub.com/content/56/3/247.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 9, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 15, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

ABS42632
4
ABS56310.1177/0002764211426324MatthesAmerican Behavioral Scientist

Article
American Behavioral Scientist

Framing Politics:  An 56(3) 247­–259

© 2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission: http://www.
Integrative Approach sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0002764211426324
http://abs.sagepub.com

Jörg Matthes1

Abstract
As has often been noted, one of the strengths of framing research has been to
bridge several research areas in mass communication, such as the origin, journalistic
production, content, and effects of news. This article attempts to provide an overview
and a review of the cross-disciplinary discourse about framing. Although there are
numerous studies on frame construction, frame building, and frame setting, hardly any
research has attempted to draw a complete picture of the whole framing process.
Based on a definition of frames and framing that can be applied across all stages of the
framing process, the design and the methods of an extensive study about a campaign
on the naturalization of immigrants are introduced.The merits and insights of such an
approach are discussed.

Keywords
frames, framing, framing effects

After a substantial growth in the past three decades, political communication scholar-
ship has evolved into a mature field of study. One mark of this maturation is the grow-
ing specialization of rather distinct research communities that focus on different
research objects and pursue diverse agendas (Entman, 1993; Graber, 1993; Lin &
Kaid, 2000; Nimmo & Swanson, 1990). Furthermore, political communication is an
interdisciplinary field of study involving scholars from a variety of backgrounds such
as political science, mass communication, sociology, journalism, and social psychol-
ogy. The consequence is, as Lin and Kaid (2000) argued, that political communication
is, on one hand, “a place where interests of scholars with different backgrounds con-
verge”; on the other hand, “it is a place where the inherent differences of scholars’
original academic areas appear” (p. 147).
1
University of Vienna,Vienna, Austria

Corresponding Author:
Jörg Matthes, Department of Communication, University of Vienna, Berggasse 11, 1090 Vienna, Austria
Email: joerg.matthes@univie.ac.at

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

248 American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

There are at least three different approaches to the study of political communica-
tion. The first is concerned with the construction of political information by political
elites, strategic communicators, campaigners, or lobbyists. The second focuses on the
communication processes through which messages are crafted by the news media. The
third attempts to understand individual responses to persuasive messages. These three
approaches are, as Nimmo and Swanson (1990) observed, “accelerating into ‘frag-
mentation’” (p. 10). Jacobs and Shapiro (2000) echo this warning by stating that the
“full interconnectedness of elite politics, media coverage, and public opinion has been
neglected by pundits and scholars alike” (p. 55).
In the development of an interdisciplinary field, fragmentation is by no means
unusual; it indicates the field’s growth and the rising level of scholarly expertise.
However, the downside of fragmentation is that scholars in different fragments
remain unaware of parallel developments and insights. Moreover, single fragments
are unable to draw a complete picture of the whole political communication process
and thus remain somehow limited. For instance, the analysis focusing on the politi-
cal input is incomplete because it underestimates journalistic autonomy. Likewise, a
media-centered approach is incomplete because it neglects that political elites and
strategic communicators drive the mass communication process.
Given the importance of these research fields for democratic representation, the
intentional strategies of politicians and media actors and the reactions of the citizens
need to be studied with an integrated approach. The present special issue aims at such
an integrative effort by combining several articles that analyze a joint data pool about
a campaign on immigration. The data include an extensive content analysis of cam-
paign material, a full sampling of all news media content throughout the campaign,
and a two-wave panel study investigating citizens’ attitudes. Thus, the special issue
aims at a big-picture analysis of political campaigns, from the top down, from the
campaigners, to the news media, and finally to the public. In the field of political
communication that presents highly fragmented pieces of specialist research, such an
integrative endeavor is rare and overdue.

Framing as an Integrative Concept

The challenge, however, is to deliver a concept or theory that helps to approach such
integrative research endeavors from a coherent and unique interdisciplinary vantage
point. Framing theory “as a way to describe the power of a communicating text”
(Entman, 1993, p. 51) has often been suggested to be such an integrative concept
(D’Angelo, 2002; Entman, 1993; Matthes, 2009, 2010; Reese, 2007). As D’Angelo
and Kuypers (2010) stated, “[T]heoretical integration seems to be an ineluctable part
of news framing analysis” (p. 5).
Frames are socially shared organizing principles that meaningfully structure the
social world (Reese, 2007). They are a part of culture, they guide how the elite con-
struct information, they affect journalists’ information selection, they are manifest in

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

Matthes 249

media texts, and they influence cognitions and attitudes of audience members. The
value of the framing concept, as Reese (2007) explained, is to deliver a model

that bridges parts of the field that need to be in touch with each other: quantita-
tive and qualitative, empirical and interpretive, psychological and sociological,
and academic and professional. If the most interesting happens at the edge of
disciplines . . . then framing certainly has the potential to bring disciplinary
perspectives together in interesting ways. (p. 148)

The key idea is that strategic actors, journalists, and audiences do not simply reflect
or transport the political and social realities. In contrast, politics, issues, and events
are subject to different patterns of selections and interpretations. These interpreta-
tions of issues are negotiated, contested, and modified over time. In light of this,
frames are selective views on issues—views that construct reality in a certain way
leading to different evaluations and recommendations. Entman (1993) summarized
these functions of frames in his seminal definition:

To frame is to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more
salient in a communicating context, in such a way as to promote a particular
problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment
recommendation for the item described. (p. 52)

To give an example, the issue of abortion can be framed as killing unborn human life
or can be seen from the perspective of free choice. Both views imply a completely
different problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and treatment
recommendation.

The Research Literature

Frames can be found in strategic communications of political and organizational
actors (e.g., political parties, nongovernmental organizations, etc.), in the cognitive
structures of journalists, in news media content, and in the minds of citizens. More
specifically, communicators—with unequal resources—such as political elites,
social movements, lobbyists, and activists develop frames about an issue and try to
establish these in the public discourse and in the news media (Benford & Snow,
2000; Gerhards & Rucht, 1992; Hänggli & Kriesi, 2010). Most scientific studies
conduct input–output analyses by comparing PR frames and news frames. Likewise,
social movement theorists understand framing as a strategy for social movements to
mobilize both participants and the public. As Snow and Benford (1992) argued, suc-
cessful frames must diagnose a problem, prognosticate solutions and tactics, and
motivate the movement to action.
These strategic frames are selected and modified by journalists who bring in their
own frames as well. Tuchman (1976) described journalistic frames as useful tools that

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

250 American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

journalists apply to cope with the information tide. Eventually, journalistic frames are
manifest in news media content; as a result, different news outlets frame political
issues in quite different ways (e.g., Birkland & Lawrence, 2009; Kohring & Matthes,
2002; Kolmer & Semetko, 2009; Matthes & Kohring, 2008).
The basic idea behind framing effects that by selecting some information and high-
lighting it to the exclusion of other information, news frames can shape the audience’s
interpretations of issues, candidates, and events (for a review, see Entman, Matthes, &
Pellicano, 2009). Druckman (2001) argued that an “[emphasis] framing effect is said to
occur when, in the course of describing an issue or event, a speaker’s emphasis on a
subset of potentially relevant considerations causes individuals to focus on these con-
siderations when constructing their opinions” (p. 1042). Nelson, Oxley, and Clawson
(1997) demonstrated that issue frames tell people how to weigh the often conflicting
considerations that we face on a daily basis. There is ample evidence that news frames
can decrease or increase the salience of an issue or consideration when citizens form
their political opinions (e.g., de Vreese, 2004; de Vreese, Boomgaarden, & Semetko,
2011; Matthes, 2008).
However, people do not mindlessly follow the news media’s framing. In contrast, there
are a number of factors that determine if individuals will be influenced by frames or not.
For instance, it has been found that only those frames that are continuously on the agenda
are likely to exert an impact (i.e., frame repetition, see Matthes, 2008). Furthermore,
framing effects tend to be weaker when competing frames are present (see, e.g., Chong &
Druckman, 2007). This, however, is very likely for all issues in modern democracies
because, first, there is usually a struggle over frame definition among political elites and,
second, journalists prefer conflict and thus usually follow the journalistic norm of cover-
ing both sides. In addition, frames with weak arguments exert weaker effects. Strong
frames involve compelling and convincing facts, or they appeal to emotions, such as fears
or anger (see Chong & Druckman, 2007). Finally, framing effects depend on the credibil-
ity of news sources, prior attitudes, and interpersonal communication among citizens (see
Druckman, 2001; Matthes, 2008).
Taken together, there is convincing evidence for framing processes at various stages
of the political communication process. These insights can be puzzled together to get
a big-picture understanding of the various factors that create, shape, and redefine
frames. Surprisingly, however, although framing is often understood as a bridging
model (see Reese, 2007), there are hardly any studies that have truly bridged the vari-
ous stages of frames, from the political elite to the news media and finally to the pub-
lic. One reason for this is that the framing concept has not been properly and consistently
specified. As a consequence, it cannot serve as an effective bridge and is often better
described as a bridge to nowhere.
Of course, there are enlightening single-stage studies investigating frames at one
level of the process. The advantage of such an approach is the ability to delve deeply
into single framing mechanisms. Yet all of these single studies work with different
issues and analyze different campaigns, at different points in time, in different coun-
tries, and also with different theoretical and operational definitions of frames.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

Matthes 251

Therefore, one potential disadvantage of this approach is the limited comparability of

findings. For instance, if scholars identify frame characteristics that help explain the
success of political elites to determine news content, then these characteristics might
not necessarily be relevant for framing effects at the audience level. Thus, there is a
need for a set of interconnected studies that help to answer framing scholarship’s
inherent call for integration. Rephrased, although we know that framing processes are
at work on several levels, we also need studies providing a holistic, integrative picture
on how policy frames are constructed, how they find their way to the news media and
finally to the public. Yet although integration is the key advantage of the framing con-
cept (Entman, 1993), such a large-scale framing project involving several data sources
and methods has never been conducted.

Framing as a Research Program

To conduct such a study, we need to clarify the conceptual status and the core assump-
tions of framing research. By convention, we speak of frames as the result of the fram-
ing process. Framing, in contrast, refers to an active process of creating, selecting, and
shaping the frames. As D’Angelo (2002) expounds in his thoughtful essay, framing can
best be described as a research program, rather than a unified theoretical paradigm. As
such, framing puts “together strange bedfellows that differ in important philosophical
assumptions” (Reese, 2007, p. 149). This diversity of theoretical perspectives—the
cognitive, constructivist, and critical—has been beneficial to framing research because
it has enabled a comprehensive understanding of all facets of the framing process
(D’Angelo, 2002; D’Angelo & Kuypers, 2010).
In light of this, D’Angelo (2002) regards the framing concept as a research program
in the sense of Lakatos (1970). He asserts that there is no need for a single paradigm of
framing because “[t]heoretical and paradigmatic diversity has led to a comprehensive
view of the framing process, not fragmented findings in isolated research agendas”
(D’Angelo, 2002, p. 871). In fact, restricting this rich body of literature to one single
definition, method, scope, or understanding of framing would unnecessarily restrict the
merits and potential of the framing concept. Still, if the framing concept is to describe
(and explain) the full flow of political communication—from the political elite to jour-
nalists, news texts, and citizens—then there needs to be at least some shared theoretical
and conceptual variance. Also from the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is
indisputable that research programs need so-called “hard-core” conceptions—joint
theoretical propositions that are shared by all (framing) researchers. In Lakatos’s
(1970) view, the hard-core is a set of basic ideas that are essential to a research pro-
gram. Abandoning these hard-core ideas means abandoning the whole program.
D’Angelo (2002) defines four such hard-core conjectures: First, “frames are themes
within news stories that are carried by various framing devices,” second, they “are first
causes that share various levels of reality,” third, they, “interact with the cognitive and
social behaviors that they have shaped in the first place,” and, fourth, they shape “pub-
lic dialogues about political issues” (p. 873).

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

252 American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

Building on these hard-core conjectures, we can further identify four broad prin-
ciples that help describe the framing process (see Matthes, 2010): frame competition,
frame selection and modification, frame dynamics, and frame consistency. First,
there is always a competition of frames among the elite or strategic communicators.
That means all political issues are contested, open to several issue interpretations or
frames. There is a struggle over meaning, a battle to define a dominant interpretation
of an issue.
Second, all involved actors are free to select some frames over others or modify
existing frames or bring in their own frames. Journalists, for instance, are not forced to
automatically transport the frames suggested by the political elite. They can select,
shape, and reframe the arguments suggested by other communicators. They can also
suggest their own frames. Similarly, the audience often frames issues in ways that are
suggested neither by political elites nor by journalistic news content.
Third, framing is a dynamic and diachronic process (Entman, 2004; Entman et al.,
2009). Framing evolves over time (i.e., political elites can react to the frames in media
content or to citizens’ framing of an issue revealed by public opinion polls). Some
frames are communicated by the political elite, they find their way in the news media,
and they are mirrored in public opinion data (e.g., polls). Subsequently, these framing
effects are observed by other elites who can react by proposing counterframes.
Fourth and finally, frames are not singular persuasive messages or assertions. Frames
always refer to a pattern involving issue interpretation, attribution, and evaluation. Such
frame elements are tied together in (logically) consistent ways. That is, an issue inter-
pretation suggests a certain evaluation and a certain attribution. Frames exert their
power by repeatedly invoking the same pattern of consistent frame elements giving citi-
zens a chance to notice, understand, and store the mental association for future applica-
tions (Entman et al., 2009).
A set of studies aiming to understand framing at all stages of the communication
process must agree on such hard-core conjectures and principles. As can be seen from
D’Angelo’s (2002) first conjecture, it is clear that the definition of a frame marks the
most important hard-core assumption of all. Therefore for a Lakatosian research pro-
gram—we need a common understanding and definition for the terms frame and fram-
ing. Examining, for instance, a Type A frame at the communicator level and a Type B
frame at the audience level, does not make sense. In fact, however, the field offers an
abundance of different conceptual and operational definitions of frames (see D’Angelo,
2002; Matthes, 2009), and as a consequence, framing might become a buzzword rather
than a keyword in political communication (Entman et al., 2009; Matthes, 2010).
When looking at all involved actors in the whole framing process, I argue that eval-
uative, issue-specific substantive frames are especially suited for an integrated approach
on framing (Matthes, 2009). Although other features of communication such as con-
flict or horse-race framing (i.e., generic frames or contest frames) provide interesting
insights at the news content level (see Gerth & Siegert, 2012; Hänggli, 2012), they are
not relevant to the whole framing process. That is, the key idea of framing is one of
strategic communication: to bring one’s views to news attention and to win public

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

Matthes 253

support for one’s position. To observe this process, we have to track down substantive
frames that are suggested by political elites, selected (and potentially reframed) by
journalists, and incorporated into citizens’ thoughts and issue evaluations. Frames are
thus understood as strategic issue positions that are manifest in media input (see
Hänggli, 2012; Hänggli & Kriesi, 2012), that can be found in news texts (see Gerth &
Siegert, 2001), and that shape issue interpretations (see Wettstein, 2012), and voting
intentions (see Schemer, Wirth, & Matthes, 2012). Frames are always valanced, either
explicitly (i.e., a positive or negative evaluation) or implicitly (i.e., selecting bits of
information that suggest a positive or negative evaluation). We believe that such an
understanding of frames has the potential to bridge several areas of research that other-
wise remain unconnected and scattered (Entman, 1993).

Framing in Direct Democratic Campaigns

The aim of the present special issue is to integrate the analysis of the strategies of
political actors and media actors with the analysis of their impact on citizens’ opinion
formation. The ultimate goal is to provide a big-picture understanding of the whole
political framing process. To achieve this, we need data about a single campaign
involving all relevant actors. The data used for this special issue deal with a Swiss
direct-democratic campaign about the naturalization of immigrants in 2008, and it
involved several methods and sources of data (see Kriesi, 2011). First, we conducted
a content analysis of all media input, that is, campaign material delivered by all rel-
evant campaigners. Second, we conducted an extensive content analysis of all news-
paper and TV coverage throughout the whole campaign, for a period of 5 months.
And third, there was a representative two-wave panel survey asking citizens about
their opinions and attitudes with respect to this campaign. All these methods were
jointly developed, and the measures included therein were harmonized (i.e., same
codes and measures in all data sets).
Just as electoral campaigns in majoritarian electoral systems, direct-democratic
campaigns typically give rise to the confrontation of two opposing camps (i.e., the pro
and the contra camp). In the 2008 naturalization campaign, the populist right initiative
suggested a stricter application process and tighter decision procedures for immigrants
who wanted to attain national citizenship. They campaigned against mass naturaliza-
tions (i.e., the “mass naturalization” frame) and wanted that citizens should have the
final say about whom to naturalize into their communities and whom not (i.e., the
“people final say” frame). The opposition argued that naturalization procedures should
be in line with the rule of law (i.e., the “rule of law” frame).
In referendum campaigns, the presence of two competing camps guarantees compet-
ing information flows, and the bipolar character of the competition keeps the information
flows within manageable proportions. Moreover, this type of campaign has the addi-
tional advantage of being issue specific. This implies that the campaign is much more
focused than an electoral campaign, which allows for a more detailed study of framing
strategies and their impact on voters. In short, direct democratic campaigns with their

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

254 American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

clear issue focus and their predefined start and end points offer perfect conditions to
study political framing processes with an integrated research design.
Figure 1 summarizes the design of the present studies: It highlights the three types
of actors involved in the political communication process—the political actors, the
media actors, and the citizen public; the decisions and processes taking place at the site
of each one of these actors; and the three sets of reciprocal processes linking each pair
of them. The goal of this design was to allow for a systematic linkage of data collected
in the three distinct perspectives. Although the three perspectives focus on different
and complementary aspects, they are nevertheless closely linked to one other by a
shared theoretical perspective (i.e., framing), by the common focus on one single
political campaign (i.e., the naturalization of immigrants), and by the common, inte-
grated data pool consisting of coordinated measures (i.e., content analyses of cam-
paign material and press releases, content analysis of news coverage, and public
opinion surveys). We believe that such an interdisciplinary and integrative empirical
approach represents a methodological innovation that provides a complex and com-
prehensive perspective on the whole process of political campaigns. To our knowl-
edge, this is the first time that these three perspectives have been brought together in
an analysis of the reciprocal influences among political actors, the media, and the
general public in a single integrative framework.

Operationalizing Frames
All articles examine three frames at various levels of the communication process: the
rule of law frame, the mass naturalization frame, and the people final say frame (for
more details, see Gerth & Siegert, 2012; Hänggli, 2012; Hänggli & Kriesi, 2012;
Schemer et al., 2012; Wettstein, 2012). These frames were operationalized as bundles
of consistent issue arguments, originally proposed by opponents or proponents. Such
an understanding roughly follows Entman (1993), who stated that framing is about
“selection and highlighting, and use of the highlighted elements to construct an argu-
ment about problems and their causation, evaluation, and/or solution” (p. 53). A single
argument is, of course, not a frame. An argument can be defined as a verbalization of
a specific point of view in which a claim is expressed with a certain evaluation (also
see Schemer et al., 2012). Arguments are often accompaby propositions of possible
solutions or the reasons for a problem. However, in our case the solution proposed by
proponents was nearly always embedded in the problem definition. According to the
populist right, the adoption of the initiative favoring democratic naturalization was the
solution to the problem. In contrast, for the opponents this solution was the main
problem because in their view the naturalization proposal was incompatible with the
rule of law. Based on this logic, several arguments (for mass naturalization, people
final say, and rule of law) were summarized to overarching patterns we call issue
frames. These frames mark consistent patterns of argumentations favoring a certain
position over another, constructing the issue of naturalization in a specific way. The
people final say frame and the mass naturalization frame are similar in evaluation but

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

Matthes 255

Input-Output-
Analysis

Decisions
and
Media actors processes
within the
media

Political
actors

Analysis of
Political
media use
decisions and
and media
processes
effects
Citizens as actors

Analysis of
direct and
indirect effects
on decision Decisions and processes
makers within the audience

Figure 1. The design of the interdisciplinary research project

different in their specific argumentation. These three frames mark the major lines of
argumentation that could be found in this campaign. Of course, other single arguments
(i.e., unspecific arguments) appeared in this campaign. These were, however, not sum-
marized to frames because they did not form a consistent pattern of issue interpreta-
tion. It is important to stress that each method was open for different frames to appear:
The media input data coded all arguments that were relevant, the content analysis
measured all arguments that appeared throughout the whole campaign, and the public
opinion survey worked with open-ended questions giving citizens the possibility to
name their own frames.

Some Selected Insights from an Integrated Approach

The key advantage of this set of interrelated articles is that they allow a comparison
of framing processes at the communicator level, the news content level, and the
effects level. Hänggli and Kriesi (2012) demonstrated how political actors construct
and promote their frames. They found that political elites have chosen to push and
repeat their own (three) frames rather than discussing the frames of their opponents.
When the frames of political opponents were addressed, they were attacked and

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

256 American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

disputed rather than reframed to one’s own position. Building on these insights, the
articles by Gerth and Siegert (2012) and Hänggli (2012) showed that journalists more
or less transported or mediated these three frames, though not always as a direct reac-
tion to media input provided by political elites (see Hänggli, 2012). Neither was there
an attempt by journalists to redefine or question these original frames, nor did journal-
ists suggest additional frames. What is striking, however, is that the power of political
actors especially determined frame-setting success (see Gerth & Siegert, 2012;
Hänggli, 2012). There was also evidence that journalists did not provide an equal
share of pro and contra frames, not even in public service news media (Gerth &
Siegert, 2012).
Although the political elites’ frames had a rather direct impact on news media’s
reporting, the effects of news frames on the audience were much more limited. First,
the article by Wettstein (2012) showed that audience members framed the issue in
ways that were suggested neither by political elites nor by journalists. Compared to the
findings by Hänggli (2012) and Gerth and Siegert (2012), one could conclude that
audience members were much more independent in forming their frames than were
journalists. Still, at the issue interpretation level, news media frames exerted a rather
direct impact on citizens’ cognitive responses toward an issue. Cognitive responses,
however, are rather uninformative about actual issue attitudes, that is, the true power
of news frames (Wettstein, 2012). In contrast to the rather strong effects on cognitive
responses, there was a weak impact of news frames on citizens’ attitudes. In fact, this
influence was moderated by the audience’s value predispositions (Schemer et al.,
2012).

Implications
Because of their integrative nature, the present articles might also be informative for
larger questions that currently intrigue political communication scholars. Some
voices in the literature bemoan the negative effects of a rising dominance of media
logic in political communication. This process is usually referred to as mediatization
(see, e.g., Strömbäck, 2008). The major concern is that, if political actors choose to
adjust their frames in ways that make them more likely to be covered by the news
media, then substantial issue discourses might be dominated by media logic favoring
conflict, personalization, or dramatization (Strömbäck, 2008). As should be appar-
ent, these developments are generally perceived as having a negative impact on the
functioning of modern democracy because coverage dominated by a media logic
might draw citizens’ attention away from substantial frames to rather trivial stories
or the subaspects of issues.
Interestingly, the findings of the present articles indicate that the direct-democratic
campaign under investigation here was primarily conducted in substantive terms, with
a debate that was dominated by argument-based issue frames. Although the news
media increased the share of counterframes (see Hänggli, 2012), they largely adopted
the main frames from the political elites, without changing their substantive nature.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

Matthes 257

Based on these findings, we can conclude that the news media favored dialogue and
vital exchange of arguments, rather than trivialization, dramatization, negativity, or
other attention-eliciting devices (see Gerth & Siegert, 2012). In other words, instead
of political actors (and their campaign material) being governed by media logic, it is
fair to conclude that media content was largely governed by political logic. When it
comes to media effects, findings by Wettstein (2012) and Schemer et al. (2012) do not
let us conclude that citizens were manipulated by news media information. Although
there was an impact of news frames for some citizens, their attitudes were still shaped
by substantial issue information, that is, argument-based frames. Finally, it could be
shown that citizens tended to frame the issue in ways that were not suggested by politi-
cal elites or the news media.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or
publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Swiss
National Science Foundation as a part of “Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century” of the
National Center of Competence in Research.

References
Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview
and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.
Birkland, T. A., & Lawrence, R. G. (2009). Media framing and policy change after Columbine.
American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1405-1425.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10,
103-126.
D’Angelo, P. (2002). News framing as a multi-paradigmatic research program: A response to
Entman. Journal of Communication, 52, 870-888.
D’Angelo, P., & Kuypers, J. A. (2010). Introduction. Doing news framing analysis. In
P. D’Angelo, & J. A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing news framing analysis (pp. 1-13). New York,
NY: Routledge.
de Vreese, C. H. (2004). The effects of strategic news on political cynicism, issue evaluations,
and policy support: A two-wave experiment. Mass Communication & Society, 7, 191-214.
de Vreese, C. H., Boomgaarden, H. G., Semetko, H. A. (2011). (In)direct framing effects: The
effects of news media framing on public support for Turkish membership in the European
Union. Communication Research, 38, 179-205.
Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics,
63, 1041-1066.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Com-
munication, 43(4), 51-58.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

258 American Behavioral Scientist 56(3)

Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign
policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Entman, R. M., Matthes, J., & Pellicano, L. (2009). Nature, sources, and effects of news fram-
ing. In K. Wahl-Jorgensen & T. Hanitzsch (Eds.), The handbook of journalism studies
(pp. 175-190). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (1992). Mesomobilization: Organizing and framing in two protest
campaigns in West Germany. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 555-595.
Gerth, M. A., & Siegert, G. (2012). Patterns of consistence and constriction: How news media
frame the coverage of direct democratic campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3)
279–299.
Graber, D. A. (1993). Political communication: Scope, progress, promise. In A. W. Finifter
(Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 305-332). Washington, DC: American
Political Science Association.
Hänggli, R. (2012). Key factors in frame building: How strategic political actors shape news
media coverage. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 300–317.
Hänggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2010). Political framing strategies and their impact on media framing
in a Swiss direct-democratic campaign. Political Communication, 27, 141-157.
Hänggli, R., & Kriesi, H. (2012). Frame construction and frame promotion (strategic framing
choices). American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 260–278.
Jacobs, L. R., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2000). Politicians don’t pander: Political manipulation and the
loss of democratic responsiveness. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2002). The face(t)s of biotech in the nineties: How the German
press framed modern biotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 143-154.
Kolmer, C., & Semetko, H. A. (2009). Framing the Iraq War: Perspectives from American, U.K.,
Czech, German, South African, and Al-Jazeera News. American Behavioral Scientist, 52,
643-656.
Kriesi, H. (Ed.). (2011). Political communication in direct democratic campaigns. New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In
I. Lakatos & A. E. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91-195).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lin, Y., & Kaid, L. L. (2000). Fragmentation of the intellectual structure of political communi-
cation study: Some empirical evidence. Sociometrics, 47, 143-164.
Matthes, J. (2008). Media frames and public opinion: Exploring the boundaries of framing
effects in a two-wave panel study. Studies in Communication Sciences, 8(2), 101-128.
Matthes, J. (2009). What’s in a frame? A content analysis of media-framing studies in the
world’s leading communication journals, 1990–2005. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 86, 349-367.
Matthes, J. (2010). Frames in political communication: Toward clarification of a research pro-
gram. In A. Stewart (Ed.), Rethinking communication: Keywords in communication research
(pp. 123-136). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Matthes, J., & Kohring, M. (2008). The content analysis of media frames: Toward improving
reliability and validity. Journal of Communication, 58, 258-279.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

Matthes 259

Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects.
Political Behavior, 19, 221-246.
Nimmo, D., & Swanson, D. L. (1990). The field of political communication: Beyond the voter
persuasion paradigm. In D. L. Swanson & D. Nimmo (Eds.), New directions in political
communication: A resource book (pp. 7-47). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
Reese, S. D. (2007). The framing project: A bridging model for media research revisited. Jour-
nal of Communication, 57, 148-154.
Schemer, C., Wirth, W., & Matthes, J. (2012). Value resonance and value framing effects on
voting intentions in direct-democratic campaigns. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3),
334–352.
Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D. Morris &
C. McClurg Mueller (Eds.), Frontiers in social movement theory (pp. 133-155). New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics.
International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 228-246.
Tuchman, G. (1976). Telling stories. Journal of Communication, 26(4), 93-97.
Wettstein, M. (2012). Frame adoption in referendum campaigns: The effect of news coverage on
the public salience of issue interpretations. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 318–333.

Bio
Jörg Matthes is currently professor at the Department of Communication at the University of
Vienna, Austria. His research focuses on public opinion formation, media effects, advertising,
and empirical methods.

Downloaded from abs.sagepub.com at Vienna University Library on February 16, 2012

View publication stats