Abstract
What the public thinks about crime and about the criminal justice system’s response to crime partly depends upon how stories are framed. Internal and external frames are central themes that make certain information more critical and guide inferences and emotions about expressed opinions, attitudes, or decisions. This chapter reviews research on the effects of framing, including survey introductions, on survey responses, and on the decision-making processes underlying the framing effect. Research shows that certain frames in survey introductions may be more persuasive and can increase response rates. This chapter also covers how questions and surveys are framed also may bias responses. Beyond these external frames, this chapter discusses the normative and cultural internal frames that may influence respondents’ opinions. The wide reaching implications for survey measurement and research are discussed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Arpan, L. M., Baker, K., Lee, Y., Jung, T., Lorusso, L., & Smith, J. (2006). News coverage of social protests and the effects of photographs and prior attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 9(1), 1–20.
Baylor, T. (1996). Media framing of movement protest: The case of American Indian protest. Social Science Journal, 33, 241–256.
Berinsky, A. J. (2002). Political context and the survey response: The dynamics of racial policy opinion. The Journal of Politics, 64, 567–584.
Birkland, T. A., & Lawrence, R. G. (2009). Media framing and policy change after columbine. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1405–1425.
Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173–201.
Brewer, P. R., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929–948.
Dardis, F. E., Baumgartner, F. R., Boydstun, A. E., De Boef, S., & Shen, F. (2008). Media framing of capital punishment and its impact on individuals’ cognitive responses. Mass Communication and Society, 11, 115–140.
Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1041–1066.
Dunegan, K. J. (1996). Fines, frames, and images: Examining formulation effects on punishment decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(1), 58–67.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitude. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace.
Edy, J. A., & Meirick, P. C. (2007). Wanted, dead or alive: Media frames, frame adoption, and support for the war in Afghanistan. Journal of Communication, 57, 119–141.
Fielding, N. G. (1988). Joining forces: Police training, socialization, and occupational competence. New York: Routledge.
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. (1991). Police attitudes to crime and punishment: Certainties and dilemmas. British Journal of Criminology, 31, 39–51.
Galesic, M., & Tourangeau, R. (2007). What is sexual harassment? It depends on who asks! Framing effects on survey responses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 189–202.
Gamliel, E., & Peer, E. (2006). Positive versus negative framing affects justice judgments. Social Justice Research, 19(3), 307–322.
Gorp, B. V., Vettehen, P. H., & Beentjes, J. W. (2009). Challenging the frame in the news: The role of issue involvement, attitude, and competing frames. Journal of Media Psychology, 21(4), 161–170.
Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.
Groves, R. M., Cialdini, R. B., & Couper, M. P. (1992). Understanding the decision to participate in a survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(4), 475–495.
Groves, R. M., Singer, E., & Corning, A. (2000). Leverage-saliency theory of survey participation: Description and illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299–308.
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. The Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520–543.
Holbrook, A. L., Krosnick, J. A., Moore, D., & Tourangeau, R. (2007). Response order effects in dichotomous categorical questions presented orally: The impact of question and respondent attributes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71(3), 325–348.
Hugenberg, K., Bodenhausen, G. V., & McLain, M. (2006). Framing discrimination: Effects of inclusion versus exclusion mind-sets on stereotypic judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1020–1031.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under uncertainty. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.
Kimmel, M. S. (2002). Gender symmetry in domestic violence: A substantive and methodological research review. Violence Against Women, 8(11), 1132–1363.
Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information processing at successive stages of decision making: Need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 171–193.
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.
Londen, M., Coenders, M., & Scheepers, P. (2010). Effects of issue frames on aversion to ethnic-targeted school policies. Methodology, 6(3), 96–106.
Mowen, J. C., & Cialdin, R. B. (1980). On implementing the door-in-the-face compliance technique in a business context. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 253–258.
Norenzayan, A., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Telling what they want to know: Participants tailor causal attributions to researchers’ interests. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1011–1020.
O’Brien, B., & Oyserman, D. (2010). The shield of defense or the sword of prosecution? How self-regulatory focus relates to responses to crime. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(8), 1849–1867.
Presser, S., Blair, J., & Triplett, T. (1992). Survey sponsorship, response rates, and response effects. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 699–702.
Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey participation: Description and illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 299–308.
Regan, K. V. (2010). Framing violence: The effects of survey context and question framing on reported rates of partner violence. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 71(4-b), 2745.
Rhee, J. W. (1997). Strategy and issue frames in election champaign coverage: A social cognitive account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 47, 26–48.
Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). “To thine own self be true”: Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509–560.
Smith, D. M., Schwarz, N., Roberts, T., & Ubel, P. (2006). Why are you calling me? How study introductions change response patterns. Quality of Life Research, 15, 621–630.
Stalans, L. J. (1993). Citizens’ crime stereotypes, biased recall, and punishment preferences in abstract cases: The educative role of interpersonal sources. Law and Human Behavior, 17(4), 451–470.
Stalans, L. J. (2002). Measuring attitudes to sentencing. In M. Hough & J. V. Roberts (Eds.), Attitudes toward sentencing (pp. 15–32). Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing.
Stalans, L. J. (2008). Measuring attitudes about sentencing and sentencing goals. In M. E. Oswald, S. Bieneck, & J. Hupfeld-Heinemann (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment. Boulder, Co: Westview Press.
Stalans, L. J., & Finn, M. A. (1995). How novice and experienced officers interpret wife assaults: Normative and efficiency frames. Law & Society Review, 29(2), 301–335.
Stalans, L. J., & Finn, M. A. (2006). Public’s and police officers’ interpretation and handling of domestic violence cases: Divergent realities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(9), 1129–1155.
Tourangeau, R., & Cong, Y. (2009). The framing of the survey request and panel attrition. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(2), 338–348.
Tourangeau, R., Groves, R. M., & Redline, C. D. (2010). Sensitive topics and reluctant respondents. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(3), 413–432.
Tourangeau, R., & Rasinski, K. (1988). Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 299–314.
Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in an urban police department. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 207–218.
Woodside, A. G., & Dubelaar, C. (2003). Increasing quality in measuring advertising effectiveness: A meta-analysis of question framing in conversion studies. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(6), 78–85.
Yavin, I., & Schul, Y. (2000). Acceptance and elimination procedures in choice: Noncomplementarity and the role of implied status quo. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 293–313.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stalans, L.J. (2012). Frames, Framing Effects, and Survey Responses. In: Gideon, L. (eds) Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-3875-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-3876-2
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)