Page 99 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

92 The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

perception of the issue is construed in a way that leads to expected behav-
ior, strictly related to the person’s motivation.
This general concept of framing can be illustrated by the interpretation
suggested in the multi-attribute attitude model developed by Ajzen and
Fishbein (1980), where the basis for deciding on each issue—for example,
the construction of a new housing district—is influenced by the differing
importance of attributes such as the economy and environmental protec-
tion. Thus, one can look at the problem of the housing district’s construction
from an economic perspective, emphasizing the centrality of this attribute.
Alternatively, one can ignore the economic attribute (i.e., weaken its power)
and look at the problem from the perspective of detrimental environmental
effects. In the former case, the attitude toward building the district would be
positive, whereas in the latter case it would be negative. Hence, different at-
titudes toward a given issue are caused by different ways of framing the is-
sue. According to the multi-attribute attitude model, the differences manifest
themselves through changes in the assumed importance of the particular
attributes. The process of such changes can be mathematically represented
by a relevant formula, as developed by Nelson and Oxley (1999).
Other authors have emphasized in their conceptions of framing the in-
terpretive element that is realized through the sense-making activity of the
person experiencing the issue (de Vreese, 2005). Thus, one has to “pack-
age” the issue at stake in such a way that the recipient can reconstruct its
sense unambiguously. Frames allow people to understand the issue on
which someone wants to focus. This is why it is crucial to comprehend the
key aspect of framing—providing interpretation of the experienced or pre-
sented political, societal, or economic issue. All frame analyses share the
following key characteristics: the decisions resulting from the shaped atti-
tude can differ, and these differing decisions depend on the differences in
the way the problem is described. This was expounded explicitly by
McElroy and Seta (2003) and is in harmony with the cognitive approach
to framing (Minsky, 1977).
There are many methods of framing, and various researchers have at-
tempted to provide classifications. De Vreese (2005) introduced a typology
that distinguishes between issue-specific and generic frames. The former
concern concrete events where the frames are strictly connected with the
presented problem in time and space. Let us consider, for instance, wom-
en’s rights, unemployment during the time of economic crisis, or the
Lewinsky scandal during President Bill Clinton’s second term. In contrast,
generic frames are atemporal, and they concern the way in which a general
perspective is formed, irrespective of the particular issues. Therefore, ge-
neric frames demarcate a general strategy that can be incorporated in a