Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

News Framing Effects and Emotions

Item

Title

News Framing Effects and Emotions

Author

Schuck, Andreas R. T.

Feinholdt, Alina

Research Area

Social Institutions

Topic

Mass Communication

Abstract

Framing research is thriving and has become ever more popular among researchers and students alike. This essay reviews some of the latest trends and developments in the field, explains key terms and concepts, identifies likely future research lines, and zooms in on one of these in particular, that is, the role of emotions in explaining news framing effects. We distinguish different theories on emotions and how they have been and can be used in the context of framing research. Furthermore, we present a basic model of how to investigate the role of emotions in framing effects research. Finally, we discuss some of the most promising future research lines with the potential for students or scholars to make their own contribution and present results of a small‐scale expert survey indicating what some prominent scholars consider to be the most important challenges and promising future trends in the field right now.

Related Essays

Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D. Aberbach

Learning Across the Life Course (Sociology), Jutta Allmendinger and Marcel Helbig

Public Opinion and International Conflict (Political Science), Adam J. Berinsky

Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help‐Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn

Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M. J. Byrne

Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J. D'Amico

Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll

Neoliberalism (Sociology), Miguel Angel Centeno and Joseph N. Cohen

Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi

The Inherence Heuristic: Generating Everyday Explanations (Psychology), Andrei Cimpian

Delusions (Psychology), Max Coltheart

Trust and Economic Organization (Sociology), Karen S. Cook and Bogdan State

Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.

Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E. Brand

Cultural Differences in Emotions (Psychology), Jozefien De Leersnyder et al.

Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal

Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske and Cydney H. Dupree

Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One's Thoughts (Psychology), Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine

Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler

The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa B. Drell

Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation (Political Science), Christian Kandler et al.

The Psychological Impacts of Cyberlife Engagement (Psychology), Virginia S. Y. Kwan and Jessica E. Bodford

Attitude: Construction versus Disposition (Psychology), Charles G. Lord

Capital Punishment (Sociology), Mona Lynch

Media and the development of Identity (Psychology), Adriana M. Manago

Media Neuroscience (Communications & Media), J. Michael Mangus et al.

Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E. Tetlock

Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio Rojas

Ethnography: Telling Practice Stories (Methods), Karen O'Reilly

Emerging Trends in Culture and Concepts (Psychology), Bethany Ojalehto and Douglas Medin

Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman

Embodied Knowledge (Psychology), Diane Pecher and René Zeelenberg

Trends in Street Crime and the Crime Drop (Sociology), Richard Rosenfeld

Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology), Kristen Schilt

The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.

Information Politics in Dictatorships (Political Science), Jeremy L. Wallace

Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L. Weakliem

Identifier

etrds0241

extracted text

News Framing Effects and Emotions
ANDREAS R. T. SCHUCK and ALINA FEINHOLDT

Abstract
Framing research is thriving and has become ever more popular among researchers
and students alike. This essay reviews some of the latest trends and developments in
the field, explains key terms and concepts, identifies likely future research lines, and
zooms in on one of these in particular, that is, the role of emotions in explaining news
framing effects. We distinguish different theories on emotions and how they have
been and can be used in the context of framing research. Furthermore, we present
a basic model of how to investigate the role of emotions in framing effects research.
Finally, we discuss some of the most promising future research lines with the potential for students or scholars to make their own contribution and present results of a
small-scale expert survey indicating what some prominent scholars consider to be
the most important challenges and promising future trends in the field right now.

NEWS FRAMING—KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
A never-ending stream of studies has documented the presence of different
frames in political news coverage with a wide range of effects on audiences.
Given the availability of so much evidence and research that could guide
one’s own investigation, one could get the impression that frame analysis is
easy to conduct and that effects are likely to be found. However, upon closer
inspection it becomes much less obvious and agreeable what a frame is and
how and under what conditions frames have what kind of effect. In the following
we first discuss some of the key terms and concepts as well as current trends
and developments in framing research and then zoom in on one of these, that
is, the role emotions play in news framing effect research.
The number of definitions today of what a frame is, is literally uncountable. Gamson and Modigliani (1989), for example, defined a frame as “a
central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding
strip of events” (p. 143). Thus, a frame suggests what an issue is about,
that is, how one should make sense of it. This is done through the use
of selection, salience or emphasis, exclusion and/or elaboration (see, e.g.,
Chong & Druckman, 2007). In its most basic sense, news framing refers
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

to the observation that media can portray one and the same topic in very
different ways, emphasizing certain aspects and/or evaluations or only
parts of an issue at the expense of possible others. In terms of what types
of frames exist in media content, research often distinguishes between
generic frames and issue-specific frames (de Vreese, 2005). Some frames,
such as conflict, attribution of responsibility, morality, human interest, or
economic consequences, are commonly applied to a wide range of topics,
whereas others are bound to a particular issue. Think of, for example, the
recent uprising on Maidan Square in Kiev in the Ukraine as being a “fight
for freedom” or an issue of “disrupting public order.” Importantly, a news
frame represents a consistent construction of an issue, suggesting certain
associations, attributes, judgments, or decisions. Simply put, it is more than
just an isolated argument on a particular issue. This means to be wary of the
unfortunate trend that seemingly everything nowadays becomes a “frame,”
for example, coding the mere mentioning of a certain topic in a newspaper
headline or an isolated evaluation does not, will not and should not (ever)
be classified as a frame, that is, it needs more than that.
How can a frame in political news coverage then be identified or measured?
Conceptually, this question relates to the process of frame-building, that is, the
question what determines the emergence and shape of a news frame to begin
with? In the abovementioned example of the Maidan Square in Kiev, multiple
players are involved in the construction of what eventually can be found as
a frame in the news, for example, the journalist, political elites, public movements, and so on. There are certain factors that influence the qualities of a
frame, which can be internal to journalism (e.g., editorial policies, news values) or external (e.g., public opinion climate, events, political agendas). In
interaction between journalists and news organizations, political elites, and
the public, news frames eventually take shape and studying this process is a
distinct field of research (e.g., Hänggli, 2012). Only then can we start analyzing news frames and their content characteristics.
Methodologically, frame analysis can either be done inductively in a qualitative coding approach (e.g., Pan & Kosicki, 1993), or, as is most commonly
done, deductively in a quantitative approach according to a predefined set of
content-analytic indicators that represent the frame (e.g., Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). How frames are conceptualized and measured is often connected
to problems such as a lack of operational precision or insufficient reporting
of intercoder reliability (Matthes, 2009). Most frame analyses are still conducted manually and with a narrow focus on print newspaper coverage.
Television coverage, on the contrary, with its visual elements and because
of its sometimes limited accessibility, is less often analyzed. The same is the
case for online news with their often more interactive features and despite
their obvious relevance.

News Framing Effects and Emotions

3

At this point, more studies are needed analyzing frames in nonstandard
news formats, such as political cartoons or political satire shows or other
soft news or political entertainment programs that attract new and wider
audiences. Furthermore, two more trends can be predicted, or are already
advancing: (i) a focus on visual framing, that is, the analysis of frames in
visual material as well as the interaction between text and visual information in what constitutes a frame, and (ii) computer-assisted, text-based
content analysis of large quantities of print and/or online news, employing
a machine-learning approach (at lower costs), but also of social media
content such as Twitter or online discussions or comments on articles or
blog posts. Overall, the analysis of “journalistic” news frames is expanding
to include frames employed in user-generated media content, which also
carries implications for new research on frame-building and the conditions
under which frames emerge and spill over from the news to the audience
and vice versa and likely influence each other.
Turning to the effect side, framing studies have demonstrated effects on the
evaluative direction of thoughts, issue interpretations, attitudes, perceptions
of an issue, and levels of policy support and political behavior. Recently,
the focus has shifted away from the question if frames have an effect and
toward more nuanced issues such as (i) determining the role of individual
predispositions and contextual contingencies, that is, the conditions under
which news frames have (stronger/weaker/no) effects (i.e., moderation) (e.g.,
Schuck, Boomgaarden, & de Vreese, 2013); (ii) describing the underlying
processes and mechanisms that explain how news frames cause an effect (i.e.,
mediation) (e.g., Slothuus, 2008); and (3) testing news framing effects in more
realistic settings and research designs, for example, the role of competitive
and/or repetitive framing on the strength and/or duration of framing effects
(e.g., Lecheler & de Vreese, 2013).
Media effects are not the same for everyone, that is, they are contingent on
so-called moderators, factors that determine if an effect is stronger or weaker
for a certain individual and/or in a certain context. Depending on personal
characteristics (e.g., personality traits) and individual predispositions (e.g.,
political knowledge, personal values) or other characteristics (e.g., source
characteristics, interpersonal communication), frames can have either more
or less of an effect or no effect at all (see, e.g., de Vreese & Lecheler, 2012).
Especially contextual moderators can be seen as a hot topic in framing
research right now, as they do not only include issue- or frame-relevant
factors (e.g., issue importance, repetitive or competitive framing, and
episodic or thematic framing) but also country-specific characteristics. For
example, recent comparative research shows that the same news frame can
have different effects depending on, for example, the general public opinion
climate toward an issue in a country or the general information environment

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in the respective national media (e.g., Schuck, Vliegenthart, & de Vreese,
2014).
More recently, framing effect research has increased efforts to investigate
the underlying mechanisms that explain how framing effects operate, that
is, the so-called mediators. However, most research by far has been devoted
to cognitive processes. Framing effects, in this perspective, can be explained
by different processes such as accessibility change (i.e., making considerations
more salient and likely to be used), belief importance change (i.e., altering the
weight of certain considerations), or belief content change (i.e., adding new
beliefs) (see e.g., Slothuus, 2008). What is strikingly missing from this list
of possible mechanisms is the role of affective factors in mediating framing
effects. In political communication research, several studies so far have
shown how certain news frames, such as conflict, valenced or episodic
frames, can be particularly effective in sparking emotions and/or how these
mediate framing effects (e.g., Aarøe, 2011; Gross & Brewer, 2007; Lecheler,
Schuck, & de Vreese, 2013). Yet, this first empirical evidence remains fragmentary and a comprehensive theoretical framework with an integration of
cognitive and affective factors is still lacking.
How can researchers analyze framing effects? In terms of methodology,
two possible research designs are most commonly employed to study news
framing effects. Most often, framing researchers employ experiments in
which respondents are randomly assigned to different news frames (or a
control group) and differences in the relevant outcome variables are then
attributed to the respective frame manipulation. More recently, there have
been notable advances and these standard designs have been extended
including, for example, repetitive exposure to the same frame or to competing
frames and/or repeated exposure with different time delays (reaching from
several minutes or hours to multiple weeks) to track the strength and
persistence of framing effects over time and in a more realistic setting (see,
e.g., Lecheler & de Vreese, 2013). Easier access to the use of online samples
has reduced the reliance on student or other convenience samples. Other
innovations include the use of implicit or physiological measures to assess
affective responses to news frames more accurately and reduce reliance on
self-reports. A second way of accounting for news framing effects takes a
different approach and combines a media content analysis with panel survey
data. This design consists of two steps, (i) measuring the presence of certain
news frames in news content over a certain period of time, for example,
the weeks before an election, and combining it with (ii) panel survey data
spanning over the same time period and including detailed media exposure
measures for the same outlets. By combining these two data sources it is
possible to compose an individual-level weighted media exposure measure
that takes into account the exact frame “dosage” an individual has been

News Framing Effects and Emotions

5

exposed to, and account for its impact on changes in opinions, attitudes, or
between behavioral intentions and actual behavior over the period of the
time interval (see e.g., Schuck, Vliegenthart, & de Vreese, 2014).
In Figure 1 we provide a basic model how to analyze the role of emotions in
news framing effect research. Importantly, this model can easily be adjusted
or extended and simply illustrates one possible way to investigate indirect
effects of news frames via emotions on different relevant outcomes. It takes
into account the different possible research designs discussed earlier (arrows
at the bottom) and the main issue to consider as a researcher at each stage
of the design (arrows at the top). Depending on the respective study design
and research interest, emotions can also be dependent variables or even
moderators rather than mediators. Multiple emotions instead of one single
emotion could be included in what would then become a multiple mediation model. Cognitive factors could be added to the model as additional
mediators—alongside emotions—to assess the relative importance of cognitive vis-à-vis affective factors. Either (or none of the) path(s) from news frame
to emotion(s) and/or from emotion(s) to the dependent variable(s) could be
moderated; for example, an individual’s “need for affect” could condition
the extent to which people respond emotionally to news frames (i.e., first
path), and/or a person’s degree of (political) self-efficacy could condition
the extent to which an emotion such as “anger” mobilizes political behavior
(i.e., second path). Furthermore, contextual factors could be included as
moderator(s) in the model, in comparative research designs, and finally
the model could be extended into a serial mediation model in which the
indirect effect of a news frame via emotion(s) on opinions and/or attitudes
is assessed first, which are then expected to affect political behavior. Finally,
there are different ways to analyze (conditional) indirect effects such as those
illustrated in Figure 1 and some are more appropriate than others depending
on the exact nature of the data at hand and the research objective (see, e.g.,
Hayes, 2013). Overall, the model in the figure is a graphical illustration of
the (possible research) question: What kinds of emotions are triggered by political
news frames, to what extent, under what conditions, and what is their impact on
what kind of relevant outcomes?
THE DRIVING, CHANNELING, AND SIMPLY CENTRAL
ROLE OF EMOTIONS IN FRAMING
While emotions are still an emerging trend in news framing research, emotion researchers themselves grapple with numerous issues. In this section, we
offer a brief overview of some of the main concepts and questions encountered in emotion research, including two theories that are used within the
context of framing effects research.

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Media content (indicators) / stimulus
Measurement of emotions
(Conditional) indirect effects

Individual predispositions/
contextual factors
(Moderator)

Emotions

Individual predispositions/
contextual factors
(Moderator)

(mediator)

Political opinions, attitudes,
behavior, perceptions etc.
(DV)

(Valenced) news frame (IV)

Media content analysis
Panel survey
Experiment / stimulus

Experiment / measurement

Figure 1 (Moderated) Mediation model of (conditional) indirect framing effects via
emotions on political opinions, attitudes, behavior, or perceptions, and so on.

First, we clarify some of the key terms that are conceptually distinct but are
often interchangeably used. Beginning with affect, some scholars view affect
as a “broader, more inclusive psychological construct” (Gray & Watson,
2007, p. 171) which characterizes the valence of a mood, an emotional state
or an individual’s intrinsic motivation to act in certain ways. That is, when
we speak of affect, we do not mean specific emotions or moods but rather
evaluations such as positive or negative. Mood is another construct that has
often been equated with emotions even though there appear to be relevant
differences. Both constructs can be distinguished in terms of duration, with
moods extending over time and context, whereas emotions embody acute
and object-directed states. As such, moods occupy most of our lifetime,
while emotions inhabit only a fraction of it. Similar to emotions, mood
can substantially influence how people process and deal with information
they encounter (e.g., Scherer, 2005). Importantly, however, these differences
remain, to a large extent, theoretical, as clear empirical evidence is hardly
available. Another candidate causing confusion is the term feeling (Mulligan & Scherer, 2012). While many scholars characterize feelings as vague,
“by their nature dumb and without intelligence” (Solomon, 2007, p. 137),
or “hopeless concept(s)” (Damasio, 2004, p. 50), there is consensus that a
feeling is the conscious awareness of a prevailing emotional experience.
Still, it is worthwhile mentioning that feelings are not emotion-specific but

News Framing Effects and Emotions

7

embrace both emotions and sensations such as touch, noise, smell, and taste
(Averill, 1994).
These definitions highlight that people frequently use “synonyms” for
emotions that are more or less related but represent distinct concepts. For
framing research, these differences stress the need to be clear about each
of these concepts’ distinct role. Also, it asks for a more precise operationalization of emotions if these are really the mechanism expected to account
for framing effects. Meanwhile, if the concepts discussed are only related
to emotions, what then are emotions? For centuries scholars have tried to
come up with an unequivocal answer but largely failed to do so. Scherer
(2005) even views the goal of specifying what an emotion is as a “notorious
problem” (p. 695) because many scholars approach and study emotions from
different angles. Here, we opt for a context-based definition of emotions in
which emotions are explained from the perspective of a specific theory.
DIMENSIONAL THEORIES
From a dimensional perspective, an infinite number of emotions can be
located along the dimensions of valence and arousal. Valence refers to a
subjective state of feeling pleasure or displeasure in response to a certain
stimulus and can vary in intensity. Arousal, on the contrary, describes
physiological changes ranging from excitement to calmness. Some scholars
do also include a third dimension running from potency to control or
dominance to submissiveness (e.g., Russel & Mehrabian, 1977). Intersections
of these dimensions lay the groundwork for the emergence of an emotion
which then determines corresponding behavioral tendencies.
While offering a parsimonious system for how emotions can be described,
dimensional theories have two substantial shortcomings: First, not all emotional features can be reduced to two or three dimensions. For instance, jaw
dropping or rising eyebrows can be best accounted for by a fourth dimension relating to novelty (Fontaine, Scherer, Roesch, & Ellsworth, 2007), which
has been associated with unique activation patterns in the amygdala, a brain
region associated with emotion processing (for a review on brain activity and
emotions, see Lindquist, Wager, Kober, Bliss-Moreau, Barrett, 2012). Second,
dimensional theories are inherently descriptive rather than explanatory. That
is, their focus lies primarily on explaining the largest amount of variance
in emotional experience rather than on offering explanations how emotions
emerge (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003).
Existing framing studies often have used the dimensional approach for
operationalizing frames in terms of positive or negative valence. For instance,
Schuck and de Vreese (2009) have tested the effects of differently valenced
news frames on voting intention. Others have focused on the effects positive

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and negative news frames have on political attitudes (Maier & Rittberger,
2008). These and similar studies highlight that valence paves the way for
different types of behaviors or attitudes. Yet, the predominantly descriptive
nature of this approach prevents from understanding why valence may cause
these types of framing effects.
COGNITIVE APPRAISAL THEORIES (CAT)
Cognitive appraisal theory (CAT) claims that an emotional episode derives
from a specific and nearly invariant pattern of appraisals. An emotional
episode is a synonym for an emotion but it underscores the fact that an
emotion is an emergent event proceeded by a stimulus of which the person
can but does not need to be consciously aware of. The presence of a specific
stimulus implies also that emotional episodes have a starting and an end
point, with different emotional episodes varying in duration and intensity
(e.g., Moors & Scherer, 2013). Imagine, for instance, a reporter announcing
the implementation of a policy on progressive taxation. In response to this
broadcast, someone may experience happiness while someone else may
react with anger or sadness. Each one of these emotional episodes may differ
in the respective episode onset and how rapidly they will decay.
Furthermore, each emotional episode is accompanied by synchronized
changes in several components consisting of (i) cognitive appraisals, (ii)
psychophysiology, (iii) subjective feelings, as well as (iv) motivational
and (v) behavioral tendencies such as modifications of facial expressions.
Cognitive appraisals are mechanisms that monitor and scrutinize external
and internal events in relation to the individual’s well-being (Ellsworth,
2013). A specific event, however, is not randomly appraised but according
to specific appraisal dimensions. The most common appraisal dimensions
are novelty (i.e., is the prevailing event familiar or not?), certainty (i.e.,
is the outcome certain?), agency (i.e., who is responsible for this event?),
and coping potential (i.e., can I deal with this event?). Importantly, these
dimensions are not fixed. Rather, each appraisal scholar uses a specific
vocabulary but also takes into account dimensions that he or she considers
more valuable to a specific emotion (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003).
Proponents of this theory argue that the outcome of an appraisal will subsequently impact the other components and, thus, trigger changes that are
characteristic for a specific emotional episode. Correspondingly, any changes
in appraisals are accompanied by changes in emotional experiences. There is
disagreement about the way such changes occur: While some contend that
several appraisals occur simultaneously and thereby influence other ongoing
appraisals, others argue that the appraisals follow certain sequences. Besides,
appraisals are prerequisite to an emotional experience but their nature and

News Framing Effects and Emotions

9

the precise steps underlying appraisal processes remain subject to further
debate (Moors & Scherer, 2013).
The majority of existing framing studies have applied CAT as a framework
for explaining the role of emotions as channels (e.g., Aarøe, 2011; Druckman & McDermott, 2008) or processes of news framing effects (e.g., Gross,
2008; Lecheler, Schuck, & de Vreese, 2013). Most of existing studies focus on
discrete emotions because they offer the best possible approach toward capturing fine-grained differences that are typical for media stimuli in general
and news framing in particular. Media stimuli using specific frames may not
only carry information on arousal or valence but also other information such
as certainty or responsibility. As emotions share commonalities in some but
not other dimensions, a focus on discrete emotions offers more ground for
isolating and specifying relationships between a stimulus or frame and an
emotional response (Nabi, 2010).
For instance, while anger and disgust are both negative and certaintyoriented emotions, anger may translate into different behavioral tendencies
such as approach or avoidance (Turner, 2007). Disgust, on the other hand,
will more often than not mobilize avoidance tendencies (Han, Lerner, &
Zeckhauser, 2012). Similarly, fear can but does not need to translate into
averse behavioral tendencies. Further, common to fear and the positive
emotion of hope is a feeling of uncertainty. That is, when the situational
demands remain largely unpredictable, both hope and fear are common
responses. Yet, to the extent that positive prospects exist, hope will not cause
the person to deter from facing an unpleasant and challenging situation.
Thus, it becomes clear that a coarse conceptualization of emotions in terms
of positive, negative, or aversive emotions may blur these fine-grained distinctions. However, there are still many media and framing effect studies that
combine several negative or positive emotions under the header of a single discrete one. While the abovementioned provides good reasons not to
do so, in empirical terms, and given that emotions are often measured with
self-reports posing obvious challenges for respondents, combining multiple
emotions into broader valence categories (positive or negative) is of course
oftentimes supported.
DISCUSSION
The steady rise of media and framing effect studies considering the role of
emotions underscores a prevailing and emerging trend in political communication research. In this essay, we have pointed out some of the current
developments in the field. With emotions having acquired more attention
by framing scholars by now, as is reflected in ever more publications on
the topic, we are left grappling with questions which reach beyond asking

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

if emotions matter but rather ask “what emotions play what role?,” “which
emotions to measure and how?,” or “which individual and/or contextual
characteristics condition the experience and impact of emotions and on what
relevant outcomes?.”
There are five topics we consider to be particularly important for future
framing research and want to highlight: First, when it comes to emotions
extant research in political communication pursues a rather narrow focus.
While negative emotions are studied predominantly, researchers rarely look
beyond the same set (mostly fear and anger) of them. Meanwhile, positive
emotions (such as hope, empathy, or pride) still continue to play a rather
minor role. We believe future research should also look more at self-conscious
emotions such as shame, guilt, or envy or other moral emotions, which may
offer particularly interesting insights into the formation of political opinions
and behavior.
Second, we also need to propel work on identifying which (other) individual and contextual factors influence (i) the extent to which emotions
are sparked by media stimuli, as well as (ii) to which extent emotions,
once elicited, exert an influence on subsequent opinions, attitudes, and/or
behaviors. For instance, framing research pays hardly any attention to the
impact of contextual influences such as country characteristics, the general
information landscape but also cultural variations in emotions experiences.
Importantly, the factors that might condition these effects and processes can
be emotion-, context-, and/or topic-specific. Therefore, a research approach
that is more nuanced is needed.
Third, framing effects research still lacks an integrated cognitive-emotional
perspective. Solving this issue will require scholars not only to assess (i) the
relative importance of cognitions and emotions within the same study but
also (ii) their interaction with one another. Fourth, measurement (currently,
mostly verbal self-reports) remains an important problem and implicit, physiological, or neurological measures should be considered by future research.
While each of these measures has its own pros and cons, the best approach
would involve combining several measures. By doing so, it will be possible not only to compensate for the shortcomings of a measurement but also
to gain a more comprehensive insight into the undergoing processes. Fifth,
visual framing remains an underresearched topic in news framing studies
and frame analyses which are primarily text-based. Yet, because emotions
are particularly receptive to visuals, going beyond texts may shed light not
only on how both visual frames influence emotions but also on how textual
and visual and/or audio elements interact in the construction as well as the
subsequent perception of a frame.
Finally, to provide further input for our readers from a greater variety of
experts working on the topic, we contacted some prominent researchers and

News Framing Effects and Emotions

11

leading experts in the field of framing and/or emotions with a short set of
questions asking for the biggest challenges at this point. For their participation and for sharing their views and comments on the topic, we thank
Prof. Henk Dekker (University of Leiden, the Netherlands), Prof. Jamie
Druckman (Northwestern University, USA), Dr. Eric Groenendyk (University of Memphis, USA), Prof. Eran Halperin (IDC Herzliya, Israel), Prof.
Jörg Matthes (University of Vienna, Austria), Prof. Michael Bang Petersen
(University of Aarhus, Denmark) and Prof. Dhavan Shah (University of
Wisconsin-Madison, USA).
Closer examination of the answers reveals that our experts see two
main challenges that can be further subdivided. The first main challenge
concerns measurement. Specifically, our experts showed concern about
accurately separating personal emotions from thoughts, arguments, perceptions, attitudes, decisions, and actions, but also from collective emotions.
In addition, they expressed concern regarding the measurement of the
interaction between cognitions and emotions but also the measurement of
emotion duration. The second bigger challenge is connected to the first, but
is more theory-based: What kind of effects of emotions do we expect? Do
we include the correct causes and consequences in our models? Regarding
framing research in general, our experts see it as important that studies
refrain from identifying frames without solid theoretical justification of the
frame’s relevance in journalistic practice. Successfully accomplishing these
challenges, as recommended by our experts, entails the following steps:
Careful theorizing instead of simple reapplications of psychological
research on the effects of emotions and just calling it “framing effect”;
Developing better (self-report) survey measures of emotions and triangulating them with other methods and/or measures;
Going beyond single-shot and forced-exposure designs which ignore processes of selectivity before and during reception in modern media environments;
Applying dynamic research designs and measuring emotions over
time—both as the dependent and independent variable.
And most importantly—as almost all of our experts stress univocally: The
need to team up with scholars from other fields, such as psychology, neuroscience, or knowledge engineering, to achieve these goals and integrate
emotions into existing frameworks. These factors will pave the way to the
development of better theoretical models on the influence of emotions as well
as contribute to already existing approaches. Finally, we close this essay with
the concluding remark by Dr. Groenendyk: “Virtually everyone agrees that
emotions matter; they’re just difficult to study. This is a great opportunity.”

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

REFERENCES
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic
frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226.
Averill, J. R. (1994). I feel, therefore I am—I think. In P. E. Ekman & R. J. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 379–385). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
Damasio, A. R. (2004). Emotion and feelings: A neurobiological perspective. In A. S.
R. Manstead, N. Frijda & A. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam
Symposium (pp. 49–57). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 13(1), 51–62.
de Vreese, C. H., & Lecheler, S. (2012). News framing research: An overview and
new developments. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammel (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
political communication (pp. 292–306). London, UK: Sage.
Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice.
Political Behavior, 30(3), 297–312.
Ellsworth, P. C. (2013). Appraisal theory: Old and new questions. Emotion Review,
5(2), 125–131.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J.
Davidson & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–595). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fontaine, J. R., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2007). The world of
emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1050–1057.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion
on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95,
1–37.
Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2007). Assessing positive and negative affect via
self-report. In J. A. Coan & J. J. B. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and
Assessment, (pp. 171–183). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.
Gross, K., & Brewer, P. R. (2007). Sore losers: News frames, policy debates, and emotions. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(1), 122–133.
Hänggli, R. (2012). Key factors in frame building. How strategic political actors shape
news media coverage. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 300–317.
Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Zeckhauser, R. (2012). The disgust-promotes-disposal effect.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 44(2), 101–113.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lecheler, S., Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Dealing with feelings: positive
and negative discrete emotions as mediators of news framing effects. Communications, 38(2), 189–209.

News Framing Effects and Emotions

13

Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). What a difference a day makes? The effects of
repetitive and competitive news framing over time. Communication Research, 40(2),
147–175.
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Barrett, L. F. (2012). The
brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(3),
121–143.
Moors, A., & Scherer, K. R. (2013). The role of appraisal in emotion. In M. D. Robinson, R. E. Watkins & E. Harmon-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp.
135–155). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Maier, J., & Rittberger, B. (2008). Shifting Europe’s boundaries mass media, public
opinion and the enlargement of the EU. European Union Politics, 9(2), 243–267.
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(2), 349–367.
Mulligan, K., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Toward a working definition of emotion. Emotion Review, 4(4), 345–357.
Nabi, R. L. (2010). The case for emphasizing discrete emotions in communication
research. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 153–159.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse.
Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75.
Russel, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions.
Journal of Research in Personality, 11(3), 273–294.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured. Social
Science Information, 44(4), 695–729.
Schuck, A. R. T., Boomgaarden, H., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Cynics all around? The
impact of election news on political cynicism in comparative perspective. Journal
of Communication, 63(2), 287–311.
Schuck, A. R. T., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Who’s Afraid of Conflict?
The Mobilizing Effect of Conflict Framing in Campaign News. British Journal of
Political Science Advance online publication.
Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2009). Reversed mobilization in referendum
campaigns how positive news framing can mobilize the skeptics. The International
Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 40–66.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content
analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.
Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual-process
model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology, 29(1), 1–28.
Solomon, R. C. (2007). True to our feelings: What our emotions are really telling us. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Turner, M. M. (2007). Using emotion in risk communication: The anger activism
model. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 114–119.

ANDREAS R. T. SCHUCK SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Andreas R. T. Schuck is an Associate Professor for Political Communication
at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) at the

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research focuses on media
effects on political opinions, attitudes, and behavior and the role of emotions.
His work has been published in international peer-reviewed journals such
as Journal of Communication, Political Communication, Communication
Research, European Union Politics, British Journal of Political Science, European Journal of Political Research, West European Politics, Electoral Studies,
Journalism Studies, International Journal of Press/Politics, International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, and Journal of Elections, Public Opinion
and Parties.
ALINA FEINHOLDT SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Alina Feinholdt is a PhD candidate at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Her
research focuses on the role of emotions and cognitions in the context of news
framing. Next to this, she is conducting studies on the effects of mindfulness
on work-related emotions and behaviors. Her work has been published in the
Journal of Applied Psychology. In addition, she is blogging for the In-Mind
magazine on the topics of happiness and framing.
RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Learning Across the Life Course (Sociology), Jutta Allmendinger and Marcel
Helbig
Public Opinion and International Conflict (Political Science), Adam J.
Berinsky
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M. J. Byrne
Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J.
D’Amico
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Neoliberalism (Sociology), Miguel Angel Centeno and Joseph N. Cohen
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
The Inherence Heuristic: Generating Everyday Explanations (Psychology),
Andrei Cimpian
Delusions (Psychology), Max Coltheart
Trust and Economic Organization (Sociology), Karen S. Cook and Bogdan
State
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.

News Framing Effects and Emotions

15

Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Cultural Differences in Emotions (Psychology), Jozefien De Leersnyder et al.
Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation (Political Science), Christian
Kandler et al.
The Psychological Impacts of Cyberlife Engagement (Psychology), Virginia S.
Y. Kwan and Jessica E. Bodford
Attitude: Construction versus Disposition (Psychology), Charles G. Lord
Capital Punishment (Sociology), Mona Lynch
Media and the development of Identity (Psychology), Adriana M. Manago
Media Neuroscience (Communications & Media), J. Michael Mangus et al.
Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E.
Tetlock
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio
Rojas
Ethnography: Telling Practice Stories (Methods), Karen O’Reilly
Emerging Trends in Culture and Concepts (Psychology), Bethany Ojalehto
and Douglas Medin
Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Embodied Knowledge (Psychology), Diane Pecher and René Zeelenberg
Trends in Street Crime and the Crime Drop (Sociology), Richard Rosenfeld
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
Information Politics in Dictatorships (Political Science), Jeremy L. Wallace
Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L.
Weakliem



News Framing Effects and Emotions
ANDREAS R. T. SCHUCK and ALINA FEINHOLDT

Abstract
Framing research is thriving and has become ever more popular among researchers
and students alike. This essay reviews some of the latest trends and developments in
the field, explains key terms and concepts, identifies likely future research lines, and
zooms in on one of these in particular, that is, the role of emotions in explaining news
framing effects. We distinguish different theories on emotions and how they have
been and can be used in the context of framing research. Furthermore, we present
a basic model of how to investigate the role of emotions in framing effects research.
Finally, we discuss some of the most promising future research lines with the potential for students or scholars to make their own contribution and present results of a
small-scale expert survey indicating what some prominent scholars consider to be
the most important challenges and promising future trends in the field right now.

NEWS FRAMING—KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
A never-ending stream of studies has documented the presence of different
frames in political news coverage with a wide range of effects on audiences.
Given the availability of so much evidence and research that could guide
one’s own investigation, one could get the impression that frame analysis is
easy to conduct and that effects are likely to be found. However, upon closer
inspection it becomes much less obvious and agreeable what a frame is and
how and under what conditions frames have what kind of effect. In the following
we first discuss some of the key terms and concepts as well as current trends
and developments in framing research and then zoom in on one of these, that
is, the role emotions play in news framing effect research.
The number of definitions today of what a frame is, is literally uncountable. Gamson and Modigliani (1989), for example, defined a frame as “a
central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding
strip of events” (p. 143). Thus, a frame suggests what an issue is about,
that is, how one should make sense of it. This is done through the use
of selection, salience or emphasis, exclusion and/or elaboration (see, e.g.,
Chong & Druckman, 2007). In its most basic sense, news framing refers
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

to the observation that media can portray one and the same topic in very
different ways, emphasizing certain aspects and/or evaluations or only
parts of an issue at the expense of possible others. In terms of what types
of frames exist in media content, research often distinguishes between
generic frames and issue-specific frames (de Vreese, 2005). Some frames,
such as conflict, attribution of responsibility, morality, human interest, or
economic consequences, are commonly applied to a wide range of topics,
whereas others are bound to a particular issue. Think of, for example, the
recent uprising on Maidan Square in Kiev in the Ukraine as being a “fight
for freedom” or an issue of “disrupting public order.” Importantly, a news
frame represents a consistent construction of an issue, suggesting certain
associations, attributes, judgments, or decisions. Simply put, it is more than
just an isolated argument on a particular issue. This means to be wary of the
unfortunate trend that seemingly everything nowadays becomes a “frame,”
for example, coding the mere mentioning of a certain topic in a newspaper
headline or an isolated evaluation does not, will not and should not (ever)
be classified as a frame, that is, it needs more than that.
How can a frame in political news coverage then be identified or measured?
Conceptually, this question relates to the process of frame-building, that is, the
question what determines the emergence and shape of a news frame to begin
with? In the abovementioned example of the Maidan Square in Kiev, multiple
players are involved in the construction of what eventually can be found as
a frame in the news, for example, the journalist, political elites, public movements, and so on. There are certain factors that influence the qualities of a
frame, which can be internal to journalism (e.g., editorial policies, news values) or external (e.g., public opinion climate, events, political agendas). In
interaction between journalists and news organizations, political elites, and
the public, news frames eventually take shape and studying this process is a
distinct field of research (e.g., Hänggli, 2012). Only then can we start analyzing news frames and their content characteristics.
Methodologically, frame analysis can either be done inductively in a qualitative coding approach (e.g., Pan & Kosicki, 1993), or, as is most commonly
done, deductively in a quantitative approach according to a predefined set of
content-analytic indicators that represent the frame (e.g., Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). How frames are conceptualized and measured is often connected
to problems such as a lack of operational precision or insufficient reporting
of intercoder reliability (Matthes, 2009). Most frame analyses are still conducted manually and with a narrow focus on print newspaper coverage.
Television coverage, on the contrary, with its visual elements and because
of its sometimes limited accessibility, is less often analyzed. The same is the
case for online news with their often more interactive features and despite
their obvious relevance.

News Framing Effects and Emotions

3

At this point, more studies are needed analyzing frames in nonstandard
news formats, such as political cartoons or political satire shows or other
soft news or political entertainment programs that attract new and wider
audiences. Furthermore, two more trends can be predicted, or are already
advancing: (i) a focus on visual framing, that is, the analysis of frames in
visual material as well as the interaction between text and visual information in what constitutes a frame, and (ii) computer-assisted, text-based
content analysis of large quantities of print and/or online news, employing
a machine-learning approach (at lower costs), but also of social media
content such as Twitter or online discussions or comments on articles or
blog posts. Overall, the analysis of “journalistic” news frames is expanding
to include frames employed in user-generated media content, which also
carries implications for new research on frame-building and the conditions
under which frames emerge and spill over from the news to the audience
and vice versa and likely influence each other.
Turning to the effect side, framing studies have demonstrated effects on the
evaluative direction of thoughts, issue interpretations, attitudes, perceptions
of an issue, and levels of policy support and political behavior. Recently,
the focus has shifted away from the question if frames have an effect and
toward more nuanced issues such as (i) determining the role of individual
predispositions and contextual contingencies, that is, the conditions under
which news frames have (stronger/weaker/no) effects (i.e., moderation) (e.g.,
Schuck, Boomgaarden, & de Vreese, 2013); (ii) describing the underlying
processes and mechanisms that explain how news frames cause an effect (i.e.,
mediation) (e.g., Slothuus, 2008); and (3) testing news framing effects in more
realistic settings and research designs, for example, the role of competitive
and/or repetitive framing on the strength and/or duration of framing effects
(e.g., Lecheler & de Vreese, 2013).
Media effects are not the same for everyone, that is, they are contingent on
so-called moderators, factors that determine if an effect is stronger or weaker
for a certain individual and/or in a certain context. Depending on personal
characteristics (e.g., personality traits) and individual predispositions (e.g.,
political knowledge, personal values) or other characteristics (e.g., source
characteristics, interpersonal communication), frames can have either more
or less of an effect or no effect at all (see, e.g., de Vreese & Lecheler, 2012).
Especially contextual moderators can be seen as a hot topic in framing
research right now, as they do not only include issue- or frame-relevant
factors (e.g., issue importance, repetitive or competitive framing, and
episodic or thematic framing) but also country-specific characteristics. For
example, recent comparative research shows that the same news frame can
have different effects depending on, for example, the general public opinion
climate toward an issue in a country or the general information environment

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in the respective national media (e.g., Schuck, Vliegenthart, & de Vreese,
2014).
More recently, framing effect research has increased efforts to investigate
the underlying mechanisms that explain how framing effects operate, that
is, the so-called mediators. However, most research by far has been devoted
to cognitive processes. Framing effects, in this perspective, can be explained
by different processes such as accessibility change (i.e., making considerations
more salient and likely to be used), belief importance change (i.e., altering the
weight of certain considerations), or belief content change (i.e., adding new
beliefs) (see e.g., Slothuus, 2008). What is strikingly missing from this list
of possible mechanisms is the role of affective factors in mediating framing
effects. In political communication research, several studies so far have
shown how certain news frames, such as conflict, valenced or episodic
frames, can be particularly effective in sparking emotions and/or how these
mediate framing effects (e.g., Aarøe, 2011; Gross & Brewer, 2007; Lecheler,
Schuck, & de Vreese, 2013). Yet, this first empirical evidence remains fragmentary and a comprehensive theoretical framework with an integration of
cognitive and affective factors is still lacking.
How can researchers analyze framing effects? In terms of methodology,
two possible research designs are most commonly employed to study news
framing effects. Most often, framing researchers employ experiments in
which respondents are randomly assigned to different news frames (or a
control group) and differences in the relevant outcome variables are then
attributed to the respective frame manipulation. More recently, there have
been notable advances and these standard designs have been extended
including, for example, repetitive exposure to the same frame or to competing
frames and/or repeated exposure with different time delays (reaching from
several minutes or hours to multiple weeks) to track the strength and
persistence of framing effects over time and in a more realistic setting (see,
e.g., Lecheler & de Vreese, 2013). Easier access to the use of online samples
has reduced the reliance on student or other convenience samples. Other
innovations include the use of implicit or physiological measures to assess
affective responses to news frames more accurately and reduce reliance on
self-reports. A second way of accounting for news framing effects takes a
different approach and combines a media content analysis with panel survey
data. This design consists of two steps, (i) measuring the presence of certain
news frames in news content over a certain period of time, for example,
the weeks before an election, and combining it with (ii) panel survey data
spanning over the same time period and including detailed media exposure
measures for the same outlets. By combining these two data sources it is
possible to compose an individual-level weighted media exposure measure
that takes into account the exact frame “dosage” an individual has been

News Framing Effects and Emotions

5

exposed to, and account for its impact on changes in opinions, attitudes, or
between behavioral intentions and actual behavior over the period of the
time interval (see e.g., Schuck, Vliegenthart, & de Vreese, 2014).
In Figure 1 we provide a basic model how to analyze the role of emotions in
news framing effect research. Importantly, this model can easily be adjusted
or extended and simply illustrates one possible way to investigate indirect
effects of news frames via emotions on different relevant outcomes. It takes
into account the different possible research designs discussed earlier (arrows
at the bottom) and the main issue to consider as a researcher at each stage
of the design (arrows at the top). Depending on the respective study design
and research interest, emotions can also be dependent variables or even
moderators rather than mediators. Multiple emotions instead of one single
emotion could be included in what would then become a multiple mediation model. Cognitive factors could be added to the model as additional
mediators—alongside emotions—to assess the relative importance of cognitive vis-à-vis affective factors. Either (or none of the) path(s) from news frame
to emotion(s) and/or from emotion(s) to the dependent variable(s) could be
moderated; for example, an individual’s “need for affect” could condition
the extent to which people respond emotionally to news frames (i.e., first
path), and/or a person’s degree of (political) self-efficacy could condition
the extent to which an emotion such as “anger” mobilizes political behavior
(i.e., second path). Furthermore, contextual factors could be included as
moderator(s) in the model, in comparative research designs, and finally
the model could be extended into a serial mediation model in which the
indirect effect of a news frame via emotion(s) on opinions and/or attitudes
is assessed first, which are then expected to affect political behavior. Finally,
there are different ways to analyze (conditional) indirect effects such as those
illustrated in Figure 1 and some are more appropriate than others depending
on the exact nature of the data at hand and the research objective (see, e.g.,
Hayes, 2013). Overall, the model in the figure is a graphical illustration of
the (possible research) question: What kinds of emotions are triggered by political
news frames, to what extent, under what conditions, and what is their impact on
what kind of relevant outcomes?
THE DRIVING, CHANNELING, AND SIMPLY CENTRAL
ROLE OF EMOTIONS IN FRAMING
While emotions are still an emerging trend in news framing research, emotion researchers themselves grapple with numerous issues. In this section, we
offer a brief overview of some of the main concepts and questions encountered in emotion research, including two theories that are used within the
context of framing effects research.

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Media content (indicators) / stimulus
Measurement of emotions
(Conditional) indirect effects

Individual predispositions/
contextual factors
(Moderator)

Emotions

Individual predispositions/
contextual factors
(Moderator)

(mediator)

Political opinions, attitudes,
behavior, perceptions etc.
(DV)

(Valenced) news frame (IV)

Media content analysis
Panel survey
Experiment / stimulus

Experiment / measurement

Figure 1 (Moderated) Mediation model of (conditional) indirect framing effects via
emotions on political opinions, attitudes, behavior, or perceptions, and so on.

First, we clarify some of the key terms that are conceptually distinct but are
often interchangeably used. Beginning with affect, some scholars view affect
as a “broader, more inclusive psychological construct” (Gray & Watson,
2007, p. 171) which characterizes the valence of a mood, an emotional state
or an individual’s intrinsic motivation to act in certain ways. That is, when
we speak of affect, we do not mean specific emotions or moods but rather
evaluations such as positive or negative. Mood is another construct that has
often been equated with emotions even though there appear to be relevant
differences. Both constructs can be distinguished in terms of duration, with
moods extending over time and context, whereas emotions embody acute
and object-directed states. As such, moods occupy most of our lifetime,
while emotions inhabit only a fraction of it. Similar to emotions, mood
can substantially influence how people process and deal with information
they encounter (e.g., Scherer, 2005). Importantly, however, these differences
remain, to a large extent, theoretical, as clear empirical evidence is hardly
available. Another candidate causing confusion is the term feeling (Mulligan & Scherer, 2012). While many scholars characterize feelings as vague,
“by their nature dumb and without intelligence” (Solomon, 2007, p. 137),
or “hopeless concept(s)” (Damasio, 2004, p. 50), there is consensus that a
feeling is the conscious awareness of a prevailing emotional experience.
Still, it is worthwhile mentioning that feelings are not emotion-specific but

News Framing Effects and Emotions

7

embrace both emotions and sensations such as touch, noise, smell, and taste
(Averill, 1994).
These definitions highlight that people frequently use “synonyms” for
emotions that are more or less related but represent distinct concepts. For
framing research, these differences stress the need to be clear about each
of these concepts’ distinct role. Also, it asks for a more precise operationalization of emotions if these are really the mechanism expected to account
for framing effects. Meanwhile, if the concepts discussed are only related
to emotions, what then are emotions? For centuries scholars have tried to
come up with an unequivocal answer but largely failed to do so. Scherer
(2005) even views the goal of specifying what an emotion is as a “notorious
problem” (p. 695) because many scholars approach and study emotions from
different angles. Here, we opt for a context-based definition of emotions in
which emotions are explained from the perspective of a specific theory.
DIMENSIONAL THEORIES
From a dimensional perspective, an infinite number of emotions can be
located along the dimensions of valence and arousal. Valence refers to a
subjective state of feeling pleasure or displeasure in response to a certain
stimulus and can vary in intensity. Arousal, on the contrary, describes
physiological changes ranging from excitement to calmness. Some scholars
do also include a third dimension running from potency to control or
dominance to submissiveness (e.g., Russel & Mehrabian, 1977). Intersections
of these dimensions lay the groundwork for the emergence of an emotion
which then determines corresponding behavioral tendencies.
While offering a parsimonious system for how emotions can be described,
dimensional theories have two substantial shortcomings: First, not all emotional features can be reduced to two or three dimensions. For instance, jaw
dropping or rising eyebrows can be best accounted for by a fourth dimension relating to novelty (Fontaine, Scherer, Roesch, & Ellsworth, 2007), which
has been associated with unique activation patterns in the amygdala, a brain
region associated with emotion processing (for a review on brain activity and
emotions, see Lindquist, Wager, Kober, Bliss-Moreau, Barrett, 2012). Second,
dimensional theories are inherently descriptive rather than explanatory. That
is, their focus lies primarily on explaining the largest amount of variance
in emotional experience rather than on offering explanations how emotions
emerge (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003).
Existing framing studies often have used the dimensional approach for
operationalizing frames in terms of positive or negative valence. For instance,
Schuck and de Vreese (2009) have tested the effects of differently valenced
news frames on voting intention. Others have focused on the effects positive

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and negative news frames have on political attitudes (Maier & Rittberger,
2008). These and similar studies highlight that valence paves the way for
different types of behaviors or attitudes. Yet, the predominantly descriptive
nature of this approach prevents from understanding why valence may cause
these types of framing effects.
COGNITIVE APPRAISAL THEORIES (CAT)
Cognitive appraisal theory (CAT) claims that an emotional episode derives
from a specific and nearly invariant pattern of appraisals. An emotional
episode is a synonym for an emotion but it underscores the fact that an
emotion is an emergent event proceeded by a stimulus of which the person
can but does not need to be consciously aware of. The presence of a specific
stimulus implies also that emotional episodes have a starting and an end
point, with different emotional episodes varying in duration and intensity
(e.g., Moors & Scherer, 2013). Imagine, for instance, a reporter announcing
the implementation of a policy on progressive taxation. In response to this
broadcast, someone may experience happiness while someone else may
react with anger or sadness. Each one of these emotional episodes may differ
in the respective episode onset and how rapidly they will decay.
Furthermore, each emotional episode is accompanied by synchronized
changes in several components consisting of (i) cognitive appraisals, (ii)
psychophysiology, (iii) subjective feelings, as well as (iv) motivational
and (v) behavioral tendencies such as modifications of facial expressions.
Cognitive appraisals are mechanisms that monitor and scrutinize external
and internal events in relation to the individual’s well-being (Ellsworth,
2013). A specific event, however, is not randomly appraised but according
to specific appraisal dimensions. The most common appraisal dimensions
are novelty (i.e., is the prevailing event familiar or not?), certainty (i.e.,
is the outcome certain?), agency (i.e., who is responsible for this event?),
and coping potential (i.e., can I deal with this event?). Importantly, these
dimensions are not fixed. Rather, each appraisal scholar uses a specific
vocabulary but also takes into account dimensions that he or she considers
more valuable to a specific emotion (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003).
Proponents of this theory argue that the outcome of an appraisal will subsequently impact the other components and, thus, trigger changes that are
characteristic for a specific emotional episode. Correspondingly, any changes
in appraisals are accompanied by changes in emotional experiences. There is
disagreement about the way such changes occur: While some contend that
several appraisals occur simultaneously and thereby influence other ongoing
appraisals, others argue that the appraisals follow certain sequences. Besides,
appraisals are prerequisite to an emotional experience but their nature and

News Framing Effects and Emotions

9

the precise steps underlying appraisal processes remain subject to further
debate (Moors & Scherer, 2013).
The majority of existing framing studies have applied CAT as a framework
for explaining the role of emotions as channels (e.g., Aarøe, 2011; Druckman & McDermott, 2008) or processes of news framing effects (e.g., Gross,
2008; Lecheler, Schuck, & de Vreese, 2013). Most of existing studies focus on
discrete emotions because they offer the best possible approach toward capturing fine-grained differences that are typical for media stimuli in general
and news framing in particular. Media stimuli using specific frames may not
only carry information on arousal or valence but also other information such
as certainty or responsibility. As emotions share commonalities in some but
not other dimensions, a focus on discrete emotions offers more ground for
isolating and specifying relationships between a stimulus or frame and an
emotional response (Nabi, 2010).
For instance, while anger and disgust are both negative and certaintyoriented emotions, anger may translate into different behavioral tendencies
such as approach or avoidance (Turner, 2007). Disgust, on the other hand,
will more often than not mobilize avoidance tendencies (Han, Lerner, &
Zeckhauser, 2012). Similarly, fear can but does not need to translate into
averse behavioral tendencies. Further, common to fear and the positive
emotion of hope is a feeling of uncertainty. That is, when the situational
demands remain largely unpredictable, both hope and fear are common
responses. Yet, to the extent that positive prospects exist, hope will not cause
the person to deter from facing an unpleasant and challenging situation.
Thus, it becomes clear that a coarse conceptualization of emotions in terms
of positive, negative, or aversive emotions may blur these fine-grained distinctions. However, there are still many media and framing effect studies that
combine several negative or positive emotions under the header of a single discrete one. While the abovementioned provides good reasons not to
do so, in empirical terms, and given that emotions are often measured with
self-reports posing obvious challenges for respondents, combining multiple
emotions into broader valence categories (positive or negative) is of course
oftentimes supported.
DISCUSSION
The steady rise of media and framing effect studies considering the role of
emotions underscores a prevailing and emerging trend in political communication research. In this essay, we have pointed out some of the current
developments in the field. With emotions having acquired more attention
by framing scholars by now, as is reflected in ever more publications on
the topic, we are left grappling with questions which reach beyond asking

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

if emotions matter but rather ask “what emotions play what role?,” “which
emotions to measure and how?,” or “which individual and/or contextual
characteristics condition the experience and impact of emotions and on what
relevant outcomes?.”
There are five topics we consider to be particularly important for future
framing research and want to highlight: First, when it comes to emotions
extant research in political communication pursues a rather narrow focus.
While negative emotions are studied predominantly, researchers rarely look
beyond the same set (mostly fear and anger) of them. Meanwhile, positive
emotions (such as hope, empathy, or pride) still continue to play a rather
minor role. We believe future research should also look more at self-conscious
emotions such as shame, guilt, or envy or other moral emotions, which may
offer particularly interesting insights into the formation of political opinions
and behavior.
Second, we also need to propel work on identifying which (other) individual and contextual factors influence (i) the extent to which emotions
are sparked by media stimuli, as well as (ii) to which extent emotions,
once elicited, exert an influence on subsequent opinions, attitudes, and/or
behaviors. For instance, framing research pays hardly any attention to the
impact of contextual influences such as country characteristics, the general
information landscape but also cultural variations in emotions experiences.
Importantly, the factors that might condition these effects and processes can
be emotion-, context-, and/or topic-specific. Therefore, a research approach
that is more nuanced is needed.
Third, framing effects research still lacks an integrated cognitive-emotional
perspective. Solving this issue will require scholars not only to assess (i) the
relative importance of cognitions and emotions within the same study but
also (ii) their interaction with one another. Fourth, measurement (currently,
mostly verbal self-reports) remains an important problem and implicit, physiological, or neurological measures should be considered by future research.
While each of these measures has its own pros and cons, the best approach
would involve combining several measures. By doing so, it will be possible not only to compensate for the shortcomings of a measurement but also
to gain a more comprehensive insight into the undergoing processes. Fifth,
visual framing remains an underresearched topic in news framing studies
and frame analyses which are primarily text-based. Yet, because emotions
are particularly receptive to visuals, going beyond texts may shed light not
only on how both visual frames influence emotions but also on how textual
and visual and/or audio elements interact in the construction as well as the
subsequent perception of a frame.
Finally, to provide further input for our readers from a greater variety of
experts working on the topic, we contacted some prominent researchers and

News Framing Effects and Emotions

11

leading experts in the field of framing and/or emotions with a short set of
questions asking for the biggest challenges at this point. For their participation and for sharing their views and comments on the topic, we thank
Prof. Henk Dekker (University of Leiden, the Netherlands), Prof. Jamie
Druckman (Northwestern University, USA), Dr. Eric Groenendyk (University of Memphis, USA), Prof. Eran Halperin (IDC Herzliya, Israel), Prof.
Jörg Matthes (University of Vienna, Austria), Prof. Michael Bang Petersen
(University of Aarhus, Denmark) and Prof. Dhavan Shah (University of
Wisconsin-Madison, USA).
Closer examination of the answers reveals that our experts see two
main challenges that can be further subdivided. The first main challenge
concerns measurement. Specifically, our experts showed concern about
accurately separating personal emotions from thoughts, arguments, perceptions, attitudes, decisions, and actions, but also from collective emotions.
In addition, they expressed concern regarding the measurement of the
interaction between cognitions and emotions but also the measurement of
emotion duration. The second bigger challenge is connected to the first, but
is more theory-based: What kind of effects of emotions do we expect? Do
we include the correct causes and consequences in our models? Regarding
framing research in general, our experts see it as important that studies
refrain from identifying frames without solid theoretical justification of the
frame’s relevance in journalistic practice. Successfully accomplishing these
challenges, as recommended by our experts, entails the following steps:
Careful theorizing instead of simple reapplications of psychological
research on the effects of emotions and just calling it “framing effect”;
Developing better (self-report) survey measures of emotions and triangulating them with other methods and/or measures;
Going beyond single-shot and forced-exposure designs which ignore processes of selectivity before and during reception in modern media environments;
Applying dynamic research designs and measuring emotions over
time—both as the dependent and independent variable.
And most importantly—as almost all of our experts stress univocally: The
need to team up with scholars from other fields, such as psychology, neuroscience, or knowledge engineering, to achieve these goals and integrate
emotions into existing frameworks. These factors will pave the way to the
development of better theoretical models on the influence of emotions as well
as contribute to already existing approaches. Finally, we close this essay with
the concluding remark by Dr. Groenendyk: “Virtually everyone agrees that
emotions matter; they’re just difficult to study. This is a great opportunity.”

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

REFERENCES
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic
frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226.
Averill, J. R. (1994). I feel, therefore I am—I think. In P. E. Ekman & R. J. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 379–385). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
Damasio, A. R. (2004). Emotion and feelings: A neurobiological perspective. In A. S.
R. Manstead, N. Frijda & A. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam
Symposium (pp. 49–57). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 13(1), 51–62.
de Vreese, C. H., & Lecheler, S. (2012). News framing research: An overview and
new developments. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammel (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
political communication (pp. 292–306). London, UK: Sage.
Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice.
Political Behavior, 30(3), 297–312.
Ellsworth, P. C. (2013). Appraisal theory: Old and new questions. Emotion Review,
5(2), 125–131.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J.
Davidson & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–595). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fontaine, J. R., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2007). The world of
emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1050–1057.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion
on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95,
1–37.
Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2007). Assessing positive and negative affect via
self-report. In J. A. Coan & J. J. B. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and
Assessment, (pp. 171–183). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.
Gross, K., & Brewer, P. R. (2007). Sore losers: News frames, policy debates, and emotions. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(1), 122–133.
Hänggli, R. (2012). Key factors in frame building. How strategic political actors shape
news media coverage. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 300–317.
Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Zeckhauser, R. (2012). The disgust-promotes-disposal effect.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 44(2), 101–113.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lecheler, S., Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Dealing with feelings: positive
and negative discrete emotions as mediators of news framing effects. Communications, 38(2), 189–209.

News Framing Effects and Emotions

13

Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). What a difference a day makes? The effects of
repetitive and competitive news framing over time. Communication Research, 40(2),
147–175.
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Barrett, L. F. (2012). The
brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(3),
121–143.
Moors, A., & Scherer, K. R. (2013). The role of appraisal in emotion. In M. D. Robinson, R. E. Watkins & E. Harmon-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp.
135–155). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Maier, J., & Rittberger, B. (2008). Shifting Europe’s boundaries mass media, public
opinion and the enlargement of the EU. European Union Politics, 9(2), 243–267.
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(2), 349–367.
Mulligan, K., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Toward a working definition of emotion. Emotion Review, 4(4), 345–357.
Nabi, R. L. (2010). The case for emphasizing discrete emotions in communication
research. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 153–159.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse.
Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75.
Russel, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions.
Journal of Research in Personality, 11(3), 273–294.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured. Social
Science Information, 44(4), 695–729.
Schuck, A. R. T., Boomgaarden, H., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Cynics all around? The
impact of election news on political cynicism in comparative perspective. Journal
of Communication, 63(2), 287–311.
Schuck, A. R. T., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Who’s Afraid of Conflict?
The Mobilizing Effect of Conflict Framing in Campaign News. British Journal of
Political Science Advance online publication.
Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2009). Reversed mobilization in referendum
campaigns how positive news framing can mobilize the skeptics. The International
Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 40–66.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content
analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.
Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual-process
model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology, 29(1), 1–28.
Solomon, R. C. (2007). True to our feelings: What our emotions are really telling us. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Turner, M. M. (2007). Using emotion in risk communication: The anger activism
model. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 114–119.

ANDREAS R. T. SCHUCK SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Andreas R. T. Schuck is an Associate Professor for Political Communication
at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) at the

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research focuses on media
effects on political opinions, attitudes, and behavior and the role of emotions.
His work has been published in international peer-reviewed journals such
as Journal of Communication, Political Communication, Communication
Research, European Union Politics, British Journal of Political Science, European Journal of Political Research, West European Politics, Electoral Studies,
Journalism Studies, International Journal of Press/Politics, International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, and Journal of Elections, Public Opinion
and Parties.
ALINA FEINHOLDT SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Alina Feinholdt is a PhD candidate at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Her
research focuses on the role of emotions and cognitions in the context of news
framing. Next to this, she is conducting studies on the effects of mindfulness
on work-related emotions and behaviors. Her work has been published in the
Journal of Applied Psychology. In addition, she is blogging for the In-Mind
magazine on the topics of happiness and framing.
RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Learning Across the Life Course (Sociology), Jutta Allmendinger and Marcel
Helbig
Public Opinion and International Conflict (Political Science), Adam J.
Berinsky
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M. J. Byrne
Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J.
D’Amico
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Neoliberalism (Sociology), Miguel Angel Centeno and Joseph N. Cohen
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
The Inherence Heuristic: Generating Everyday Explanations (Psychology),
Andrei Cimpian
Delusions (Psychology), Max Coltheart
Trust and Economic Organization (Sociology), Karen S. Cook and Bogdan
State
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.

News Framing Effects and Emotions

15

Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Cultural Differences in Emotions (Psychology), Jozefien De Leersnyder et al.
Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation (Political Science), Christian
Kandler et al.
The Psychological Impacts of Cyberlife Engagement (Psychology), Virginia S.
Y. Kwan and Jessica E. Bodford
Attitude: Construction versus Disposition (Psychology), Charles G. Lord
Capital Punishment (Sociology), Mona Lynch
Media and the development of Identity (Psychology), Adriana M. Manago
Media Neuroscience (Communications & Media), J. Michael Mangus et al.
Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E.
Tetlock
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio
Rojas
Ethnography: Telling Practice Stories (Methods), Karen O’Reilly
Emerging Trends in Culture and Concepts (Psychology), Bethany Ojalehto
and Douglas Medin
Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Embodied Knowledge (Psychology), Diane Pecher and René Zeelenberg
Trends in Street Crime and the Crime Drop (Sociology), Richard Rosenfeld
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
Information Politics in Dictatorships (Political Science), Jeremy L. Wallace
Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L.
Weakliem


News Framing Effects and Emotions
ANDREAS R. T. SCHUCK and ALINA FEINHOLDT

Abstract
Framing research is thriving and has become ever more popular among researchers
and students alike. This essay reviews some of the latest trends and developments in
the field, explains key terms and concepts, identifies likely future research lines, and
zooms in on one of these in particular, that is, the role of emotions in explaining news
framing effects. We distinguish different theories on emotions and how they have
been and can be used in the context of framing research. Furthermore, we present
a basic model of how to investigate the role of emotions in framing effects research.
Finally, we discuss some of the most promising future research lines with the potential for students or scholars to make their own contribution and present results of a
small-scale expert survey indicating what some prominent scholars consider to be
the most important challenges and promising future trends in the field right now.

NEWS FRAMING—KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
A never-ending stream of studies has documented the presence of different
frames in political news coverage with a wide range of effects on audiences.
Given the availability of so much evidence and research that could guide
one’s own investigation, one could get the impression that frame analysis is
easy to conduct and that effects are likely to be found. However, upon closer
inspection it becomes much less obvious and agreeable what a frame is and
how and under what conditions frames have what kind of effect. In the following
we first discuss some of the key terms and concepts as well as current trends
and developments in framing research and then zoom in on one of these, that
is, the role emotions play in news framing effect research.
The number of definitions today of what a frame is, is literally uncountable. Gamson and Modigliani (1989), for example, defined a frame as “a
central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding
strip of events” (p. 143). Thus, a frame suggests what an issue is about,
that is, how one should make sense of it. This is done through the use
of selection, salience or emphasis, exclusion and/or elaboration (see, e.g.,
Chong & Druckman, 2007). In its most basic sense, news framing refers
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

to the observation that media can portray one and the same topic in very
different ways, emphasizing certain aspects and/or evaluations or only
parts of an issue at the expense of possible others. In terms of what types
of frames exist in media content, research often distinguishes between
generic frames and issue-specific frames (de Vreese, 2005). Some frames,
such as conflict, attribution of responsibility, morality, human interest, or
economic consequences, are commonly applied to a wide range of topics,
whereas others are bound to a particular issue. Think of, for example, the
recent uprising on Maidan Square in Kiev in the Ukraine as being a “fight
for freedom” or an issue of “disrupting public order.” Importantly, a news
frame represents a consistent construction of an issue, suggesting certain
associations, attributes, judgments, or decisions. Simply put, it is more than
just an isolated argument on a particular issue. This means to be wary of the
unfortunate trend that seemingly everything nowadays becomes a “frame,”
for example, coding the mere mentioning of a certain topic in a newspaper
headline or an isolated evaluation does not, will not and should not (ever)
be classified as a frame, that is, it needs more than that.
How can a frame in political news coverage then be identified or measured?
Conceptually, this question relates to the process of frame-building, that is, the
question what determines the emergence and shape of a news frame to begin
with? In the abovementioned example of the Maidan Square in Kiev, multiple
players are involved in the construction of what eventually can be found as
a frame in the news, for example, the journalist, political elites, public movements, and so on. There are certain factors that influence the qualities of a
frame, which can be internal to journalism (e.g., editorial policies, news values) or external (e.g., public opinion climate, events, political agendas). In
interaction between journalists and news organizations, political elites, and
the public, news frames eventually take shape and studying this process is a
distinct field of research (e.g., Hänggli, 2012). Only then can we start analyzing news frames and their content characteristics.
Methodologically, frame analysis can either be done inductively in a qualitative coding approach (e.g., Pan & Kosicki, 1993), or, as is most commonly
done, deductively in a quantitative approach according to a predefined set of
content-analytic indicators that represent the frame (e.g., Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). How frames are conceptualized and measured is often connected
to problems such as a lack of operational precision or insufficient reporting
of intercoder reliability (Matthes, 2009). Most frame analyses are still conducted manually and with a narrow focus on print newspaper coverage.
Television coverage, on the contrary, with its visual elements and because
of its sometimes limited accessibility, is less often analyzed. The same is the
case for online news with their often more interactive features and despite
their obvious relevance.

News Framing Effects and Emotions

3

At this point, more studies are needed analyzing frames in nonstandard
news formats, such as political cartoons or political satire shows or other
soft news or political entertainment programs that attract new and wider
audiences. Furthermore, two more trends can be predicted, or are already
advancing: (i) a focus on visual framing, that is, the analysis of frames in
visual material as well as the interaction between text and visual information in what constitutes a frame, and (ii) computer-assisted, text-based
content analysis of large quantities of print and/or online news, employing
a machine-learning approach (at lower costs), but also of social media
content such as Twitter or online discussions or comments on articles or
blog posts. Overall, the analysis of “journalistic” news frames is expanding
to include frames employed in user-generated media content, which also
carries implications for new research on frame-building and the conditions
under which frames emerge and spill over from the news to the audience
and vice versa and likely influence each other.
Turning to the effect side, framing studies have demonstrated effects on the
evaluative direction of thoughts, issue interpretations, attitudes, perceptions
of an issue, and levels of policy support and political behavior. Recently,
the focus has shifted away from the question if frames have an effect and
toward more nuanced issues such as (i) determining the role of individual
predispositions and contextual contingencies, that is, the conditions under
which news frames have (stronger/weaker/no) effects (i.e., moderation) (e.g.,
Schuck, Boomgaarden, & de Vreese, 2013); (ii) describing the underlying
processes and mechanisms that explain how news frames cause an effect (i.e.,
mediation) (e.g., Slothuus, 2008); and (3) testing news framing effects in more
realistic settings and research designs, for example, the role of competitive
and/or repetitive framing on the strength and/or duration of framing effects
(e.g., Lecheler & de Vreese, 2013).
Media effects are not the same for everyone, that is, they are contingent on
so-called moderators, factors that determine if an effect is stronger or weaker
for a certain individual and/or in a certain context. Depending on personal
characteristics (e.g., personality traits) and individual predispositions (e.g.,
political knowledge, personal values) or other characteristics (e.g., source
characteristics, interpersonal communication), frames can have either more
or less of an effect or no effect at all (see, e.g., de Vreese & Lecheler, 2012).
Especially contextual moderators can be seen as a hot topic in framing
research right now, as they do not only include issue- or frame-relevant
factors (e.g., issue importance, repetitive or competitive framing, and
episodic or thematic framing) but also country-specific characteristics. For
example, recent comparative research shows that the same news frame can
have different effects depending on, for example, the general public opinion
climate toward an issue in a country or the general information environment

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in the respective national media (e.g., Schuck, Vliegenthart, & de Vreese,
2014).
More recently, framing effect research has increased efforts to investigate
the underlying mechanisms that explain how framing effects operate, that
is, the so-called mediators. However, most research by far has been devoted
to cognitive processes. Framing effects, in this perspective, can be explained
by different processes such as accessibility change (i.e., making considerations
more salient and likely to be used), belief importance change (i.e., altering the
weight of certain considerations), or belief content change (i.e., adding new
beliefs) (see e.g., Slothuus, 2008). What is strikingly missing from this list
of possible mechanisms is the role of affective factors in mediating framing
effects. In political communication research, several studies so far have
shown how certain news frames, such as conflict, valenced or episodic
frames, can be particularly effective in sparking emotions and/or how these
mediate framing effects (e.g., Aarøe, 2011; Gross & Brewer, 2007; Lecheler,
Schuck, & de Vreese, 2013). Yet, this first empirical evidence remains fragmentary and a comprehensive theoretical framework with an integration of
cognitive and affective factors is still lacking.
How can researchers analyze framing effects? In terms of methodology,
two possible research designs are most commonly employed to study news
framing effects. Most often, framing researchers employ experiments in
which respondents are randomly assigned to different news frames (or a
control group) and differences in the relevant outcome variables are then
attributed to the respective frame manipulation. More recently, there have
been notable advances and these standard designs have been extended
including, for example, repetitive exposure to the same frame or to competing
frames and/or repeated exposure with different time delays (reaching from
several minutes or hours to multiple weeks) to track the strength and
persistence of framing effects over time and in a more realistic setting (see,
e.g., Lecheler & de Vreese, 2013). Easier access to the use of online samples
has reduced the reliance on student or other convenience samples. Other
innovations include the use of implicit or physiological measures to assess
affective responses to news frames more accurately and reduce reliance on
self-reports. A second way of accounting for news framing effects takes a
different approach and combines a media content analysis with panel survey
data. This design consists of two steps, (i) measuring the presence of certain
news frames in news content over a certain period of time, for example,
the weeks before an election, and combining it with (ii) panel survey data
spanning over the same time period and including detailed media exposure
measures for the same outlets. By combining these two data sources it is
possible to compose an individual-level weighted media exposure measure
that takes into account the exact frame “dosage” an individual has been

News Framing Effects and Emotions

5

exposed to, and account for its impact on changes in opinions, attitudes, or
between behavioral intentions and actual behavior over the period of the
time interval (see e.g., Schuck, Vliegenthart, & de Vreese, 2014).
In Figure 1 we provide a basic model how to analyze the role of emotions in
news framing effect research. Importantly, this model can easily be adjusted
or extended and simply illustrates one possible way to investigate indirect
effects of news frames via emotions on different relevant outcomes. It takes
into account the different possible research designs discussed earlier (arrows
at the bottom) and the main issue to consider as a researcher at each stage
of the design (arrows at the top). Depending on the respective study design
and research interest, emotions can also be dependent variables or even
moderators rather than mediators. Multiple emotions instead of one single
emotion could be included in what would then become a multiple mediation model. Cognitive factors could be added to the model as additional
mediators—alongside emotions—to assess the relative importance of cognitive vis-à-vis affective factors. Either (or none of the) path(s) from news frame
to emotion(s) and/or from emotion(s) to the dependent variable(s) could be
moderated; for example, an individual’s “need for affect” could condition
the extent to which people respond emotionally to news frames (i.e., first
path), and/or a person’s degree of (political) self-efficacy could condition
the extent to which an emotion such as “anger” mobilizes political behavior
(i.e., second path). Furthermore, contextual factors could be included as
moderator(s) in the model, in comparative research designs, and finally
the model could be extended into a serial mediation model in which the
indirect effect of a news frame via emotion(s) on opinions and/or attitudes
is assessed first, which are then expected to affect political behavior. Finally,
there are different ways to analyze (conditional) indirect effects such as those
illustrated in Figure 1 and some are more appropriate than others depending
on the exact nature of the data at hand and the research objective (see, e.g.,
Hayes, 2013). Overall, the model in the figure is a graphical illustration of
the (possible research) question: What kinds of emotions are triggered by political
news frames, to what extent, under what conditions, and what is their impact on
what kind of relevant outcomes?
THE DRIVING, CHANNELING, AND SIMPLY CENTRAL
ROLE OF EMOTIONS IN FRAMING
While emotions are still an emerging trend in news framing research, emotion researchers themselves grapple with numerous issues. In this section, we
offer a brief overview of some of the main concepts and questions encountered in emotion research, including two theories that are used within the
context of framing effects research.

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Media content (indicators) / stimulus
Measurement of emotions
(Conditional) indirect effects

Individual predispositions/
contextual factors
(Moderator)

Emotions

Individual predispositions/
contextual factors
(Moderator)

(mediator)

Political opinions, attitudes,
behavior, perceptions etc.
(DV)

(Valenced) news frame (IV)

Media content analysis
Panel survey
Experiment / stimulus

Experiment / measurement

Figure 1 (Moderated) Mediation model of (conditional) indirect framing effects via
emotions on political opinions, attitudes, behavior, or perceptions, and so on.

First, we clarify some of the key terms that are conceptually distinct but are
often interchangeably used. Beginning with affect, some scholars view affect
as a “broader, more inclusive psychological construct” (Gray & Watson,
2007, p. 171) which characterizes the valence of a mood, an emotional state
or an individual’s intrinsic motivation to act in certain ways. That is, when
we speak of affect, we do not mean specific emotions or moods but rather
evaluations such as positive or negative. Mood is another construct that has
often been equated with emotions even though there appear to be relevant
differences. Both constructs can be distinguished in terms of duration, with
moods extending over time and context, whereas emotions embody acute
and object-directed states. As such, moods occupy most of our lifetime,
while emotions inhabit only a fraction of it. Similar to emotions, mood
can substantially influence how people process and deal with information
they encounter (e.g., Scherer, 2005). Importantly, however, these differences
remain, to a large extent, theoretical, as clear empirical evidence is hardly
available. Another candidate causing confusion is the term feeling (Mulligan & Scherer, 2012). While many scholars characterize feelings as vague,
“by their nature dumb and without intelligence” (Solomon, 2007, p. 137),
or “hopeless concept(s)” (Damasio, 2004, p. 50), there is consensus that a
feeling is the conscious awareness of a prevailing emotional experience.
Still, it is worthwhile mentioning that feelings are not emotion-specific but

News Framing Effects and Emotions

7

embrace both emotions and sensations such as touch, noise, smell, and taste
(Averill, 1994).
These definitions highlight that people frequently use “synonyms” for
emotions that are more or less related but represent distinct concepts. For
framing research, these differences stress the need to be clear about each
of these concepts’ distinct role. Also, it asks for a more precise operationalization of emotions if these are really the mechanism expected to account
for framing effects. Meanwhile, if the concepts discussed are only related
to emotions, what then are emotions? For centuries scholars have tried to
come up with an unequivocal answer but largely failed to do so. Scherer
(2005) even views the goal of specifying what an emotion is as a “notorious
problem” (p. 695) because many scholars approach and study emotions from
different angles. Here, we opt for a context-based definition of emotions in
which emotions are explained from the perspective of a specific theory.
DIMENSIONAL THEORIES
From a dimensional perspective, an infinite number of emotions can be
located along the dimensions of valence and arousal. Valence refers to a
subjective state of feeling pleasure or displeasure in response to a certain
stimulus and can vary in intensity. Arousal, on the contrary, describes
physiological changes ranging from excitement to calmness. Some scholars
do also include a third dimension running from potency to control or
dominance to submissiveness (e.g., Russel & Mehrabian, 1977). Intersections
of these dimensions lay the groundwork for the emergence of an emotion
which then determines corresponding behavioral tendencies.
While offering a parsimonious system for how emotions can be described,
dimensional theories have two substantial shortcomings: First, not all emotional features can be reduced to two or three dimensions. For instance, jaw
dropping or rising eyebrows can be best accounted for by a fourth dimension relating to novelty (Fontaine, Scherer, Roesch, & Ellsworth, 2007), which
has been associated with unique activation patterns in the amygdala, a brain
region associated with emotion processing (for a review on brain activity and
emotions, see Lindquist, Wager, Kober, Bliss-Moreau, Barrett, 2012). Second,
dimensional theories are inherently descriptive rather than explanatory. That
is, their focus lies primarily on explaining the largest amount of variance
in emotional experience rather than on offering explanations how emotions
emerge (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003).
Existing framing studies often have used the dimensional approach for
operationalizing frames in terms of positive or negative valence. For instance,
Schuck and de Vreese (2009) have tested the effects of differently valenced
news frames on voting intention. Others have focused on the effects positive

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

and negative news frames have on political attitudes (Maier & Rittberger,
2008). These and similar studies highlight that valence paves the way for
different types of behaviors or attitudes. Yet, the predominantly descriptive
nature of this approach prevents from understanding why valence may cause
these types of framing effects.
COGNITIVE APPRAISAL THEORIES (CAT)
Cognitive appraisal theory (CAT) claims that an emotional episode derives
from a specific and nearly invariant pattern of appraisals. An emotional
episode is a synonym for an emotion but it underscores the fact that an
emotion is an emergent event proceeded by a stimulus of which the person
can but does not need to be consciously aware of. The presence of a specific
stimulus implies also that emotional episodes have a starting and an end
point, with different emotional episodes varying in duration and intensity
(e.g., Moors & Scherer, 2013). Imagine, for instance, a reporter announcing
the implementation of a policy on progressive taxation. In response to this
broadcast, someone may experience happiness while someone else may
react with anger or sadness. Each one of these emotional episodes may differ
in the respective episode onset and how rapidly they will decay.
Furthermore, each emotional episode is accompanied by synchronized
changes in several components consisting of (i) cognitive appraisals, (ii)
psychophysiology, (iii) subjective feelings, as well as (iv) motivational
and (v) behavioral tendencies such as modifications of facial expressions.
Cognitive appraisals are mechanisms that monitor and scrutinize external
and internal events in relation to the individual’s well-being (Ellsworth,
2013). A specific event, however, is not randomly appraised but according
to specific appraisal dimensions. The most common appraisal dimensions
are novelty (i.e., is the prevailing event familiar or not?), certainty (i.e.,
is the outcome certain?), agency (i.e., who is responsible for this event?),
and coping potential (i.e., can I deal with this event?). Importantly, these
dimensions are not fixed. Rather, each appraisal scholar uses a specific
vocabulary but also takes into account dimensions that he or she considers
more valuable to a specific emotion (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003).
Proponents of this theory argue that the outcome of an appraisal will subsequently impact the other components and, thus, trigger changes that are
characteristic for a specific emotional episode. Correspondingly, any changes
in appraisals are accompanied by changes in emotional experiences. There is
disagreement about the way such changes occur: While some contend that
several appraisals occur simultaneously and thereby influence other ongoing
appraisals, others argue that the appraisals follow certain sequences. Besides,
appraisals are prerequisite to an emotional experience but their nature and

News Framing Effects and Emotions

9

the precise steps underlying appraisal processes remain subject to further
debate (Moors & Scherer, 2013).
The majority of existing framing studies have applied CAT as a framework
for explaining the role of emotions as channels (e.g., Aarøe, 2011; Druckman & McDermott, 2008) or processes of news framing effects (e.g., Gross,
2008; Lecheler, Schuck, & de Vreese, 2013). Most of existing studies focus on
discrete emotions because they offer the best possible approach toward capturing fine-grained differences that are typical for media stimuli in general
and news framing in particular. Media stimuli using specific frames may not
only carry information on arousal or valence but also other information such
as certainty or responsibility. As emotions share commonalities in some but
not other dimensions, a focus on discrete emotions offers more ground for
isolating and specifying relationships between a stimulus or frame and an
emotional response (Nabi, 2010).
For instance, while anger and disgust are both negative and certaintyoriented emotions, anger may translate into different behavioral tendencies
such as approach or avoidance (Turner, 2007). Disgust, on the other hand,
will more often than not mobilize avoidance tendencies (Han, Lerner, &
Zeckhauser, 2012). Similarly, fear can but does not need to translate into
averse behavioral tendencies. Further, common to fear and the positive
emotion of hope is a feeling of uncertainty. That is, when the situational
demands remain largely unpredictable, both hope and fear are common
responses. Yet, to the extent that positive prospects exist, hope will not cause
the person to deter from facing an unpleasant and challenging situation.
Thus, it becomes clear that a coarse conceptualization of emotions in terms
of positive, negative, or aversive emotions may blur these fine-grained distinctions. However, there are still many media and framing effect studies that
combine several negative or positive emotions under the header of a single discrete one. While the abovementioned provides good reasons not to
do so, in empirical terms, and given that emotions are often measured with
self-reports posing obvious challenges for respondents, combining multiple
emotions into broader valence categories (positive or negative) is of course
oftentimes supported.
DISCUSSION
The steady rise of media and framing effect studies considering the role of
emotions underscores a prevailing and emerging trend in political communication research. In this essay, we have pointed out some of the current
developments in the field. With emotions having acquired more attention
by framing scholars by now, as is reflected in ever more publications on
the topic, we are left grappling with questions which reach beyond asking

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

if emotions matter but rather ask “what emotions play what role?,” “which
emotions to measure and how?,” or “which individual and/or contextual
characteristics condition the experience and impact of emotions and on what
relevant outcomes?.”
There are five topics we consider to be particularly important for future
framing research and want to highlight: First, when it comes to emotions
extant research in political communication pursues a rather narrow focus.
While negative emotions are studied predominantly, researchers rarely look
beyond the same set (mostly fear and anger) of them. Meanwhile, positive
emotions (such as hope, empathy, or pride) still continue to play a rather
minor role. We believe future research should also look more at self-conscious
emotions such as shame, guilt, or envy or other moral emotions, which may
offer particularly interesting insights into the formation of political opinions
and behavior.
Second, we also need to propel work on identifying which (other) individual and contextual factors influence (i) the extent to which emotions
are sparked by media stimuli, as well as (ii) to which extent emotions,
once elicited, exert an influence on subsequent opinions, attitudes, and/or
behaviors. For instance, framing research pays hardly any attention to the
impact of contextual influences such as country characteristics, the general
information landscape but also cultural variations in emotions experiences.
Importantly, the factors that might condition these effects and processes can
be emotion-, context-, and/or topic-specific. Therefore, a research approach
that is more nuanced is needed.
Third, framing effects research still lacks an integrated cognitive-emotional
perspective. Solving this issue will require scholars not only to assess (i) the
relative importance of cognitions and emotions within the same study but
also (ii) their interaction with one another. Fourth, measurement (currently,
mostly verbal self-reports) remains an important problem and implicit, physiological, or neurological measures should be considered by future research.
While each of these measures has its own pros and cons, the best approach
would involve combining several measures. By doing so, it will be possible not only to compensate for the shortcomings of a measurement but also
to gain a more comprehensive insight into the undergoing processes. Fifth,
visual framing remains an underresearched topic in news framing studies
and frame analyses which are primarily text-based. Yet, because emotions
are particularly receptive to visuals, going beyond texts may shed light not
only on how both visual frames influence emotions but also on how textual
and visual and/or audio elements interact in the construction as well as the
subsequent perception of a frame.
Finally, to provide further input for our readers from a greater variety of
experts working on the topic, we contacted some prominent researchers and

News Framing Effects and Emotions

11

leading experts in the field of framing and/or emotions with a short set of
questions asking for the biggest challenges at this point. For their participation and for sharing their views and comments on the topic, we thank
Prof. Henk Dekker (University of Leiden, the Netherlands), Prof. Jamie
Druckman (Northwestern University, USA), Dr. Eric Groenendyk (University of Memphis, USA), Prof. Eran Halperin (IDC Herzliya, Israel), Prof.
Jörg Matthes (University of Vienna, Austria), Prof. Michael Bang Petersen
(University of Aarhus, Denmark) and Prof. Dhavan Shah (University of
Wisconsin-Madison, USA).
Closer examination of the answers reveals that our experts see two
main challenges that can be further subdivided. The first main challenge
concerns measurement. Specifically, our experts showed concern about
accurately separating personal emotions from thoughts, arguments, perceptions, attitudes, decisions, and actions, but also from collective emotions.
In addition, they expressed concern regarding the measurement of the
interaction between cognitions and emotions but also the measurement of
emotion duration. The second bigger challenge is connected to the first, but
is more theory-based: What kind of effects of emotions do we expect? Do
we include the correct causes and consequences in our models? Regarding
framing research in general, our experts see it as important that studies
refrain from identifying frames without solid theoretical justification of the
frame’s relevance in journalistic practice. Successfully accomplishing these
challenges, as recommended by our experts, entails the following steps:
Careful theorizing instead of simple reapplications of psychological
research on the effects of emotions and just calling it “framing effect”;
Developing better (self-report) survey measures of emotions and triangulating them with other methods and/or measures;
Going beyond single-shot and forced-exposure designs which ignore processes of selectivity before and during reception in modern media environments;
Applying dynamic research designs and measuring emotions over
time—both as the dependent and independent variable.
And most importantly—as almost all of our experts stress univocally: The
need to team up with scholars from other fields, such as psychology, neuroscience, or knowledge engineering, to achieve these goals and integrate
emotions into existing frameworks. These factors will pave the way to the
development of better theoretical models on the influence of emotions as well
as contribute to already existing approaches. Finally, we close this essay with
the concluding remark by Dr. Groenendyk: “Virtually everyone agrees that
emotions matter; they’re just difficult to study. This is a great opportunity.”

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

REFERENCES
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic
frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226.
Averill, J. R. (1994). I feel, therefore I am—I think. In P. E. Ekman & R. J. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 379–385). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
Damasio, A. R. (2004). Emotion and feelings: A neurobiological perspective. In A. S.
R. Manstead, N. Frijda & A. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam
Symposium (pp. 49–57). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 13(1), 51–62.
de Vreese, C. H., & Lecheler, S. (2012). News framing research: An overview and
new developments. In H. A. Semetko & M. Scammel (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
political communication (pp. 292–306). London, UK: Sage.
Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice.
Political Behavior, 30(3), 297–312.
Ellsworth, P. C. (2013). Appraisal theory: Old and new questions. Emotion Review,
5(2), 125–131.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J.
Davidson & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–595). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fontaine, J. R., Scherer, K. R., Roesch, E. B., & Ellsworth, P. C. (2007). The world of
emotions is not two-dimensional. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1050–1057.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion
on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95,
1–37.
Gray, E. K., & Watson, D. (2007). Assessing positive and negative affect via
self-report. In J. A. Coan & J. J. B. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of Emotion Elicitation and
Assessment, (pp. 171–183). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.
Gross, K., & Brewer, P. R. (2007). Sore losers: News frames, policy debates, and emotions. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 12(1), 122–133.
Hänggli, R. (2012). Key factors in frame building. How strategic political actors shape
news media coverage. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 300–317.
Han, S., Lerner, J. S., & Zeckhauser, R. (2012). The disgust-promotes-disposal effect.
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 44(2), 101–113.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lecheler, S., Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Dealing with feelings: positive
and negative discrete emotions as mediators of news framing effects. Communications, 38(2), 189–209.

News Framing Effects and Emotions

13

Lecheler, S., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). What a difference a day makes? The effects of
repetitive and competitive news framing over time. Communication Research, 40(2),
147–175.
Lindquist, K. A., Wager, T. D., Kober, H., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Barrett, L. F. (2012). The
brain basis of emotion: A meta-analytic review. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 35(3),
121–143.
Moors, A., & Scherer, K. R. (2013). The role of appraisal in emotion. In M. D. Robinson, R. E. Watkins & E. Harmon-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp.
135–155). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Maier, J., & Rittberger, B. (2008). Shifting Europe’s boundaries mass media, public
opinion and the enlargement of the EU. European Union Politics, 9(2), 243–267.
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(2), 349–367.
Mulligan, K., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Toward a working definition of emotion. Emotion Review, 4(4), 345–357.
Nabi, R. L. (2010). The case for emphasizing discrete emotions in communication
research. Communication Monographs, 77(2), 153–159.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse.
Political Communication, 10(1), 55–75.
Russel, J. A., & Mehrabian, A. (1977). Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions.
Journal of Research in Personality, 11(3), 273–294.
Scherer, K. R. (2005). What are emotions? And how can they be measured. Social
Science Information, 44(4), 695–729.
Schuck, A. R. T., Boomgaarden, H., & de Vreese, C. H. (2013). Cynics all around? The
impact of election news on political cynicism in comparative perspective. Journal
of Communication, 63(2), 287–311.
Schuck, A. R. T., Vliegenthart, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Who’s Afraid of Conflict?
The Mobilizing Effect of Conflict Framing in Campaign News. British Journal of
Political Science Advance online publication.
Schuck, A. R. T., & de Vreese, C. H. (2009). Reversed mobilization in referendum
campaigns how positive news framing can mobilize the skeptics. The International
Journal of Press/Politics, 14(1), 40–66.
Semetko, H. A., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2000). Framing European politics: A content
analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.
Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual-process
model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology, 29(1), 1–28.
Solomon, R. C. (2007). True to our feelings: What our emotions are really telling us. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Turner, M. M. (2007). Using emotion in risk communication: The anger activism
model. Public Relations Review, 33(2), 114–119.

ANDREAS R. T. SCHUCK SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Andreas R. T. Schuck is an Associate Professor for Political Communication
at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) at the

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. His research focuses on media
effects on political opinions, attitudes, and behavior and the role of emotions.
His work has been published in international peer-reviewed journals such
as Journal of Communication, Political Communication, Communication
Research, European Union Politics, British Journal of Political Science, European Journal of Political Research, West European Politics, Electoral Studies,
Journalism Studies, International Journal of Press/Politics, International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, and Journal of Elections, Public Opinion
and Parties.
ALINA FEINHOLDT SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Alina Feinholdt is a PhD candidate at the Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR) at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Her
research focuses on the role of emotions and cognitions in the context of news
framing. Next to this, she is conducting studies on the effects of mindfulness
on work-related emotions and behaviors. Her work has been published in the
Journal of Applied Psychology. In addition, she is blogging for the In-Mind
magazine on the topics of happiness and framing.
RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Learning Across the Life Course (Sociology), Jutta Allmendinger and Marcel
Helbig
Public Opinion and International Conflict (Political Science), Adam J.
Berinsky
Empathy Gaps between Helpers and Help-Seekers: Implications for Cooperation (Psychology), Vanessa K. Bohns and Francis J. Flynn
Mental Models (Psychology), Ruth M. J. Byrne
Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J.
D’Amico
Authenticity: Attribution, Value, and Meaning (Sociology), Glenn R. Carroll
Neoliberalism (Sociology), Miguel Angel Centeno and Joseph N. Cohen
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
The Inherence Heuristic: Generating Everyday Explanations (Psychology),
Andrei Cimpian
Delusions (Psychology), Max Coltheart
Trust and Economic Organization (Sociology), Karen S. Cook and Bogdan
State
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.

News Framing Effects and Emotions

15

Enduring Effects of Education (Sociology), Matthew Curry and Jennie E.
Brand
Cultural Differences in Emotions (Psychology), Jozefien De Leersnyder et al.
Expertise (Sociology), Gil Eyal
Cognitive Processes Involved in Stereotyping (Psychology), Susan T. Fiske
and Cydney H. Dupree
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Political Advertising (Political Science), Erika Franklin Fowler
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation (Political Science), Christian
Kandler et al.
The Psychological Impacts of Cyberlife Engagement (Psychology), Virginia S.
Y. Kwan and Jessica E. Bodford
Attitude: Construction versus Disposition (Psychology), Charles G. Lord
Capital Punishment (Sociology), Mona Lynch
Media and the development of Identity (Psychology), Adriana M. Manago
Media Neuroscience (Communications & Media), J. Michael Mangus et al.
Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E.
Tetlock
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio
Rojas
Ethnography: Telling Practice Stories (Methods), Karen O’Reilly
Emerging Trends in Culture and Concepts (Psychology), Bethany Ojalehto
and Douglas Medin
Culture as Situated Cognition (Psychology), Daphna Oyserman
Embodied Knowledge (Psychology), Diane Pecher and René Zeelenberg
Trends in Street Crime and the Crime Drop (Sociology), Richard Rosenfeld
Born This Way: Thinking Sociologically about Essentialism (Sociology),
Kristen Schilt
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
Information Politics in Dictatorships (Political Science), Jeremy L. Wallace
Public Opinion, The 1%, and Income Redistribution (Sociology), David L.
Weakliem



Media

News Framing Effects and Emotions