University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (ASC) Annenberg School for Communication January 2005 Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions Vincent Price University of Pennsylvania Lilach Nir Hebrew University Joseph N. Cappella University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers Recommended Citation Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69 (2), 179-212. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfi014 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/107 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions Abstract Although the framing of public opinion has often been conceptualized as a collective and social process, experimental studies of framing have typically examined only individual, psychological responses to alternative message frames. In this research we employ for the first time group conversations as the unit of analysis (following Gamson 1992) in an experimental study of framing effects. Two hundred and thirty- five American citizens in 50 groups (17 homogeneously conservative groups, 15 homogeneously liberal groups, and 18 heterogeneous groups) discussed whether or not gay and lesbian partnerships should be legally recognized. Groups were randomly assigned to one of two framing conditions (a "homosexual marriage/special rights" frame or a "civil union/equal rights" frame). Results indicated framing effects that were, in all cases, contingent on the ideological leanings of the group. The "marriage" frame tended to polarize group discussions along ideological lines. Both liberal and conservative groups appeared to find their opponents' frame more provocative, responding to them with a larger number of statements and expressing greater ambivalence than when reacting to more hospitable frames. This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/107 FRAMING PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF GAY CIVIL UNIONS VINCENT PRICE LILACH NIR JOSEPH N. CAPPELLA Abstract Although the framing of public opinion has often been conceptualized as a collective and social process, experimental studies of framing have typically examined only individual, psychological responses to alternative message frames. In this research we employ for the first time group conversations as the unit of analysis (following Gamson 1992) in an experimental study of framing effects. Two hundred and thirty-five American citizens in 50 groups (17 homo- geneously conservative groups, 15 homogeneously liberal groups, and 18 heterogeneous groups) discussed whether or not gay and lesbian partnerships should be legally recognized. Groups were randomly assigned to one of two framing conditions (a “homosexual marriage/ special rights” frame or a “civil union/equal rights” frame). Results indi- cated framing effects that were, in all cases, contingent on the ideologi- cal leanings of the group. The “marriage” frame tended to polarize group discussions along ideological lines. Both liberal and conservative groups appeared to find their opponents’ frame more provocative, responding to them with a larger number of statements and expressing greater ambivalence than when reacting to more hospitable frames. Political conversation is a central feature of democratic life (Barber 1984; Dewey 1927; Tarde [1899] 1989). In talking through their ideas, people are able to sort out various considerations and to learn, in the process, what they think about shared concerns (Gutmann and Thompson 1996; Kuhn 1991). VINCENT PRICE and JOSEPH N. CAPPELLA are professors in the Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, where LILACH NIR is a postdoctoral research associate. This research was supported by grants to Vincent Price and Joseph N. Cappella from the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. Views expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect opinions of the sponsoring agencies. The authors thank Yariv Tsfati, Jenny Stromer-Galley, Danna Goldthwaite, Anca Romantan, Tresa Undem, Jo Piazza, Son-Ho Kim, Clarissa David, Masaki Hidaka, Emily West, Eun-Kyung Na, Anthony Danna, and Lisa Rand for their assistance, and three anonymous reviewers for the com- ments on an earlier draft. Address correspondence to Vincent Price; e-mail: [email protected]. Widespread information diffusion and citizen discussion gives rise to public opinion, “which, when organized, is democracy” (Cooley 1909, p. 85). Numerous analysts have drawn attention to the ways that citizen discussion unfolds in a complex relationship with news media discourse (see, for example, Bryce’s [1888] recounting of the phases of opinion formation). It is not neces- sarily the case that the news media entirely dictate public opinion—the whole notion of democracy rests on the view that the public sphere is at least semis- overeign in its operation—but the news media are credited with triggering and widening political discussion among citizens (Kim, Wyatt, and Katz 1999). The news media also shape the terms of debate, largely establishing the “uni- verse of discourse” for citizen discussion (Blumer 1946, p. 191). As Tarde ([1899] 1989, p. 82) put it early on, “even those who fail [to read the news- paper] are forced to follow the groove of their borrowed thoughts” (Kim, Wyatt, and Katz 1999, p. 380). This idea—that the news media establish the terms of public debate—has become widely accepted and studied in the form of framing research. A frame is “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning” (Gamson and Modigliani 1987, p. 143). Framing of public opinion has been conceptualized as a collective and social process in which meanings are constructed actively through public debate, and in which ordinary citizens make use of media discourse, personal experience, and “folk wisdom” in negotiating meaning (Gamson 1988). Despite this social constructionist model, experimental studies of framing have typically examined only individual, psychological responses to alternative message frames (see Scheufele 1999 for a recent review). In this study we employ for the first time group conversations as the unit of analysis in an experimental study of framing effects. Like other experi- mental studies of framing, we observe differences in public response to alter- nate issue frames—in this case either a “traditional morality” or an “equality” frame as it applies to the question of whether gay or lesbian partnerships should be legally recognized. Unlike other studies, however, and in keeping with Gamson and Modigliani’s (1987) methodological recommendations, we observe not isolated individual responses but rather group-level, discursive reactions to each frame. Framing Research: A Bifurcated Endeavor The idea of framing has been widely applied in political communication and is subject to varying definitions (Price and Tewksbury 1997), but its origins can be traced to a general perspective we may term “social constructivism” (Scheufele 1999). In the constructionist model, media audiences are viewed as active in interpreting and discussing public events, but they rely on the mass media to provide common frames of reference that guide interpretation and discussion. Closely aligned with the concept of a schema, a frame is a package of associated ideas that helps to guide attention, comprehension, storage, and retrieval of information. Frames evolve out of collective efforts to make sense of problems, and they help people “locate, perceive, identify, and label” their experience (Goffman 1974, p. 21). In the political world, multiple frames emerge naturally in the course of public debate. People on different sides of an issue understand it differently, focus on different aspects of the problem, and actively promote their perspective in arguing for favored courses of action. A major proponent of the constructionist approach to framing has been Gam- son (1988, 1992), who contends that citizens actively use their own experi- ence and interpersonal discussion, not just media frames, to negotiate socially the meaning of political issues. Several reviews of framing research (e.g., Entman 1993; Pan and Kosicki 1993; Scheufele, 1999) note that it has followed a bifurcated path. One line of research emphasizes a sociological conception of framing, applying it to the production of news discourse and conversations among focus-group partici- pants. This research sets about the task of examining various media frames as they are applied to particular issues (e.g., Gamson and Lasch 1983; Gamson and Modigliani 1987, 1989; Gitlin 1980; Pan and Kosicki 1993; Tuchman 1978). A second line of study emphasizes a psychological conception of framing and focuses on individual patterns of information processing and opinion formation. This type of research tends to be experimental in nature, focusing on some particular aspect of news coverage (for instance, the adoption of a “human interest” frame or a “strategy” frame in reporting the news) and trac- ing the influence of alternatively framed news stories on individual cognitions and attitudes (e.g., Brewer 2002; Cappella and Jamieson 1996, 1997; Druckman 2001; Iyengar 1987, 1991; Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley 1997; Price, Tewksbury, and Powers 1997.) Experiments have commonly manipulated frames through experimentally prepared news