FRAMING, AGENDA SETTING AND PRIMING:

DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS

Beln AMADEO, Prof. Dr.
Universidad de Buenos Aires, CONICET, ARGENTINA
bamadeo@fibertel.com.ar
Beln AMADEO was born in 1970, Buenos Aires, Argentina. She holds a Political Science BA from
Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina, and a PhD in Public Communication from Universidad de
Navarra, Spain. She is a researcher and lectures on Political Communication, Cyberpolitics,
Communication Theory, Civic Culture and Mass Media at undergraduate, graudate and doctoral levels
in Argentina and Uruguay.
Abstract
The framing theory has been defined and explained by various scholars whose viewpoints on the theory
could not have been more different. Each researcher attributes functions and specific characteristics to
frames according to the specific level of the communication where he thinks they are placed. The first
level is the making and treatment of news -the production of the information by journalists and the
media. The second level is the message in itself -that is to say the concrete contents of news-, and the third
level is the one of the reception of the message by the audience -the effect frames have on those who receive
them. There are authors who deal with the concepts of frame and framing in more than one of those
communication levels at the same time, and those who see framing in all those levels simultaneously.
This, therefore, forces to create a fourth and last level in our classification, the one corresponding to those
authors who see framing as a communication process embracing the three previous steps. This fourth
level of communication allows us to grasp the connections appearing through all the transfer of
meaning, thus overcoming the idea that frames are something different from the rest of the process.
Framing is a comprehensive theory that includes the newsmaking process, the formal characteristics of
the pieces of news as well as their reception by the audience. It focuses on underlying social values shared
by journalists and their community, values that are either explicitly mentioned or suggested in the news.
The Framing theory explains the transfer, strengthening and modification process of the social set of
values, symbols and norms from the mass media to society and vice versa. Stating the differences between
the theory of Framing, Agenda Setting and Priming deems useful considering the fact that some of their
particular aspects tend to be confused. The connection between the concepts of frame and attribute, for
example, has proven to be misleading: the process of framing is not the medias mere assignment of
attributes to some issues or individuals in the news. It implies a dynamic transfer of meanings from
media to society and from society to media, baring in mind not only the psychological perspective that of
the journalists who elaborate the pieces of news and of the spectators and readers-, but also the
sociological aspects of the newsroom where the news are elaborated and the society to which the means of
communication addresses. This psichosociological perspective helps to understand that while Framing is a
comprehensive theory, both Agenda-setting and Priming are theories of effects that deal with the impact
the media agenda exerts on the public. Another key difference between Framing and Agenda Setting and
Priming is that the former considers the impact of media on the individual to go through the filter of the
receivers own frames. These frames are active and soften the media impact on the audience. This theory
can be empirically tested by applying a combination of content analysis, public opinion polls and either
newsroom observation and/or in depth interviews to the journalists and chief editors of the media being
researched.

65

FRAMING, AGENDA SETTING AND PRIMING:

DIFFERENT ANSWERS TO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS
1. KEYS TO UNDERSTANDING THE FRAMING THEORY1
The theory of Framing is not new and has been the object of numerous works over the past
years. Many definitions have been proposed and descriptions offered regarding the dynamics
of this theory and the application and effects of its tool, the frame. Nevertheless, a specific
definition of the theory has not yet been attained. Research on Framing offers a diverse -and
sometimes confusing- number of explanations.
Although these theoretical works do not generate open discussions, in some points they offer
practically opposite arguments and propositions. In the first place, the same concepts of Framing
and frame are interpreted differently, depending on the meaning of the word the scholars intend
to privilege. In fact, the words naming the theory (Framing) as well as its key element (frame)
have broad meanings.
According to The Oxford English Dictionary (2005), the term frame means the supporting
structure that gives something its shape or the general ideas or structure that form the
background to something.. As a verb, to frame means, among other things, to give shape to to
put or make a frame or border around something or to express something in a particular
way. When the time comes to work with the word, the ambiguity and broad meaning of those
concepts make each author adopt one meaning over the others.
In 1955, Bateson (1972: 186) proposed the concept of frame as a useful instrument for
psychology in order to explain how and why people direct their attention to certain aspects of
reality and not on others. The term was selected two decades after by Goffman (1974), the
sociologist whose work largely influenced Tuchman (1978), the first author to interpret the
news as frame. As from that date, following approximately one hundred researches, the term
was no longer considered to be an isolated concept, but a theory with a great variety of facets.
In the second place, while some authors prefer studying both theoretical concepts together, that
is frames and framing, others only concentrate on the frame. Those who study frame define it as
an ecstatic entity with characteristics of its own (see Gitlin 1980; Cohen & Wolsfeld 1993; Meyer
1995; Chen 1996; Nelson et al. 1997), whereas those who analyse framing observe the process of
transmission of information established between the media and society through the news (see
Entman 1991 and 1993; Fuller 1997; Ghanem 1997; Yows 1997; Jasperson et al. 1998).
1.1 The stages of communication research
The definition of framing poses some problems. Authors tend to refer to the scope and form of
application of these frames, but they do not explain what exactly frames are. Differences arise
even among those who claim that framing is a theory. Some of these authors state that it is a
broad theory which explains the whole process of media communication, while others have a
more restricted view and consider Framing to be a useful theory to analyse what takes place at
one or several of the communication stages or levels.
A researcher attributes functions and specific characteristics to frames depending on the specific
stage of the communication which he thinks they are placed. The first stage is the making and
66

treatment of news -the production of the information by journalists and the media. The second
stage is the message -that is to say the contents of news itself-, and the third stage is the
reception of the message by the audience -the effect frames exert on those who receive them.
Some authors deal with the concepts of frame and framing at more than one of those
communication stages simultaneously, while others sustain that the framing process comprises
the three stages of communication. This, therefore, calls for a new classification, the one which
understands framing as a communication process embracing the three previous steps. This new
level of communication allows us to grasp the connections which interact through all the
transfer of meaning, thus going beyond the idea that frames are different from the rest of the
process. The fact that some authors analyse framing at more than one stage hints at the fact that
there is an underlying weave of relations connecting all and each one of the phases in the
communication stages taken as reference.
The frames used at each phase of communication are interdependent. Actually, they explain
each other. Thus, journalists as individuals follow certain social and professional criteria in
order to choose and elaborate the information to be reflected in a text, which will eventually be
read, seen or listened, by receivers. The latter, in turn, will recognise the news in this text,
interpret its content and act following their own norms.
1.2 Different approaches to Framing
The above mentioned definitions can be grouped differently. In 1993, Pan and Kosicki brought
to light the existence of two conceptions of frame, a sociological one and a psychological one.
These authors state that the former considers the social meaning of an event to be defined by
the framing process, whilst the latter, the psychological one, centres on the cognitive processes
the individuals apply when they face a piece of news (Pan & Kosicki 1993:56-57).
Some years later, Toshio Takeshita (1997: 23) stressed this classification, although he warned
against the risk of oversimplification. According to Takeshita, those who have a sociological
perspective mainly try to analyse media contents -what the journalist means, why and how he
says it and, eventually, they also analyse the possible impact on the members of the audience or
on societys groups of interest. On the other hand, those having a psychological perspective
focus on the study of the effects of message framing on the members of the audience (see
Takeshita 1997: 23-24).
When analysing the authors proposed by Pan and Kosicki and Takeshita, another key element,
which these articles did not stress, became evident. It has been said that authors having a
psychological perspective pay attention basically to the effects of frames, but they are not the
only ones to do this; there are those who have a sociological perspective and are also interested
on the effects of frames. The real difference between these two groups of researchers -and a
point which has not been dealt with thoroughly- is the question of who these frames affect.
In fact, Framing research shows that frames can affect a person in particular, or society in
general. Those defining Framing from a psychological viewpoint look for their influences on
specific social groups -government, economic groups, religious groups, among others-, or on
social dynamics in general. Scheufele (1999) thinks of these perspectives of framing as
microlevel describing how people use information and presentation features regarding
issues as they form impressions- and macrolevel anaylizing how the way an issue is
67

presented by journalists resonates with existing underlying schemas among their audience
(Scheufele, 2007: 12).
Nevertheless, it is not possible to ensure that all authors are classifiable under one of these two
streams of research. In fact, Takeshita (1997) shows that such authors as Entman (1993), or the
already mentioned Pan and Kosicki (1993), have tried to integrate concepts from both
perspectives, like two compatible aspects which go hand in hand.
Not all authors seek to follow one approach or another; quite on the contrary, there are
researchers who resort to elements of a sociological and group nature as much as of a
psychological and individual one in order to develop their theories. Through the conjunction of
both kinds of elements, they explain the process of frame elaboration and the influence they
have on the interpretation of reality. On the other hand, the sociological approach helps
researchers to consider frames beyond elements of cognitive psychology. The latter refer to the
internal process of discerning the meaning of information, a process which takes place in the
mind of individuals. Considering a more sociological approach to Framing also helps to
understand this theory as a process of interaction of concepts. The social reality is no longer
understood as an ecstatic frame and is now regarded as a dynamic of interchange - and even of
confrontation the meanings of public facts.
Therefore, rather than an effort, reading these authors implies an intrinsic connection between
these two currents. These researchers employ arguments and terms from both perspectives,
without revealing any essential difference between them. It is due to this strong interrelation of
approaches that it is better to analyse the studies of Framing from a theoretical position that can
use these common tools. We could then state, and in a conciliatory manner, that we are
handling a psycho-sociological approach.
In this way, the concept of framing expands beyond the sole mind of the receiver or the issuer
to society, but without forgetting its individuals. This is far more beneficial for the cultural
dimension of frames.
Some elements of this integrating discipline allow us to study how the connection between
frames at different communication levels occurs. Far from being denied, both traditions are
accepted and assumed as a whole, allowing us to understand the connection between the
individual and the society he belongs to.
The joint analysis of the research stages in which researchers state framing is applied and the
theoretical perspectives from which they work -psychological and sociological- allows us to
appreciate the broadness of the Framing theory.
Proof of this is that, when making news, journalists resort to shared symbols which relate to
images and meanings shared by society. Indeed, the use and elaboration of symbols journalists
take up from society, are added to the receivers. And this receiver is, at the same time,
conditioned by his situation and his individual experience as well as by the definition of facts he
has absorbed from society. Therefore, the framing process is the result of the interaction of all
the players taking part in this process of making and keeping meanings.
The theory of Framing is no longer the mere explanation of isolated communication processes.
It is a very wide theory, so much so, that it leads Entman to suggest it as a possible
68

communication paradigm (Cfr. Entman, 1993). This proposal is consistent with that put forward
by those authors who declare the existence of frames in the three stages of the study of
communication.
Framing research shows a solid network of transmission of social meanings throughout the
whole communication process. Nevertheless, some aspects of the dynamics of the transmission
of meanings from society to the media and vice versa still remain be looked into. Future
research should be focused on how the frames in the different levels of communication interact
with each other.
2. FRAMING AS COMPARED TO OTHER THEORIES
Very many authors tend to compare or to relate Framing to the theories they do research on.
Some of them regard Framing as a theory related to the newsmaking process, while others see it
either as a theory of effects or as a mere formal description of the news contents aspect. And
the fact that these scholars make reference to only one, or at most two, of these phases of
research in communication, makes it necessary to review different theories in order to establish
the singularities of the Framing theory. It is precisely this wide range of action that
differentiates Framing from Agenda-setting and Priming theories.
The wide variety of theories compared or related to Framing run from general as the theory of
Mediation- to more specific ones. Among the latter, some deal with the elaboration of the news
like the theories of Objectivity and Indexing-, while others are theories of effects such as
Priming and, of course, Agenda-Setting2. As these are the theories authors most frequently
relate to Framing, it deems useful to analyse how they are connected. On this occasion we will
focus on the relationship between Framing and theories of effects, namely Agenda-Setting and
Priming.
2.1 Theories of effects
By the end of the 1920s, in the wake of communication research, metaphors such as the
hypodermic needle or the magic bullet referred to the theories that assessed the
overwhelming impact mass media had on public opinion. According to these, what the media
stated was registered and reproduced exactly by the individuals who, helpless before that
power, adopted the opinions the media conveyed.
However, as from 1940, a second stage in the communication effects research, more sceptical
regarding the influence of the media, took into account a more active and demanding audience.
Thus, the analysis of selective exposure, of the groups norms, and of the existence of public
opinion leaders among other researches gave way to a series of theories to be grouped into
the model of limited effects. Around 1965, massive access to television reconfirmed the
existence of media effects, although this time more moderately through theories such as Two
Steps Flow and Knowledge Gap. Since 1970, however, research on communication has shown a
growing interest in very strong media effects (see Klapper, J. 1974; Severin & Tankard 1992:
261; Muoz Alonso et al. 1992; McLeod et al. 1996) including Agenda-Setting, posed by
McCombs and Shaw in 1972 (McCombs & Shaw 1972), and Priming, elaborated by Krosnick and
Kinder in 1990.

69

Some scholars have treated the theory of Framing as theory of the effects exclusively,
considering frames to be persistent standards of cognition and interpretation deeply rooted in
society (Gitlin 1980: 7) and, as such, they influence the audiences interpretation of the media
contents. In this way, diverse researches try to measure the publics perceptions on different
subjects like the characteristics of politicians (Iyengar, 1991), the election campaigns (Rhee,
1997), racial problems (Nelson et al., 1997) or the importance of the state budget deficit
(Jasperson et al., 1998), among others.
2.2 Agenda Setting and Framing
The idea that citizens are driven to focus on some issues rather than on others as a result of
how those issues are treated by the media, is not new. It steadily developed from the end of the
19th century until it took its final shape in 1972 when McCombs and Shaw coined the concept of
the agenda-setting, the name of the theory that studies the impact of the media selection of issues
on the public agenda (Dader 1992: 295-297).
Research on Agenda-setting has greatly evolved since its early days. In its seminal stage,
attention was driven to the relationship between the media issues agenda and the public issues
agenda (McCombs & Shaw 1993: 59).
In 1995 Holli Semetko explained that research on Agenda-Setting had strongly developed in
width and depth, giving rise to several related theories. This theorys development in width has
resulted from first studying the connection between the media agenda and the public agenda,
and then analysing agenda building the process through which the media agenda is built and
its relationship with the public agenda.
On the other hand, the development in depth of the Agenda-Setting theory started with mere
interest in the list of issues proposed by the media, moved on to the analysis of the audiences
attitudes and opinions, and continued as an attempt to understand how people framed and
interpreted public matters3. The Framing theory is generally related to this latter stage of
Agenda Setting.
Indeed, following 20 years of Agenda-Setting researches that supported the theory, some
authors turned their attention not only to the issues themselves but also how they were dealt
with. Giving priority to the issues was, of course, relevant to understand the medias influence
on public opinion. But the aspects attributed to those issues seemed to be as important as the
issues themselves.
This led McCombs and Evatt to state there was a second level of Agenda-setting, which no
longer focused on the issues. It was concerned with the influence the presentation of some
attributes or specific aspects of any issue might have. According to the authors, the media can
exert an influence on which issues should be included in the public agenda. But maybe it is
more important to bear in mind that the media can influence the way people think about the
issues of the public agenda (McCombs & Evatt 1995: 9).
During the following decade collateral subjects aroused interest among scholars. Interested in
understanding who set the agenda of the media, some authors also devoted part of their
analyses to intermedia agenda setting (Peresn, 2003; Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). Others
70

considered that the agenda setting function of the media not only influenced the issues and
attributes the public remembered, but also their attitudes and patterns of behavior. These authors
stated that the media could not only tell us what to think about and how to think about it, but
also what to do as a reaction to it (McCombs and Estrada, 1997; Skousis, 2003). Finally, in the
last few years a few articles have been written on Agenda-cutting, and have defined it as the
reverse process whereby problems or issues have attention directed away from them by
receiving little or no media coverage (Wober & Gunter, 1988; Colistra, 2006).
Ever since the advent of the second level of Agenda-setting, Framing has often been confused
with the setting of the agenda of attributes (Wanta & Hu 1993). The differences between
framing and the second level of agenda-setting became clearer as new research models were
proposed to analyse and explain the transfer of contents from the media to the audience by
combining both theories (Jasperson et al. 1998). The initial confusion demands, however, a more
subtle analysis of the differences between both theories.
The closeness of Framing and Agenda Setting misleads authors such as Takeshita into
concluding that Framing, as well as Agenda-setting, explore practically the same problem the
function the media have on the definition of reality (Takeshita 1997: 24) -, although this is not
entirely true.
1. The first difference between the theories lies in the fact that Framing is a comprehensive
theory that goes beyond the theories of effects, while Agenda Setting studies the degree of
influence a message or set of messages has on the public opinion. The steps to be followed in
order to exercise that influence are analysed by Framing.
2. The second dissimilarity is that, among other details, Framing analyses the process through
which the precognitions of individuals help them interpret every new situation the media
present to them (Jasperson et al 1998: 206). The Agenda-setting theory, on the other hand, does
not explain this process: it analyses its result.
3. The third difference is that whilst Agenda-setting centres on the impact of the media contents
on public opinion, Framing studies the underlying frames in the media contents (Ghanem 1997:
7-8).
4. Another key element that easily leads to confusion is that frames are neither attributes the
media give to an issue nor their influence on public opinion. The attributes are traits of the
issues or of the individuals mentioned in the news; they are characteristics arising from the
cognitions transferred by the media. Frames are more than that. They exist at a level broader
than that of agenda of issues or attributes: frames are deeper underlying ideas explicit or
implicit in the whole discourse and conveyed by the text whose influence will later be studied
by Agenda-Setting.
When mass media describe a political candidate, for example, they focus on some of his
attributes traits, characteristics. Let us imagine for a minute an article that stresses the
candidates having charisma or a lack of it. While the attribute is limited to the candidates
mentioned or suggested qualities and is evaluated by the second level of Agenda Setting-, the
Framing theory will analyse the underlying shared social values about which there is hardly
any discussion if none at all.

71

Thus, in that same imaginary article, the frame used would not be the enumeration of the
candidates virtues or flaws, but the accepted social idea that this individual is undergoing a
pre-established democratic process of selection in order to become the following legitimate
President in office. Frames help present both the issues and the attributes according to the
underlying ideas shared by all the members of the society the media serve.
5. Scheufele (2007:13) states two more differences between these theories. In the first place, is
the amount of attention to news messages required for the two effects to occur. Although these
theories may seem to operate by similar mental processes, attention to messages may be more
necessary for a framing effect to occur than an agenda-setting effect. Mere exposure may be
sufficient for agenda setting, but it is less likely to be so for framing effects Framing effect
occurs when audiences pay substantial attention to news messages.
6. The second difference this author highlights is the locus of effect. Agenda-setting effect lies on
the accessibility an issue receives from its treatment in the news, it derives from the fact that the
issue has received a certain amount of processing time and attention that carries the effect. In
contrast, the locus of framing effect lies in the applicability of the description news coverage
make of an issue (Scheufele, 2007: 14-15).
7. This last difference leads to the seventh and clearest one. The very name of Agenda-setting
indicates that it supposes that the media set, in an almost determinant way, the list of issues,
aspects or attitudes in the minds of individuals. The Framing theory considers that the
individual who reads a piece of news is not passive. He unconsciously checks the information
with his own inner frames. The broadcast report does not enter his mind and settle according to
the place or the relevance the media attribute to them. The information settles according to the
individuals frames, according to how he himself frames the issue.
6. As for the methodological differences, Agenda Setting has been proved right through content
analysis combined with public opinion polls. Framing, on the other hand, needs one additional
methodological input to measure the newsmaking process and the frames the medium and the
journalist bear in mind when covering a piece of news.
Thus, either newsroom observation and/or in depth interviews with the journalists and chief
editors of the media being researched are required. The connection of these sets of data
provides a thorough understanding of the interaction of the values, norms and shared
perspectives between media and society.

72

2.3 Priming and Framing

The theories of Framing and Priming analyse some questions the theory of the Agenda-setting
leaves unresolved. Among other things, they both study the process through which media
helps a person to change his opinions.
In the Oxford Dictionary, the definitions for the verb to prime is to fill, charge, load, verb
whose second meaning refers to the loading of a gun. The third meaning, though, associates this
word with communication research. In this sense, prime means to charge, fill, or fully furnish
(a person) beforehand with information which he may subsequently give forth or otherwise
use4.
Krosnick and Kinder (1990) proposed the theory of Primingin an attempt to provide a wide and
psychologically possible explanation on how citizens formulate and review their own points of
view regarding an issue. The core idea of the theory of Priming is that when it comes to
expressing an opinion, an individual does not make long disquisitions, but rather takes a short
cut, for or against the issue in question. One of such short cuts is to resort to the information he
has at hand in his memory, information he remembers spontaneously and effortlessly.
The authors consider that the information provided by mass media is, by far, the most
accessible one to individuals. Hence, the criteria citizens use to evaluate a politician are
determined by the news the media decide to cover. The more attention paid by the media to a
5
specific issue or particular aspect of an issue the more prepared the minds of the citizens
will be to be influenced by that issue at the time of taking some position (Krosnick & Kinder
1990). Following the definition of prime above mentioned, the mind is loaded with more
information on this issue, which will later be used to support its future judgements.
The Priming theory states that television coverage of the news not only develops individuals
knowledge of on specific issues, but also affects the criteria applied to assess political leaders
(Willnat, 1997). Therefore, we understand that the difference between the theories of AgendaSetting and of Priming is that while the former reflects the impact of the news contents on the
importance the public attributes to specific political issues, Priming refers to the impact which
that same coverage has on the elaboration of a judgement on their political actors (Iyengar,
1987). It could be concluded then, that priming is a process of activation of judgement, thanks to
which the information the media prioritize exerts an influence on the valuation on an issue.
Despite this, there is a relationship between the second level of Agenda Setting and the theory
of Priming: the former deals with the effects of the attributes while the latter makes reference to
the expression of judgements. Priming goes beyond cognition, observes the process by which
the information is activated and gives way to the expression of opinions, to the attribution of
characteristics or values.
Following Canels appreciations, Priming poses a step further up Agenda-setting in the sense
that whilst agenda-setting explains the effects of the media on the information the individuals
prioritize, priming explains the judgements and the cognition arising from the news. That is to
say, priming deals with the impact a piece of information exerts on the feelings and affections a
citizen might have towards, say, a candidate (Canel, 1998: 59).

73

As for the relationship between the theories of Priming and of Framing, they both aim at
exploring beyond the theory of Agenda-setting by looking into the individuals process of
interpretation of the news. But this only makes the first difference between them evident.
In the first place, unlike Priming, Framing does not seek to pinpoint which person or
characteristic of the text has more influence than the other, instead it seeks to understand which
are the psychological processes through which this influence takes place.
On the other hand, Framing is not a purely psychological theory. In addition to cosidering the
psychological dimension of individuals, it gives key importance to their social dimension. In
this sense, framing does not content itself with understanding which steps an individuals mind
follows in order to process, assimilate and retain some information; it also studies in what way
those news contribute to the conformation of society as a group, ruled by shared values.
In this way, the theory of framing surpasses the excessive psychologism which Canel identifies
in the studies on effects, a trait made evident in the scant attention investigators pay to the
medias cultural reality (Canel 1998: 66).
3. (STILL OPEN) QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
As we have seen, Framing, Agenda Setting and Priming differ in many ways. Despite the fact
that some scholars that state that framing is the mere application of frames to a piece of news paving the way to the second level of agenda setting-, or that priming is only an attitudinal
effect of Agenda Setting, Priming, Agenda Setting and Framing are communication theories,
none of which is subsumed by the other.
Agenda Setting originally described the correlation between the media agenda and the public
agenda. Later on, it showed that together with the issues agenda there was an agenda of
attributes, and an intermedia agenda setting function. Agenda cutting and behavioural
influences have also been referred to.
The Priming theory attempts to explain in which way the individual processes information in
order to elaborate a predisposition towards the issue under consideration. The audience also
resorts to previously stored information in order to elaborate an opinion through a conceptual
short cut. Priming is not interested as much in the intensity of the media impact how much of
the media agenda is reflected in the public agenda- as it is in the way the pieces of news lead the
individual in his perception of public issues.
Framing differs from the former theories in that it does not research the impact of media
contents on the audiences agenda. As a comprehensive theory, it deals with the underlying set
of values shared by the members of the community -and, therefore, by the media in that
community. The framing theory explains the transfer, strengthening and modification of the
shared social values, symbols and norms from the media to society and, vice versa.
When analizing the frames in the audiences, Framing tries to describe how it is that the
mentioned agenda correlations take place. This theory is interested in understanding why some
issues receive no coverage in the news and how the media agenda becomes part of the public
agenda.

74

While Agenda Setting researchers wonder in what way and how much of the media agenda
reflect on the public agenda, and Priming studies look into the attitudinal changes in the
audiences minds, Framing focuses on the primary social and psychological causes that explain
and shape this transfer of contents from society to the media and from media to society.

REFERENCES
Amadeo, B. (in print). Framing: Teora para armar. Teresa Riccitelli, Alicia C. de Peresn
(eds.) Teoras de la comunicacin. Universidad Catlica Argentina, Buenos Aires.
Amadeo, B. (2002). Los medios de comunicacin y la transmisin de significados. Revista de la
Facultad de Comunicacin, 1, 6-32. Universidad de Piura. Per. Translated into English as
Towards a frame for Framing
Amadeo, B. (1999). La aplicacin de la teora del Framing a la cobertura de la corrupcin poltica en
Argentina. 1991-1996. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Facultad de Comunicacin,
Universidad de Navarra, Spain.
Amadeo, B. (1998), Una aproximacin a la teora del Framing. Departamento de Comunicacin
Pblica. Facultad de Comunicacin, Universidad de Navarra, Spain.
Bateson, G. (1972). A Theory of Play and Fantasy, in Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected
essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution and epistemology, pp.177-193. San
Francisco, Chandler Publishing.
Canel, M.J. (1998). Los efectos de las campaas electorales. Comunicacin y Sociedad. 11,1:4767. Universidad de Navarra, Spain.
Casermeiro de Peresn, A. (2003). Los medios en las elecciones. Agenda Setting en la Ciudad de
Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires, EDUCA.
Chen, C.H. (1996). La teora del framing en la cobertura de las elecciones europeas. Unedited
thesis for Masters Degree. Departamento de Comunicacin Pblica. Facultad de
Comunicacin, Universidad de Navarra, Spain.
Cohen, A. & Wolsfeld, G. (1993). Framing the Intifada: People and Media. Norwood, N.J. Ablex
Colistra, R.F. (2006). Agenda Cutting: New Theoretical Developments in the Agenda-Building
and Agenda-Setting Processes. Keynote speech, 4th International Symposium
Communication in the Millenium, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Dader, J.L. (1992), La canalizacin o fijacin de la agenda por los medios, en A. Muoz
Alonso et al. (eds.), Opinin pblica y comunicacin poltica, pp.294-318, Madrid, Eudema
Universidad.
Diez Nicols,J. and Semetko, H. (1995) The television and the elections of 1993 in A. MuozAlonso and J. I. Rospir (eds.), Political Communication, 1995: 221-242 Madrid, Ed.
Universitas.
Entman, R. (1991). Framing US Coverage of International News: Contrasts in Narratives of the
KAL and Iran Air Incidents, Journal of Communication 41,4: 6-27.
Entman, R. (1993). Framing: Toward Clarificatoin of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of
Communication, 43,4: 51-58.
Fuller, J. (1997). News Values. Ideas for an Informaton Age. (2nd ed.)Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
Ghanem, S. (1997). Filling in the Tapestry: The Second Level of Agenda Setting in M.E. Mc
Combs, D. Shaw & D.Weaver (eds.), Communicaton and Democracy. Exploring the
Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 3-14.
Gitlin, T. (1980). The Whole World is Watching. Berkeley, University of California Press.
75

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience. (1st ed 1986).
Boston, Northeastern University Press.
Hassencahl, F. (2006). Framing the Death of Yasser Arafat: Conspiracy or Natural Causes. 4th
International Symposium Communication in the Millenium, Eskisehir, Turkey.
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible? (How TV frames political issues). Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Jasperson, A.E. et al. (1998). Framing and the Public Agenda: Media Effects on the Importance
of the Federal Budget Deficit, Political Communication, 15: 205-224.
Klapper, J., 1974, Effects of mass communication: power and limitations of the modern diffusion
media, Madrid, Aguilar.
Krosnick, J. and Kinder, D. (1990). Altering the Foundations of Support for the President
through Priming. American Political Science Review, 84, 2: 497-512.
McCombs, M.E. & Shaw, D. (1972). The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media, Public
Opinion Quarterly, 36, 2: 176-187.
McCombs, M. & Shaw, D. (1993). The Evolution of Agenda-Setting Research: Twenty-Five
Years in the Marketplace of Ideas. Journal of Communication, 43, 2: 58-67.
McCombs, M. & Evatt, D. (1995). Los temas y los aspectos: Explorando una nueva dimensin
de la Agenda-setting. Comunicacin y Sociedad, 8, 1: 7-32. Universidad de Navarra,
Spain.
McCombs, M.E. & Estrada, G. (1997). The News Media and the Pictures in our Heads, in S.
Iyengar y R. Reeves (eds.), Do the Media Govern?, Sage, London.
Meyer, D. (1995). Framing National Security: Elite Public Discourse on Nuclear Weapons
During the Cold War. Political Communication, 12, 173-192.
Nelson et al. (1997). Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.
American Political Science Review, 91,3: 567-583.
Pan, Z., and Kosicki, G.M. (1993). Framing analysis: An Approach to News Discourse.
Political Communication, 10: 55-75.
Rhee, J.W. (1997) Strategy and Issue Frames in Election Campaign Coverage: A Social
Cognitive Account of Framing Effects. Journal of Opinion Quarterly, 32,4: 26-48.
Sdaba, T. (2006) Framing. Una teora para los medios de comunicacin. Pamplona, Ulzama
Ediciones.
Scheufele, Dietram A. y Tewksbury, David (2007). Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The
Evolution of Three Media Effects Models, Journal of Communication 57 (1), 920.
Shoemaker, P.& Reese, S. (1991). Mediating the Message. Theories of Influences on Mass Media
Content. New York, Longman.
Skousis, K. (2003). Consecuencias cognoscitivas, actitudinales y conductuales del agendasetting, in M. McCombs, I. Luna Pla, Agenda-Setting de los Medios de Comunicacin.
Universidad Iberoamericana, Mxico, pp. 121-137
Strmbck, J. & Luengo, O. (2006). Framing and Election News Coverage in Spain and
Sweden. 4th International Symposium Communication in the Millenium, Eskisehir,
Turkey.
Takeshita, T. (1997). Exploring the Medias Roles in Defining Reality: From Issue-Agendasetting to Attirbute-Agenda-setting in M.E. Mc Combs, D. Shaw & D.Weaver (eds.),
Communicaton and Democracy. Exploring the Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting
Theory. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 15-29.
Tuchman G. (1978). News Making. A Study in the Construction of Reality. New York, The Free
Press.

76

Wanta, W. & Hu, Y. (1993). The Agenda-setting Effects of International News Coverage: An
Examination of Differing News Frames, International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 5, 3: 250-263.
Willnat, L. (1997). Agenda-setting and Priming: Conceptual Links and Differences in M.E. Mc
Combs, D. Shaw & D.Weaver (eds.), Communicaton and Democracy. Exploring the
Intellectual Frontiers in Agenda-Setting Theory. New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, pp. 51-66.
Wober, J.M. & Gunter, G. (1988). Television and Social Control. New York: St.Martins Press.
Yows, S.R. (s.d. 1996?). Towards Developing a Coherent Theory of Framing: Understanding
the Relationship between News Framing and Audience Framing. School of Journalism
and Mass Communication. University of Madison, Wisconsin.

NOTES
This and other aspects of the Framing theory have been dealt with in Amadeo (2002), and translated into
English as Towards a frame for Framing. That article, as well this one, is part of the authors doctoral
research Una aproximacin a la teora del Framing. Departamento de Comunicacin Pblica. Facultad
de Comunicacin, Universidad de Navarra, Spain.

2 The relationship of Framing with the above mentioned theories has been tackled in B. Amadeo, 1998 and
2007 (in print).

We shall define issue following Takeshita (1997: 22) who suggests that, in the context of the theory of
agenda setting, an issue is more than an issue, it is what is in conflict regarding a particular issue.
3

Voz prime, The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd. Edition, 1989, vol XII (Poise-Quelt).
1. trans. To fill, charge, load.
2.a. To supply (a fire-arm of old-fashioned type, or more strictly its pan) with gunpowder...
2.b. To put powder in the touch-pan.
3. fig. and transf. a. To charge, fill, or fully furnish (a person) beforehand with information which he may
subsequently give forth or otherwise use

5 The term to prepare is chosen by Dez-Nicols and Semetko in the first theoretical work on priming,
translated into Spanish. Cfr. Diez Nicols,J. and Semetko, H., The televisin and the elections of 1993 in A.
Muoz-Alonso and J. I. Rospir (Eds.), Political Communication, 1995: 221-242 Madrid, Ed. Universitas.

77