Framing has become one of the most popular areas of research for scholars in communication and a wide variety of other disciplines, such as psychology, behavioral economics, political science and sociology. Particularly in the communication discipline, however, ambiguities surrounding how we conceptualize and therefore operationalize framing have begun to overlap with other Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 10:31 15 August 20152 media effects models to a point that is dysfunctional. This paper provides an in-depth examination of framing and positions the theory in the context of recent evolutions in media effects research.We begin by arguing for changes in how communication scholars approach framing as a theoretical construct. We urge scholars to abandon the general term "framing" altogether, and instead, distinguish between different types of framing. We also propose that, as a field, we re-focus attention on the concept's original theoretical foundations and, more importantly, the potential empirical contributions that the concept can make to our field and our understanding of media effects. Finally, we discuss framing as a bridge between paradigms as we shift from an era of mass communication to one of echo chambers, tailored information and micro-targeting in the new media environment. KeywordsFraming has emerged as one of the most popular areas of research for scholars in communication. For evidence of this, one need look no further than our conference programs or the pages of our flagship journals (Scheufele & Iyengar, forthcoming). Yet, despite the attention paid to the concept, framing is arguably less clear now than at any point in its history. The ambiguity around the concept begins with a lack of consistency around how the concept is defined or how these definitions connect with the explanatory models underlying the theory (Scheufele & Tewksbury, 2007).The communication literature is rife with different conceptualizations of frames and framing. Druckman (2001), for instance, lists no fewer than seven definitions of the concept. These range from frames as "principles of organization" (Goffman, 1974, p. 10), to frames as "principles of selection, emphasis, and presentation" (Gitlin, 1980, p. 6). Sweetser and Fauconnier (1996) define frames as "structured understandings of the way aspects of the world function" (p. 5), while Downloaded by [Rutgers University] at 10:31 15 August 2015 3Capella and Jamieson (1997) offer a definition more directly tied to journalism, arguing that framing is the manner in which a "story is written or produced" (p. 39).The implications of these varied definitions are twofold. First, there is considerable disagreement over what exactly constitutes framing. This is perhaps most readily apparent in the different operationalizations of the concept, particularly between equivalence framing -a form of framing that involves manipulating the presentation of logically equivalent information -and emphasis framing -a form of framing that involves manipulating the content of a communic...

Science communication has been historically predicated on the knowledge deficit model. Yet, empirical research has shown that public communication of science is more complex than what the knowledge deficit model suggests. In this essay, we pose four lines of reasoning and present empirical data for why we believe the deficit model still persists in public communication of science. First, we posit that scientists' training results in the belief that public audiences can and do process information in a rational manner. Second, the persistence of this model may be a product of current institutional structures. Many graduate education programs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields generally lack formal training in public communication. We offer empirical evidence that demonstrates that scientists who have less positive attitudes toward the social sciences are more likely to adhere to the knowledge deficit model of science communication. Third, we present empirical evidence of how scientists conceptualize "the public" and link this to attitudes toward the deficit model. We find that perceiving a knowledge deficit in the public is closely tied to scientists' perceptions of the individuals who comprise the public. Finally, we argue that the knowledge deficit model is perpetuated because it can easily influence public policy for science issues. We propose some ways to uproot the deficit model and move toward more effective science communication efforts, which include training scientists in communication methods grounded in social science research and using approaches that engage community members around scientific issues.

Public opinion research on nanotechnology has primarily focused on judgments of abstract risks and benefits, rather than attitudes toward specific applications. This approach will be less useful as nanotechnology morphs from a scientific breakthrough into an enabling technology whose impacts on people’s lives come in the form of concrete applications in specific areas. This study examines the mental connections or associations US citizens have with nanotechnology (e.g. the extent to which people associate nanotechnology with the medical field, the military, consumer products, etc.), and how these associations moderate the influences of risk and benefit perceptions on attitudes toward nanotechnology. Our results suggest that the assumption that risk perceptions shape overall attitudes toward emerging technologies is simplistic. Rather, individuals who associate nanotech with particular areas of application, such as the medical field, take risk perceptions much more into account when forming attitudes than respondents who do not make these mental connections.

No abstract

This study explores differences in volume of coverage and thematic content between US print news and online media coverage for an emerging technology -nanotechnology. We found that while American print news media and Google News coverage of this emerging technology has peaked and started to decline, Google Blog Search coverage of nanotechnology is still growing. Additionally, our data show discrepancies in thematic content of online and print news coverage. Specifically, online users are more likely to encounter environmentally themed content relating to nanotechnology than are users of American print newspapers. Differences in the amount of coverage of nanotechnology in print news and online media as well as thematic content suggest that public discourse on related issues will be shaped, in part, by media consumers' preferred information platform.

With social networking site (SNS) use now ubiquitous in American culture, researchers have started paying attention to its effects in a variety of domains. This study explores the relationships between measures of Facebook use and political knowledge levels using a pair of representative samples of U.S. adults. We find that although the mere use of Facebook was unrelated to political knowledge scores, how Facebook users report engaging with the SNS was strongly associated with knowledge levels. Importantly, the increased use of Facebook for news consumption and news sharing was negatively related to political knowledge levels. Possible explanations and implications are discussed.

Although humor is a recommended strategy for scientists to connect with publics, there is a lack of empirical evidence concerning its effectiveness. We conduct an experiment to test how funny science on Twitter affects engagement intentions. We find that different humor types caused viewers to experience different levels of mirth, which mediated the relationship between our experimental manipulation and engagement intentions. We also find need for humor, an individual trait, to moderate the relationship between mirth and engagement intentions. These findings extend our understanding of humor in science communication and offer empirical evidence on which practical advice can be grounded.

No abstract