Does framing work? An empirical study of Simplifying Models for sustainable food production

Abstract

We investigate empirically whether framing in general, and the use of Simplifying Models as a framing tool in particular, has an effect on the way topics are cognitively construed. Existing studies on framing in linguistics have either been theoretical or descriptive. Going beyond such methodologically simple approaches, we use a more rigid test design involving the use of a control group, the construction of test conditions in which different Simplifying Models constitute the major source of variation, the inclusion of independent variables like age and prior knowledge of the subjects, and the use of linear and logistic regression analysis. Our results show that our more rigid methodological approach yields a more reliable image of the effect of Simplifying Models on the way in which people deal with information on a complex topic like sustainable food production. Fleshing out these effects further may in time lead to a better informed construction of communication on complex social topics.

The Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Although CDA and REA criticize each other in terms of the reliability and validity of their results (e.g., REA: Jaspaert et al, 2011;CDA;Kövecses, 2006), both acknowledge that adopting several ideas from the other approach could improve research on metaphorical framing effects. Several scholars who took a REA approach affirm the critique of CDA on their stimuli and promote the use of more "real" and natural language stimuli (e.g., Krennmayr, Bowdle, Mulder, & Steen, 2014;REA).…”

“…In turn, REA scholars criticize the empirical validity of CDA claims about metaphorical framing effects, because these claims fully depend on linguistic evidence (Jaspaert, Van De Velde, Brône, Feyaerts, & Geeraerts, 2011). According to REA scholars, critically looking at manifestations of metaphor in discourse does not mean one can make general claims about their impact on people and society.…”

“…One metaphor can affect different individuals differently, depending on, for example, their culture, prior knowledge about the issue, and their age (Gibbs & Steen, 1999). To reveal how metaphors influence reasoning about issues, scholars need to study how metaphors are processed by individuals (Jaspaert et al, 2011;Steen, 2011). Although REA scholars generally acknowledge that a critical-discourse view provides adequate insights in how different issues can be framed metaphorically (e.g., Steen, 2011), they critique the lack of a systematic comparison of the presumed effects caused by different frames (Jaspaert et al, 2011).…”

Systematic literature reviews: Four applications for interdisciplinary research

“…Various pragmatics studies have also focused on the ways in which language contributes to fostering cooperation and conflict (e.g., Norrick & Spitz, 2008;Prior, in press). Furthermore, various studies have focused on how language constructs and reflects sustainability issues (e.g., Jaspaert, Van de Velde, Brône et al, 2011;Nerlich & Kotyeko, 2010). Given the important insights into the role of language and communication in these FOUR APPLICATIONS OF SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEWS 8 societal challenges, it is highly desirable that the knowledge and expertise of pragmatics researchers be included in interdisciplinary projects dealing with such societal challenges.…”

From Theory to Practice

“…A positive example of the application of linguistic theory for referential matters is offered by the concept of so-called Simplifying Models, one of the features covered in the course mentioned. Simplifying Models are metaphors used for the explanation of difficult matters (Jaspaert, Van de Velde, Brône, Feyaerts, & Geeraerts, 2011). In Scenario 3, being able to apply the theoretical insights into the workings of Simplifying Models came in very handy.…”