1) The document discusses several studies that examine how political elites use framing to influence public opinion. Druckman and Nelson (2003) found that elite framing persists when discussions only include common perspectives, but conflicting perspectives eliminate elite influence. 2) Druckman (2002) also studied framing effects and found that citizens base preferences on systematic information rather than arbitrary frames, though using only students in experiments limits conclusions. 3) Berinsky and Kinder (2006) manipulated frames on Kosovo and found they influenced views, though more research on diverse populations and mediums could provide more insights. 4) Overall, the readings represent early work on how frames shape public views, but more diverse experiments are needed to fully

1. POLITSC 4165: Mass Media & Am Politics Blegvad: Reaction Week 10
Manipulation, whether it be good or bad, is a key factor of being able to gain popularity,
win an election, or to sway a population into believing certain things. Competing news media, as
well as politicians, are not new to the practice of “framing” in our very political society. Authors
Druckman and Nelson (2003) investigate exactly how political elites influence their constituent’s
opinions through framing their rhetoric; which then translates into the conversations that those
constituents have with outside sources. The researcher’s main focus points are to look at whether
having discussions can result in framing effects, that these discussions allow for both views to be
successfully heard and argued, and to see how test subjects handle information from “cross-
cutting” opinion holders. The authors are most interested in comparing “the quality of framed
versus unframed opinions and the role of deliberation in producing quality opinions” (Druckman
and Nelson (2003), 731). The authors inform the reader that in able for there to be a conclusion
regarding framing effects and the elite, they need to look at how they can measure a person’s
predisposition to have underlying opinions.
The authors use the opinions of individuals on campaign finance reform, which is very
interesting, and a very good topic for them to choose because they mention that it is quite
relevant, and “is representative of a host of issues” (Druckman and Nelson (2003), 732). For the
experiment, Druckman and Nelson (2003) choose individuals from a “large public university”,
which can have both positive and negative effects. Wouldn’t a public university contain more
intelligent people, which would then result in an uneven distribution of low-NE to high-NE
individuals? The way that college students process information most likely is very different
compared to how current older generations process information. If Druckman and Nelson (2003)
were to look at a wider range of individuals, we could perhaps get a better look and come to a
final conclusion as to whether or not, “regardless of political knowledge levels, high-NE
individuals will be more likely to possess prior opinions (and frames) based on information over
time” Druckman and Nelson (2003), 732). After their experiment, the authors come to the
conclusion that “elite framing persists largely unchanged in the face of discussions that include
mostly common perspectives” (Druckman and Nelson (2003), 736). However, the authors did
find that, “conversations include conflicting perspectives eliminate elite influence via framing”
(Druckman and Nelson (2003), 737).
Druckman’s main concern is looking at how framing effects affect the competence of
citizens. Druckman (2002) emphasizes two types of framing effects: equivalency and emphasis
framing effects. Through his experiments, Druckman (2002) finds that both effects, “work by
causing individuals to focus on certain aspects of characterizations of an issue or problem instead
of others” (Druckman (2002), 230). By experimenting with these effects, Druckman (2002)
seeks to understand the concepts of elite manipulation and to describe whether or not it truly
affects constituents. The author’s first experiment looks at equivalency framing and whether or
not citizens, “base their preferences on the party cues instead of the arbitrary frames” (Druckman
(2002), 238). A factor that could be improved in this experiment is the subjects are the students
that were used, as using such a small population may skew the results. It would be much better to
get an equal demographic of the American people to fully understand the implications of whether
or not citizens are influenced by such cues. Druckman (2002) comes to the conclusion that,
“political context leads people to base their preferences on systematic information rather than on
arbitrary information” (Druckman (2002), 239). Druckman (2002) could have come to this

2. POLITSC 4165: Mass Media & Am Politics Blegvad: Reaction Week 10
conclusion exactly because only a small amount of students were used for the experiment. In the
conclusion, it is mentioned that it is not really predictable which way experiments will turn out,
“sometimes they work and other times they do not, and, despite common practices, it is just as
important to document cases of failed framing effects as successful framing effects” (Druckman
(2002), 246). Druckman’s (2002) second experiment takes a look at emphasis framing. The
author comes to the conclusion that individuals base their opinions on prior opinions and
knowledge rather than individually on frames that they have heard from elites. Therefore, when
more than one is aware of the impact of manipulation, the more careful they are when
interpreting conversation. Although Druckman (2002) does a very good job with this experiment,
it would have been beneficial had the subjects been tested of their initial dispositions before the
articles were read, as well as their overall demographics and socioeconomic conditions. With this
information, we could better understand the degree to which differing individuals understand and
interpret framing effects. Therefore, it would also be beneficial if tolerance and cross-cutting
discussions were pursued, as more involved discussion has proven to result in more tolerance
and understanding of manipulation.
Berinsky and Kinder (2006) research to see if small changes in information given to
individuals (through framing) will manipulate their political decisions. To do this, they gather a
wide variety of people and expose them to the same information which is framed in three different
ways: humanitarian crisis, control, and risk to America frames regarding to the conflicts in Kosovo.
“These frames are intended to capture the ways in which different media outlets could present the
same information and qualitatively different ways” (Berinsky and Kinder (2006), 644). It is very
good that in their first experiment they purposely avoided testing college students and made sure
to get a wide variety of people. But the results between the three groups did not differ, which
means that the way that the news articles were framed were successful in manipulating the way
the readers thought. It would be interesting to research how the individuals compared on a more
non-generalized spectrum to see the entire socioeconomic impact of perception in the research. It
would also be interesting to see if there would be a difference in perception if text was not the
primary source, but rather a newscast. This would be a study on body language and tone as well
as the test subject’s predispositions on certain news outlets and newscasters. In many ways,
television is the best way to see exactly what is being portrayed, minus the media bias and framing.
When one only reads, they do not see the non-verbal cues of dishonesty. However, this also brings
the question of intelligence, as those who have higher intelligence will likely have higher retention
and prior knowledge of the subjects at hand and that to a degree they are almost always being
deceived by politicians and misinformed by framed rhetoric. In their second experiment, the
researchers furthered their prior experiment through looking at the individual’s understanding of
the subjects and if the frame of the story changed their opinions on the subject.
The research covered in this week’s readings experiences some of the first research
conducted into looking at how a certain frame can affect how constituents are swayed by their
politicians and news media. Although the data portrayed in these readings are somewhat minimal
and some of the first of their kind, it is essential to understand and continue to research these
criteria due to the lack of trust and understanding that citizens of the United States have regarding
their news media, as well as their elected governmental offices and officials due to their
overarching use of manipulation through elite framing.

3. POLITSC 4165: Mass Media & Am Politics Blegvad: Reaction Week 10