Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers

We review the meaning of the concept of framing, approaches to studying framing, and the effects of framing on public opinion. After defining framing and framing effects, we articulate a method for identifying frames in communication and a psychological model for understanding how such frames affect public opinion. We also discuss the relationship between framing and priming, outline future research directions, and describe the normative implications of framing.

Although previous research has focused on competence and sociability as the characteristics most important to positive group evaluation, the authors suggest that morality is more important. Studies with preexisting and experimentally created in-groups showed that a set of positive traits constituted distinct factors of morality, competence, and sociability. When asked directly, Study 1 participants reported that their in-group's morality was more important than its competence or sociability. An unobtrusive factor analytic method also showed morality to be a more important explanation of positive in-group evaluation than competence or sociability. Experimental manipulations of morality and competence (Study 4) and morality and sociability (Study 5) showed that only in-group morality affected aspects of the group-level self-concept related to positive evaluation (i.e., pride in, or distancing from, the in-group). Consistent with this finding, identification with experimentally created (Study 2b) and preexisting (Studies 4 and 5) in-groups predicted the ascription of morality, but not competence or sociability, to the in-group.

In seems there are two dimensions that underlie most judgments of traits, people, groups, and cultures. Although the definitions vary, the first makes reference to attributes such as competence, agency, and individualism, and the second to warmth, communality, and collectivism. But the relationship between the two dimensions seems unclear. In trait and person judgment, they are often positively related; in group and cultural stereotypes, they are often negatively related. The authors report 4 studies that examine the dynamic relationship between these two dimensions, experimentally manipulating the location of a target of judgment on one and examining the consequences for the other. In general, the authors' data suggest a negative dynamic relationship between the two, moderated by factors the impact of which they explore. Copyright 2006 APA, all rights reserved.