A growing body of research examines media framing of key scientific issues of our time, specifically, those issues that include political and moral components, such as global climate change and stem cell research. In regard to the mass media, framing refers to the process by which the media organize and make sense of the news, which has an effect on how audiences perceive that news. The majority of framing research examines textual news. Little examines the content and effects of photographic news. This study uses a pretest-posttest experimental design to test for effects of photographic framing in the stem cell research debate. In addition, the study combines a traditional framing effects study with eye-tracking data to provide for a new dimension of framing effects research. Results did not show significant effects between experimental condition and participant perception of the predominant issues in the stem cell research debate or participant perception of the message. However, on the basis of eye-tracking data, photographic framing did have a significant effect on participants’ visual attention to the given photograph. Study findings suggest that eye-tracking methodology can be an important tool to further our understanding of media effects beyond that provided by traditional methods.
ArpanL.BakerK.YoungwonL.TaejinJ.LorussoL.SmithJ. (2006). News coverage of social protests and the effects of photographs and prior attitudes. Mass Communication and Society, 9(1), 1-20.
2.
BatesonG. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology. New York, NY: Ballantine.
3.
BottS.DavidsonP.FernandesT.JensenB.LaitinenR.WoodS.ThomsenS. R. (2010). Does it matter if she’s Black or White? Using eye tracking to explore the effects of race on reader reaction to magazine advertisements. Southwestern Mass Communication Journal, 25(2), 1-13.
4.
ChuS.PaulN.RuelL. (2009). Using eye tracking technology to examine the effectiveness of design elements on news websites. Information Design Journal, 17(1), 31-43.
5.
ColemanR.BanningS. (2006). Network TV news’ affecting framing of the presidential candidates: Evidence for a second-level agenda-setting effect through visual framing. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 313-328.
6.
DahmenN. S. (2008). Newspapers focus on conflict in stem cell coverage. Newspaper Research Journal, 29(3), 50-64.
7.
DahmenN. S. (2009). Snowflake white and politically right: Photographic framing in news media coverage of stem cell research. Visual Communication Quarterly, 16(1), 18-31.
8.
DauberC. (2001). The shots seen ’round the world: The impact of the images of Mogadishu on American military operations. Rhetoric and Public Affairs, 4, 653-687.
9.
DavenportL.RandleQ.BossenH. (2007). Now you see it; now you don’t. The problems with newspaper digital photo archives. Visual Communication Quarterly, 14(4), 218-230.
10.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58.
11.
FahmyS. (2005). U.S. photojournalists’ and photo editors’ attitudes and perceptions: Visual coverage of 9/11 and the Afghan war. Visual Communication Quarterly, 12(3/4), 146-163.
12.
GibsonR.ZillmannD. (2000). Reading between the photographs: The influence of incidental pictorial information on issue perception. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 355-366.
13.
GitlinT. (1980). The whole world is watching. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston, MA: Northeast University Press.
15.
GoldbergV. (1991). The power of photography: How photographs changed our lives. New York, NY: Abbeville.
16.
GoodwinH. E. (1983). Groping for ethics in journalism. Ames: Iowa State University.
17.
HarimanR.LucaitesJ. L. (2003). Public identity and collective memory in U.S. iconic photography: The image of “accidental napalm.”Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(1), 35-66.
18.
IyengarS. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
19.
JosephsonS. (2008). Keeping your readers’ eyes on the screen: An eye-tracking study comparing sans serif and serif typefaces. Visual Communication Quarterly, 15(1/2), 67-79.
20.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
21.
KingC.LesterP. (2005). Photographic coverage during the Persian Gulf and Iraqi wars in three U.S. newspapers. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82(3), 623-637.
22.
KrugmanD. M.FoxR. J.FletcherJ. E.RojasT. H. (1994). Do adolescents attend to warnings in cigarette advertising? An eye-tracking approach. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(6), 39-52.
23.
LakoffG. (2010). Why it matters how we frame the environment. Environmental Communication, 4(1), 70-81.
24.
LesterP. (1994). African-American photo coverage in four U.S. newspapers, 1937-1990. Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 380-394.
25.
McCombsM. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
26.
MessarisP.AbrahamL. (2003). The role of images in framing news stories. In ReeseS. D.GandyO. H.Jr.GrantA. E. (Eds.), Framing public life: Perspective on media and our understanding of the social world (pp. 215-226). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
NewtonJ. H. (2005). Visual ethics theory. In SmithK.MoriartyS.BarbatsisG.KenneyK. (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication: Theory, methods, and media (pp. 429-443). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
NisbetM. C.BrossardD.KroepschA. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Press/Politics, 8, 36-37.
30.
PaivioA.RogersT. B.SmytheP. C. (1968). Why are pictures easier to recall than words?Psychonomic Science, 11, 137-138.
31.
PerlmutterD. D. (1999). Visions of war: Picturing warfare from the stone age to the cyber age. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
32.
PfauM.HaighM.FifrickA.HollD.TedescoA.CopeJ.MartinM. (2006). The effects of print news photographs of the casualties of war. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(1), 150-168.
33.
PietersR.WedelM.BatraR. (2010). The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 48-60.
34.
ReavesS. (1987). Digital retouching: Is there a place for it in newspaper photography?Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 2(2), 40-48.
35.
WischrnannL. (1987). Dying on the front page: Kent State and the Pulitzer Prize. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 2(2), 67–74.
36.
ZillmannD.GibsonR.SargentS. L. (1999). Effects of photographs in news-magazine reports on issue perception. Media Psychology, 1, 207-228.
