Cognitive Framing Theory - Research Paper Example

Cognitive Framing Theory and Spiral of Silence Theory Cognitive Framing Theory Cognitive framing explains human behaviors.It argues that the human brain responds to unconscious structures or frames to decimate decisions and other actions. For example, frames may include individual roles or relations among different roles to other frames. For instance, a school frame would include all that happens in school from the roles of the head teacher, teachers, and students. Moreover, the relations among all the stakeholders such as the government and parents comprise the ‘schemas’ of a school. Thus, people use the frame in their brain to define their language as well as a thing that surround them. The thinking and all that matters in talking does involve framing. This is the basis of cognitive framing theory. According to Lakoff (2010), a single word defines not only the word, but it activates the frames by defining much about the system that is in it. However, frames do not work in solitude but they have a direct connection to all part of the brain including the emotional regions (Lakoff, 2010). This explains why people have different taste to different circumstances. The workings of the frame make it possible for some people to like football while other dislikes the same. Thus, it is how best a frame is internalized that explains the behaviors of individuals and emotional reactions to their surroundings. The political scene is one good example where systems of frames are vehemently used. Members of political parties share the political ideologies, and they all adhere to this course. Therefore, politician uses a language that point to specific ideological systems. The process they go through whether in party fundraising or conventional nomination informs their subconscious of the principle that they defend. The development of this political ideology frames explains the subsequent behaviors. Cognitive framing theory also argues that ideological language becomes a normal language as it unconsciously activates the brain of the ideas. Therefore, people cannot avoid framing, and they can only be strengthened or weakened. There are different frames and individual choose among the many in any given situation. Moreover, there are limited ways of changing frames. The thing that a person has made cognates in the brain can only relate to news set of frames that relate to the existing systems of frames (Lakoff, 2010). The changes need to be emotional and introduced through a communication system that must be sufficient, repetitive, and full of trust for the messengers. Negating frames tend to activate the frames. For example, when President Nixon argued that he was not a crook, it made people believe that he was indeed a crook. Human behaviors are thus influenced and guided by the communication that feeds the brains. It is evident that people with a negative attitude have a background of negative communications and discouragement. This is contrary to people with confidence who are characterized by good upbringing and a positive outlook for the future. In their study, Tversky and Kahneman found that the influence of rational decision is not solely determined by the rational choice theory (Lakoff, 2010). However, the decision that people makes in life if determined largely by how the choices are framed. Given a choice of either a positive outcome or gain with an uncertain promise, people tend to choose gain rather than an uncertain gain. This is the case that Tversky and Kahneman argued for cognitive framing theory (Lakoff, 2010). Lakoff point out that communication itself is a metaphor and is comprised of the frame (Lakoff, Framing and Framing Theory, 2004). To this effect, one can deduce communications elements that comprise of the frame as the message, the medium, the audience and the images. Moreover, communication frames also include the messenger, the context and the moral authority and conceptual frames (Lakoff, Framing and Framing Theory, 2004). Therefore, how well a person chooses his language is important in determining the effects because the messages evoke frames. Because it takes time to build systems of frames, it is hard to put the message across because the audience will not decipher. However, for the audiences that have built the systems of frames for years, the speaker uses few words to explain complex matter. This is because the audiences have system of frames that relate to the message. This is the case for the conservative all over the world. The conservative understand their ideologies, as well as their expectation in politics. Moreover, communication between them is much easier than talking to the liberal. The cognitive framing theory can explain the increased taste of war by the media audiences. Much of the content in our media is full of violence, and audiences have developed frames of war. They understand conflict better than any other agenda of the Western allies. However, the aim of the Western government is to create system frames among the people so that they easily accept their agenda for war. Therefore, the media uses framing theory to allocate more time to issue and topic that they need the public to believe they are of important to the country no matter whether they are negative or positive. Though there exist empirical study on the framing effect, the methodology has not been exhaustive. The media frames have not been exhaustive to determine whether they established the frame or people have existing frames that make them consumers of information in the media. However, there is empirical data that support the theory of cognitive framing and has been used by the American government to establish ground for propagating propaganda in the war against terrorism around the world. In addition, there are survey data that that prove the application of framing theory. Spiral of Silence Theory Spiral of silence theory argue that society remain in harmony when it isolate people who deviate from society norms and values. According to Noelle-Neumann (1991), the use of public opinion is the basis for which people isolate people perceived the hell bent to threaten the existence of peace of the majority. The pundit of public opinion target and isolate people who are opposed to an agreed agenda. For this reason, people with the divergent opinion of an issue avoid making their opinion know to avoid being isolated from the others. However, when these people choose to keep quiet, they isolate themselves. The ideas of non-participation among people with a different view from the majority act as a self-censorship that strengthens the ideas of the majority. Their actions thus perpetuate the minority to conform because of pressure from the majority. In many circumstances, people tend to advocate on one agenda. However, this is not to say that their lack divergent ideas, but the minority join the majority to avoid being branded as deviant. The minority observes the social environment and assesses the will of the people (public opinion) before airing their opinions. According to Moscovici (1991), the spiral of silence theory argues that individuals should identify what is common to them and thus predetermine or anticipate the dominant views. Therefore, the willingness to speak among people is determined by the consensus of the majority. Therefore, the courage to speak does not emanate from self-confidence, but rather from the position, one is in a climate of public opinion. Therefore, people fall in both extreme, and their willingness is determined by the movement of development (majority). Thus, the gap between the majority and minority opinions widens because of fear confrontation and subsequence loss. Therefore, the spiral of silence theory can explain the propagation of democracy. Only the majority take over as leaders to steer the agenda of the widely agreed opinions. The majority thus speak with fervor while the minority live with the spiral of silent or conforms to the majority. The war in Iraq was waged first by public opinion. This led to the international allied forces waging a war to fight with weapons of mass destruction that were not there. Thus, the media use of public opinion wages a defeat to the contrary opinion even if it is the correct and truthful ideas. The same case applied to the Gulf War in 1991. People who did not support the war opted to stay silent rather than face social isolation. Therefore, the media plays a big role in explaining the behavior of its audience in matters of public opinion. The study by Noelle-Neumann is characterized by ambiguity. Moreover, its methods are weak and only supported by the theoretical framework rather than verifiable data. The idea that human have a quasi-statistical organ is puzzling since it has not been scientifically proven. Thus, Noelle-Neumann method is short of statistical data that explain the spiral of silence. Nevertheless, the hypothesis is backed up by a rich example that have proven the spiral of silence theory to be practical in many instances. Compare and construct The theory of cognitive framing compares largely with the spiral of silence theory. Both theories explain how human behaviors are formed and how to influence certain actions. The media and journalist propagate the two theories. They understand that creating new that introduce system frames among the audience introduces the first step in ensuring that they influence the decision of the people to a certain degree. Once an action plan has been aired for several days, weeks or even months people would have established frames such as of a political ideology of environmental topical issues. Moreover, after frames are established it becomes easier to shape public opinion by discrediting the minority views leading to isolation. Once a group of people is isolated; they have no alternative other than joining the majority in propagating an agenda. Through this, the spiral of silence and cognitive framing theory work together. The media established emotions through the message they air. For example, the devastating natural calamity in Haiti blazed the media resulting in sympathy and attracted huge support all over the world. This is how powerful the media can create a frame of moral, norm and values of respecting people in need. Thus, people identified with the Haiti and could not wait to express their emotions. Moreover, the though there were a few criticism of the support for Haiti, it was not publicly advanced for fear of retribution from the people. References Lakoff, G. (2004, August 08). Framing and Framing Theory. Retrieved from California State University, Northridge: http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm Lakoff, G. (2010). Environmental Communication. A Journal of Nature and Culture, 70-81. Moscovici, S. (1991). Silent majorities and loud minorities. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 14 (298-308). London: Sage. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1991). The theory of public opinion: The concept of the spiral of silence. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook, 14 (256-287). London: Sage. Read More