Framing and social
Given the focusing,
movements
DAVID A. SNOW
Framing, within the context of social move-
ments, refers to the signifying work or meaning
construction engaged in by movement adher-
ents (e.g., leaders, activists, and rank-and-file
participants) and other actors (e.g., adversaries,
institutional elites, media, social control agents,
countermovements) relevant to the interests of
movements and the challenges they mount in
pursuit of those interests. The concept of fram-
ing is borrowed from Erving Goffman’s Frame
Analysis (1974) and is rooted in the symbolic
interactionist and constructionist principle that
meanings do not naturally or automatically
attach themselves to the objects, events, or
experiences we encounter, but arise, instead,
through interpretive processes mediated by
culture. Frames contribute to this interpre-
tive work by performing three core functions.
First, like picture frames, they focus attention by
punctuating or bracketing what in our sensual
field is relevant and what is irrelevant, what
is “in-frame” and what is “out-of-frame,” in
relation to the object of orientation. Second,
they function as articulation mechanisms in the
sense of tying together the various punctuated
elements of the scene so that one set of mean-
ings rather than another is conveyed, or, in
the language of narrativity, one story rather
than another is told. And third, frames often
perform a transformative function by recon-
stituting the way in which some objects of
attention are seen or understood as relating
to each other or to the actor. Examples of
this transformative function in the context of
social movements are illustrated by the trans-
formation of routine grievances or misfortunes
into injustices or mobilizing grievances, and by
the reconfiguration of aspects of one’s biog-
raphy as commonly occurs in both political
The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements,
Edited by David A. Snow, Donatella della Porta, Bert Klandermans, and Doug McAdam.
© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbespm434
and religious conversion.
articulation, and transformative functions of
frames, it is arguable that how we see, what we
make of, and how we act toward the various
objects of orientation that populate our daily
lives depends, in no small part, on how they are
framed. Applied to social movements, the idea
of framing problematizes the meanings associ-
ated with relevant events, activities, places, and
actors, suggesting that those meanings are typ-
ically contestable and negotiable and thus open
to debate and differential interpretation. From
this vantage point, mobilizing grievances are
seen neither as naturally occurring sentiments
nor as arising automatically from specifiable
material conditions, but as the result of inter-
actively based interpretation or signifying work.
The verb framing conceptualizes this signifying
work, which is one of the activities that social
movement leaders and participants, as well as
their adversaries, do on a regular basis.
DEVELOPMENT OF A FRAMING
PERSPECTIVE ON SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
The link between framing and social move-
ments was first noted in a 1982 experimental
study of the conditions under which authority
is defined as unjust and challenged (Gamson,
Fireman, & Rytina 1982) and then developed
more fully in a 1986 conceptualization and
elaboration of “frame alignment processes”
(Snow et al. 1986). Since then there has been
an almost meteoric rise in research on framing
and social movements, with much of the work
congealing into what is now called the framing
perspective on social movements (Benford &
Snow 2000; Snow 2004). The analytic appeal
and utility of this perspective is based largely on
the conjunction of three factors. The first is the
neglect of the relationship between meaning
and mobilization, and the role of interpretative
processes in mediating that relationship, by the
2 fr aming and so cial movements
dominant perspectives on social movements
that emerged in the 1970s; the second is the
rediscovery of culture and the so-called discur-
sive turn that occurred during the 1980s; and
the third is the development of a framing con-
ceptual architecture or scaffolding which has
facilitated more systematic theorization and
empirical assessment of framing processes and
effects.
CONCEPTUAL ARCHITECTURE
Among the interconnected concepts and pro-
cesses that have surfaced as the framing lit-
erature has expanded, there are at least nine
that can be thought of as cornerstone con-
cepts and processes in that they provide a
conceptual architecture that has stimulated
much of the research exploring the relevance
of framing to mobilization both empirically
and theoretically. These key concepts or pro-
cesses include: collective action frames, master
frames, core framing tasks, frame alignment
processes, frame resonance, framing hazards,
discursive processes, and discursive opportu-
nity structures and discursive fields.
Collective action frames are the resultant
products of framing activity within the social
movement arena. They are relatively coherent
sets of action-oriented beliefs and meanings
that legitimate and inspire social movement
campaigns and activities. Like everyday
interpretive frames, collective action frames
focus attention by specifying what is “in” and
“out of frame”; articulate and elaborate the
punctuated elements within the frame so that
a particular meaning or set of meanings is
conveyed; and, as a result, often transform
the meanings associated with the objects of
attention, such that some situation, activity,
or category of individuals is seen in a strikingly
different way than before, as when everyday
misfortunes are reframed as injustices or status
groups like the homeless and cigarette smokers
are framed as legitimate targets for social
movement protest. But collective action frames
differ from everyday interactional frames in
terms of their primary mobilization functions:
to mobilize or activate movement adherents so
that they move, metaphorically, from the bal-
cony to the barricades (action mobilization);
to convert bystanders into adherents, thus
broadening the movement’s base (consensus
mobilization); and to neutralize or demobilize
adversaries (counter-mobilization). Much of
the research on framing and social movements
has focused on the empirical identification of
collective action frames and specification of
their functions with respect to the movements
in question. In the case of the environmental
movement, for example, numerous frames
have been identified, such as “an environmental
justice frame,” a “runaway technology frame,” a
“conservation frame,” and a “landscape frame.”
Although most collective action frames
are movement-specific, sometimes those that
emerge early in a cycle of protest come to
function like master algorithms in the sense
that they color and constrain the orientations
and activities of other movements within the
cycle, such that subsequent collective action
frames within the cycle are derivative (Snow
& Benford 1992). When the ideational and
interpretive scope and influence of a collective
action frame expands in this way, it can be
thought of as a master frame. Examples of
master frames in recent history include the
civil rights frame in relation to the resurgence
of the women’s movement and the flowering
of movements accenting the rights of the aged,
the disabled, the American Indians and other
ethnic groups; the nuclear freeze frame in
relation to the peace movement of the 1980s;
and the environment justice frame in relation
to various environmental movements (Snow
& Benford 1992; Benford & Snow 2000).
The relative success of collective action
frames in performing their mobilization
functions is partly contingent on the extent
to which they attend to the three core framing
tasks or challenges of “diagnostic framing,”
“prognostic framing,” and “motivational
framing” (Snow & Benford 1988). Diagnostic
framing entails two aspects: a diagnosis of
some event or aspect of social life or system

of government as problematic and in need
of repair or change; and the attribution of
blame or responsibility for the problematized
state of affairs. Diagnostic framing provides
answers to the questions of “What is or went
wrong?” and “Who or what is to blame?” Much
research examining the substance of collective
action frames suggests that diagnostic framing
typically defines or redefines an event or
situation as an “injustice” (Gamson 1992;
Benford & Snow 2000: 615), but it is not
clear that all collective action frames include
an injustice component. Prognostic framing
involves the articulation of a proposed solution
to the problem, including a plan of attack and
the frame-consistent tactics for carrying it out,
and often a refutation of opponent’s current
or proposed solutions. Such framing, simply
put, addresses the Leninesque question of
“what needs to be done.” Research has shown
that both diagnostic and prognostic framing
can generate considerable debate resulting in
“frame disputes” within movements (Benford
1993a). The final core framing task, motiva-
tional framing, involves elaboration of a call to
arms or rationale for action that goes beyond
the diagnosis and prognosis. Motivational
framing entails the construction of “vocabu-
laries of motive” that provide prods to action
by, among other things, overcoming both the
fear of risks often associated with collective
action and the so-called “free-rider” problem
(e.g., why contribute to the attainment of some
large goal when that goal constitutes a “public
good” in the sense of being an indivisible and
nonexcludable benefit?). Motivational framing
attends to these impediments to action by
accenting and highlighting the severity of the
problem, the urgency of taking action now
rather than later, the probable efficacy of
joining others in the cause, the moral priority
of doing so, and enhancement or elevation of
one’s status (Benford 1993b), as when some
suicide bombers are promised various divine
favors for their “righteous” deeds (Snow & Byrd
2007). Understandably, motivational framing
has been referred to as the “agency” component
of collective action frames (Gamson 1992).
fr aming and so cial movements 3
Frame alignment processes encompass the
strategic efforts of social movement actors
and organizations to link their interests and
goals with those of prospective adherents and
resource providers so that they will contribute
in some fashion to movement campaigns
and activities. Four basic alignment processes
have been identified (Snow et al. 1986). They
include “frame bridging,” which involves the
linkage of two or more ideologically congruent
but structurally disconnected frames regarding
a particular issue; “frame amplification,” which
entails the embellishment, crystallization, and
invigoration of existing values and beliefs;
“frame extension,” which depicts movement
interests and framings as extending beyond
the movement’s initial constituency to include
issues thought to be of relevance to bystander
groups or potential adherents; and “frame
transformation,” which involves changing
prior understandings and perspectives, among
individuals or collectivities, so that things are
seen differently than before, as is commonplace
with conversions and so graphically illustrated
by the opening and closing refrain of “Amazing
Grace”: “Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me. I once was lost
but now am found, Was blind, but now I see.”
Research on these alignment processes has
been quite extensive and has firmly established
their importance in relation to mobilization
(Benford & Snow 2000; Snow 2004).
The ultimate measure of the effectiveness of
proffered collective action frames and the cor-
responding alignment strategies is whether they
resonate with targeted audiences. Those for
which frame resonance is established facilitate
mobilization; those that are nonresonant fall
on deaf ears, thus failing to inspire or influence
the direction of social movement activity. Two
sets of interacting factors have been postulated
to account for variation in frame resonance.
One is the “credibility” of the proffered frame,
which is affected by the consistency between
claims and actions, the relative empirical cred-
ibility of claims and events, and the credibility
of the frame articulators, as determined by sta-
tus and knowledge considerations. The second
4 fr aming and so cial movements
set of factors affecting frame resonance is the
“salience” of the framing to the targets of mobi-
lization, as determined by the centrality of the
beliefs and claims to the lives of the targets of
mobilization, the extent to which the framing
is experientially commensurable with the past
or present lives of the targets, and the extent to
which the framings have narrative fidelity, such
that they are resonant with cultural narrations
and myths (Snow & Benford 1988; Benford &
Snow 2000: 619–622).
Affecting both sets of factors are various
framing hazards or vulnerabilities that under-
mine the prospect of resonance and/or frame
alignment. There are at least three sets of
such framing hazards: ambiguous events or
ailments, as when there is uncertainty about the
correct application of two alternative framings
(Goffman 1974); framing errors or misfram-
ings, as when a diagnostic frame is inappropri-
ately applied or just wrong, or a frame is overex-
tended (Snow & Corrigall-Brown 2005); and
frame disputes, as when movement actors dis-
agree and debate about appropriate diagnostic,
prognostic, and motivational framings (Ben-
ford 1993a). Inasmuch as concerted problem-
solving is contingent, in part, on interpretive
alignment regarding the diagnosis and prog-
nosis of some problem, then framing hazards
constitute impediments to concerted collective
action.
The generation and modification of collec-
tive action frames occur primarily through
the discursive processes of frame articulation
and elaboration. Frame articulation involves
the discursive connection and coordination
of events, experiences, and strands of one or
more ideologies so that they hang together in
a relatively integrated and meaningful fashion.
Frame elaboration involves accenting and high-
lighting some events, issues, and beliefs or ideas
more than others, such that they become more
salient in an array of movement-relevant issues
(Snow 2004). Historically renowned move-
ment leaders, such as Gandhi and Martin
Luther King, were masters at frame articulation
and elaboration. Gandhi’s principles of “satya-
graha” and “ahimsa” were based, in part, on his
articulation of beliefs derived from Hinduism,
Buddhism, and Christianity, and Martin Luther
King’s potent civil rights frame derived, in
part, from his articulation and elaboration of
strands of Christianity, democratic theory, and
Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence.
The processes of frame articulation and
elaboration occur during the course of con-
versations, meetings, and written communica-
tions among movement leaders and members
within broader enveloping cultural and struc-
tural contexts variously called discursive fields
(Steinberg 1999) or discursive opportunity struc-
tures, which have been found to facilitate and
constrain framing efforts (Ferree et al. 2002;
Ferree 2003; McCammon et al. 2007). Discur-
sive fields evolve during the course of debate
about contested issues and events, and encom-
pass cultural materials (e.g., beliefs, values,
ideologies, myths) of potential relevance and
various sets of actors (e.g., targeted authori-
ties, social control agents, countermovements,
media) whose interests are aligned, albeit dif-
ferently, with the contested issues or events,
and who thus have a stake in what is done or
not done about those events and issues. The
discursive processes of frame articulation and
elaboration draw selectively upon these cultural
materials and are conducted in relation to the
various sets of actors that constitute the discur-
sive field. This suggests that the development
of collective action frames is facilitated and/or
constrained by the cultural and structural ele-
ments of the discursive field and discursive
opportunity structure in which the evolving
frame is embedded. This further suggests that
collective action frames constitute innovative
articulations and elaborations of existing ide-
ologies or sets of beliefs and ideas, and thus
function as extensions or antidotes of them.
From this vantage point, social movements are
viewed not as carriers of pre-configured, tightly
coupled beliefs and meanings, traditionally
conceptualized as ideologies, but as signify-
ing agents actively engaged in the production
and maintenance of meanings that are intended
to mobilize adherents and constituents, garner
bystander support, and demobilize antagonists.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES
Although the connection between framing and
social movements has generated considerable
theorization and empirical research, there
are a number of issues that have not been
adequately addressed. One cluster concerns
issues specific to framing processes and their
consequences. Much research has identified
movement-specific collective action frames,
but comparatively little research has examined
systematically the discursive processes through
which frames evolve, develop, and change. The
conceptual cluster of frame articulation and
elaboration and the theorized discussion of
the discursive fields in which these processes
are embedded provide the conceptual edifice
for research on frame discursive processes, but
to date the actual occurrence of systematic
research on framing processes (see Gamson
1992; Ferree et al. 2002; Snow et al. 2007) has
not kept pace with the calls for such research
(Steinberg 1999; Johnston 2002; Snow 2004).
A second cluster of issues that have not been
sufficiently explored concerns the relationship
between collective action frames and framing
processes and relevant cultural and social psy-
chological factors such as narrative, ideology,
collective identity, and emotion. Clearly these
are overlapping concepts that interact in ways
not yet fully understood.
And last, our understanding of social move-
ments will be advanced if more attention is
devoted, both theoretically and empirically, to
how framing intersects with the issues and
processes examined via the theoretical lens of
resource mobilization, political opportunity,
and cultural perspectives. These perspectives
should be seen not so much as competing but as
shedding light on different aspects of the char-
acter and dynamics of social movements. The
framing perspective emerged not as an alterna-
tive to other perspectives on social movements,
but to investigate and illuminate what these
other perspectives glossed over, namely the
matter of the production of mobilizing and
countermobilizing meanings and ideas.
fr aming and so cial movements 5
SEE ALSO: Consciousness, conscience, and social
movements; Consensus and action mobilization;
Culture and social movements; Discursive fields;
Discursive opportunity structure; Frame disputes;
Ideology; Injustice frames; Master frame;
Narratives; Participation in social movements;
Resonance, frame.
REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS
Benford, R.D. (1993a) Frame disputes within the
nuclear disarmament movement. Social Forces 71,
677–701.
Benford, R.D. (1993b) “You could be the hun-
dreth monkey”: Collective action frames and
vocabularies of motive within the nuclear dis-
armament movement. The Sociological Quarterly
34, 195–216.
Benford, R.D., and Snow, D.A. (2000) Framing
processes and social movements: An overview
and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26,
611–639.
Ferree, M.M. (2003) Resonance and radicalism:
Feminist framing in the abortion debates of the
United States and Germany. American Journal of
Sociology 109, 304–344.
Ferree, M.M., Gamson, W.A., Gerhards, J., and
Rucht, D. (2002) Shaping Abortion Discourse:
Democracy and the Public Sphere in Germany and
the United States. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Gamson, W.A. (1992) Talking Politics. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Gamson, W.A., Fireman, B., and Rytina, S. (1982)
Encounters with Unjust Authority. Dorsey, Home-
wood, IL.
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on
the Organization of Experience. Harper Colophon
Books, New York.
Johnston, H. (2002) Verification and proof in frame
and discourse analysis. In: Klandermans, B., and
Staggenborg, S. (eds), Methods of Social Move-
ments Research. University of Minnesota Press,
Minneapolis, pp. 62–91.
McCammon, H., Sanders Muse, C., Newman, H.D.,
and Terrell, T.M. (2007) Movement framing and
discursive opportunity structures: The political
successes of the US women’s jury movements.
American Sociological Review 72, 725–749.
Snow, D.A. (2004) Framing processes, ideology, and
discursive fields. In: Snow, D.A., Soule, S.A., and
6 fr aming and so cial movements
Kriesi, H. (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Social
Movements. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 380–412.
Snow, D.A., and Benford, R.D. (1988) Ideol-
ogy, frame resonance, and participant mobiliza-
tion. International Social Movement Research 1,
197–217.
Snow, D.A., and Benford, R.D. (1992) Master frames
and cycles of protest. In: Morris, A.D., and
Mueller, C.M. (eds), Frontiers in Social Move-
ment Theory. Yale University Press, New Haven,
CT, pp. 133–155.
Snow D.A., and Byrd, W. (2007) Ideology, framing
processes, and Islamic terrorist movements. Mobi-
lization: An International Journal 12, 119–136.
Snow, D.A., and Corrigall-Brown, C. (2005) Falling
on deaf ears: Confronting the prospect of non-
resonant frames. In: Croteau, D., Ryan, C., and
Hoynes, W. (eds), Rhyming Hope and History:
Activism and Social Movement Scholarship. Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp.
222–238.
Snow, D.A., Rochford, B., Jr, Worden, S.K., and
Benford, R.D. (1986) Frame alignment processes,
micromobilization, and movement participation.
American Sociological Review 51, 464–481.
Snow, D.A., Vliegenhart, R., and Corrigall-Brown,
C. (2007) Framing the “French riots”: A compar-
ative study of frame variation. Social Forces 86,
385–415.
Steinberg, M.W. (1999) The talk and back talk of
collective action: A dialogic analysis of repertoires
of discourse among nineteenth-century English
cotton-spinners. American Journal of Sociology
105, 736–780.