Talk:Framing effect (psychology)/Archives/2012

Merger proposal
I don't see any substantial distinction between Framing (social sciences) and Framing effect (psychology). I'd suggest merging into this article. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Object. If any merge is to be carried out, it should be in the other direction, as framing is a concept widely used outside psychology (ex. in sociology). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, how about a merge in the other direction, then? The main thing is that the two articles seem redundant. (I'm coming from economics, and the use of "framing" in economics is really an extension from psychology.) I also prefer the "framing effect" title to just "framing", because "framing" seems to have a more active, deliberate aspect. I don't think that's critical, though. C RETOG 8(t/c) 22:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In sociology we commonly talk of framing (without an effect). To be honest, both articles are quite a mess, and I am not sure if what we need is a merger of two messes - as what they really need is a major rewrite. As for the merge in the other direction, my vote is "abstain". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose : I initially thought the same thing regarding merging the articles. However, I have just re-read both articles, and think that they should remain separate - with Framing (social sciences) being an overview article and Framing effect (psychology) being a main article linked to what is currently Framing_(psychology). Framing (social sciences) considers framing from the point of view of at least four social sciences : politics, sociology and psychology/economics. I see the framing effect discussed by Tversky and Khaneman as a specific concept different to the political and sociological interests in framing. I think that in fact different sections of Framing (social sciences) are dealing with framing from the point of view of different social science disciplines. This is fine but they could therefore be labelled more explicitly. I think there could be a case for demerging some of the detail in all sections of Framing (social sciences) into Framing (sociology) Framing (politics) Framing effect(psychology) etc. which would be the main article for each respective section. This would result in a more concise overview article with detail for each discipline in a sub-article. I'm not a framing expert, these are just my initial thoughts so pleased to hear other views.Finereach (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Framing (social sciences) is psychology/economics
 * Framing (social sciences) seems to be sociology
 * The politics section is clearly labelled
 * Framing (social sciences) seems to be sociology
 * Framing (social sciences) is psychology/economics again

'''Oppose. ''' Although framing does in effect manipulate the "receiver's" opinion, the act of framing is the practice of disseminating information in order to obscure facts and thus, manipulate public opinion. IOW, the act of framing is the sophisticated manner in which news conglomerates funnel information to promote a specific point of view (propaganda). As such, this is by no means an issue of the study of psychology but rather one of mass communications; two completely different sciences. --Soy Rebelde (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. These are two related but different concepts. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi