Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions

Although the framing of public opinion has often been conceptualizedas a collective and social process, experimental studies offraming have typically examined only individual, psychologicalresponses to alternative message frames. In this research weemploy for the first time group conversations as the unit ofanalysis (following Gamson 1992) in an experimental study offraming effects. Two hundred and thirty-five American citizensin 50 groups (17 homo-geneously conservative groups, 15 homogeneouslyliberal groups, and 18 heterogeneous groups) discussed whetheror not gay and lesbian partnerships should be legally recognized.Groups were randomly assigned to one of two framing conditions(a "homosexual marriage/special rights" frame or a "civil union/equalrights" frame). Results indicated framing effects that were,in all cases, contingent on the ideological leanings of thegroup. The "marriage" frame tended to polarize group discussionsalong ideological lines. Both liberal and conservative groupsappeared to find their opponents’ frame more provocative,responding to them with a larger number of statements and expressinggreater ambivalence than when reacting to more hospitable frames.