ABSTRACT
Scholar's team have expounded a broad theory of framing that tries to be faithful to both sides of the transaction without pretending to be comprehensive This chapter describes this theory and relate it to other work on the subject, especially in political science. It interested in how frames help citizens manage value conflict. Even as scholars accumulated evidence about the importance of values to political attitudes, they began to show how the translation of abstract values into concrete opinions is often difficult and uncertain, not the least because politics exposes troubling value conflicts. The value conflict-ambivalence thesis appeals to Dogmatists and Utopian idealists because it both makes sense of research observations and capture our intuitions and experiences about political conundrums. Psychologically speaking, the chapter located most of the framing action within the individual's dynamic, issue-specific values structure. The chapter explains the research paradigm by describing the study of one vivid example of issue framing: the case of pizza delivery redlining.
