publication . Article . 2012

Efectos del Framing y representaciones sociales de epidemias sanitarias: El Caso de la Gripe A (Framing effects and social representations of health epidemics: The case of influenza A )

Nahia Idoyaga; José Francisco Valencia; Lorena Gil de Montes; Garbiñe Ortiz;
Open Access English
  • Published: 01 Dec 2012 Journal: Escritos de Psicología (issn: 1138-2635, eissn: 1989-3809, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: Universidad de Málaga
This study analyzed how the mass media covered the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic and its influence on the social representation of the disease. Framing theory and a model of collective symbolic coping were both used to explain the influence of the mass media on social representation. The study was based on analyzing information on the influenza A pandemic provided by national newspapers in Mexico and Spain between 2009 and 2010. The results show that that the development of the crisis affected the use of different kinds of frames in the media. The use of different types of frames led to processes of collective symbolic coping, which are likely to alter the social ...
free text keywords: Media, Influenza A (H1N1), Framing, Collective Symbolic Coping, Social Representations., Philosophy. Psychology. Religion, B, Psychology, BF1-990
Download from
65 references, page 1 of 5

1. Altheide, D. (2010). Risk communication and the discurse of fear. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 2, 145-158. [OpenAIRE]

2. Archundia, M. (2009, 27 de abril). Prevén detener toda la actividad en el DF. El Universal, pag. 4-14

3. Ann, S.K. y Gower K. (2009). How do the news media frame crises? A content analysis of crisis news coverage. Public Relations Review, 35, 107-112. http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2009.01.010

4. Bartlett (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5. Bauer, M. W. (2000). Science in the media as cultural indicator: Contextualizing surveys with media analysis. En M. Dierkes y C. Von Grote (Eds.), Between understanding and trust: the public, science and technology (pp. 157-178). Amsterdam: Routledge.

6. Bauer, M., Gaskell, G. y Durant, J. (2001). The years of controversy: Biotechnology 1996-1999. London: Museum of Science and Industry.

7. Beck, U. (1986). Risikogesellschaft - Auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne. Frankfurt: Suhrkampl.

8. Beck, U. (2002). La sociedad del riesgo global. Madrid: Siglo XXI de España Editores.

9. Beck, U. (2006). La sociedad del riesgo: hacia una nueva modernidad. Barcelona: Paidós Ibérica.

10. Chan, M. (2009). El nivel de alerta de pandemia de gripe se eleva de la fase 5 a la fase 6. Documento consultado el 14/03/12. Disponible: news/statements/2009/h1n1_pandemic_phase6_20090611/ es/index.html.

11. Cho, S. y Gower, K. K. (2006). The Effect of Framing on Public's Perception of Crisis: Human Interest Frame Effect on Attributions to Responsibility and Blame. Trabajo presentado en Annual meeting of the International Communication Association. 19-23 Junio, Dresden.

12. Davison, J. y Pennebaker, J.W. (1996). Social psychosomatics. En: E.T Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principies (pp. 102-132). New York: Guilford Press.

13. De Benito, E. (2010, 23 de Enero). Fisuras en la causa contra la OMS. El País, pag.1

14. De Vreese, C.H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Document Design, 13, 51-62. [OpenAIRE]

15. De Vreese, C. H., Boomgaarden, H. G. y Semetko, H. A. (2011). (In)direct framing effects: The effects of news media framing on public support for Turkish membership in the European union. Communication Research, 38, 179- 205.

65 references, page 1 of 5
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue