Framing is a commonly recommended strategy for building consensus on issues such as climate change and the pandemic response. These recommendations stem from research identifying potent messages across audiences and domains. Framing research, dominated by survey experiments, often overlooks crucial social context, however, limiting direct applicability of findings. This disconnect motivates our central question: How effective are framing strategies in socially embedded informal communication networks? We develop an agent-based model incorporating three contextual elements known to moderate strategic framing: (1) the identities of interacting parties, (2) the competitive nature of political communication, and (3) the structure of communication networks. Simulation results demonstrate that framing's effect on aggregate opinion is strongly diminished when modest levels of partisan homophily or potential for cross-partisan backlash are introduced. Under conditions of homophily, strategic framing by one group can actually widen partisan cleavages by creating echo chambers of highly persuasive individuals. Alternative interventions, such as increasing cross-partisan interaction or depoliticizing existing interactions, may be even more effective than framing efforts in informal networks. When framing campaigns appear effective, as many professional campaigns do, their success may stem less from the frame's persuasive power itself and more from how communication professionals strategically navigate the social constraints we identify.
Dokshin et al. (Wed,) studied this question.