While collective identity scholarship has generated insights into how social movements construct and mobilize identities to distinguish themsleves from others, it has paid comparatively less attention to why some groups reject divisive identities and instead align with broader collective identities. Using the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and their rejection of sectarianism as a representative case study, the article examines why social movements choose to adhere to larger collective identities, even when their environment encourages the adoption of divisive ones. Tracing the Brotherhood’s collective identity, the article advances an ideational explanation that shows how two enduring identity elements—the constitutive norm of Islamic inclusivity and the social purpose of resisting imperialism and authoritarianism—generated master frames that consistently led the group to reject sectarian divides during periods of heightened secterianization in the Middle East. This identity construction both enabled and constrained the movement’s political choices, shaping its responses to regional sectarian tensions. This article demonstrates how collective identity framing structures the repertoire of political options available to social movements and offers a theoretical and empirical vantage point for understanding their behaviour.

This study introduces an NLP-based Memory Model that structures how framing and reframing evolve throughout design. Grounded in constructive and situated memory theories, it models memory as a dynamic system of activation and decay, enabling measurement of the number and semantic value of frames in design discourse. Analyses of architecture students’ sessions show framing peaks during exploration and declines as solutions stabilize. They also show semantic diversity cycles through expansion and narrowing, revealing framing as a continuous, memory-driven reinterpretive process.

Despite the exponential rise in the number of couples cohabiting, across Europe, cohabitants are unable to access comprehensive legal protections. To strengthen calls for reform, this paper advocates for the adoption of a human rights framing and traces its potential development. It begins with an analysis of the current discourse and offers an explanation as to why there is limited engagement with human rights argumentation. The focus will then shift to the need for a human rights framing. Through an analysis of the merits of such, it will be demonstrated that the common criticisms of a human rights framing are not applicable in the cohabitation context. Moreover, it will be argued that, owing to a previous judicial recognition of human rights infringements, the debate is primed for the adoption of a novel framing. This paper will conclude by considering how a human rights framing could be applied in practice.

Our decisions frequently involve combinations of gains and losses occurring at different points in time, such as enduring early losses for future gains (investments) or enjoying immediate gains at the expense of future losses (loans). This research introduces novel experiments that examine how binary intertemporal payment options, framed as either investments or loans, influence decision-making. Each option comprised two payment components: common payments, which are identical between the options, and focal payments, which vary between the options. Through strategic manipulation of these payments, the research explores how Investment or Loan frames affect time preferences. Our three studies consistently indicate that the common payments tend to be disregarded and thus the preferences are affected by framing. Notably, this remained true even when common payments were substantial (Study 2), and the framing effect was also found in scenarios where decisions carried real financial consequences (Study 3).

Throughout the twenty-first century, anti-gender activism in Colombia and across Latin America has demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt and reinvent itself. This article examines a recent transformation in its discursive strategies: the rise of anti-woke and anti-progre as new collective action frames for opposing sexual and reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and a broader spectrum of progressive policies. Drawing on an analysis of 128 actors involved in anti-gender campaigns and the content they produce in digital spaces, we identify two key tactics driving the spread of anti-woke and anti-progre discourses in Colombia: social media platforms and educational initiatives. By tracing these developments, the article sheds light on the evolving dynamics of anti-gender activism and the actors and strategies shaping their adoption of discursive repertoires.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ambiguous institutional position—insulated from external pressures yet retaining important linkages with elected officials—complicates how the public assigns responsibility for its decisions. Using a survey experiment that shows respondents information about Dobbs, we explore how messages that politicize or depoliticize the Court affect responsibility attribution for Court decisions. We find that politicizing the Court increases responsibility attribution towards President Trump, and that this effect is conditioned by party cues. We explore downstream effects on evaluations of political actors, but do not find conclusive evidence. We argue that these findings have important implications for democratic accountability.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential to profoundly transform and enrich experimental economic research. We propose a new software framework, “alter_ego”, which makes it easy to design experiments between LLMs and to integrate LLMs into oTree-based experiments with human subjects. Our toolkit is freely available at github.com/mrpg/ego. To illustrate, we run differently framed prisoner’s dilemmas with interacting machines as well as with human-machine interaction. Framing effects in machine-only treatments are strong and similar to those expected from previous human-only experiments, yet less pronounced and qualitatively different if machines interact with human participants.

In settings of deep poverty and inequality, implementing policies that balance urgent needs with long-term development is crucial. What strategies are used to build public support for long-term oriented policies? Evidence shows that both left- and right-wing governments have played a role in the expansion of social policy. This article explores the context and meanings that governments with different ideologies assign to distributive policies, focusing on how these policies are communicated. In particular, I argue that ideology significantly shapes the framing presidents use when discussing and announcing social policies. Left-leaning governments emphasize social inclusion while right-leaning governments stress the productivity-enhancing aspects of these policies. Using text analysis techniques, including à la carte embeddings (ALC) this study analyzes presidential communications from Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile. The findings show how ideology drives communication strategies, revealing that in more polarized societies, presidents distinguish themselves more consistently through how they construct and communicate these policies.

Media attention to policing has brought a proliferation of narratives seeking to contextualize incidents of police violence. Here, we test whether exposure to such narratives shift Americans’ opinion or behavior. To do so, we first identify and track the media prevalence of two of these narratives: one focused on racial bias in policing and a second focused on the dangers of the profession. Despite the presence of these narratives in media, we find, experimentally, that public opinion about police violence is stable, regardless of the media narrative used. Finally, to better understand these null results, we use a content analysis of open-ended responses to uncover the demographic and ideological characteristics that are most more deterministic of their reactions to police violence. Altogether, these findings indicate attitudes about policing and planned political participation are ossified and unresponsive to media narratives.

This article examines how the discursive logic of quasi-markets in Swedish university real-estate management enables depoliticisation while consolidating state control. Sweden is a distinctive case where universities are public agencies, yet most campus property is owned by Akademiska Hus AB, a profit-seeking corporation wholly owned by the state. Using interpretive policy and frame analysis of legislation, government decisions, and public debate, we trace how market rents were introduced and justified. We show that depoliticising narratives portraying academics as fiscally unaccountable and university space as wasteful legitimise New Public Management reforms. Extending the ‘ghost in the machine’ metaphor, we demonstrate how political logics permeate welfare governance but are rendered less visible. The quasi-market sustains centralised control and fuels distrust between universities and government, risking a cycle of expanding quasi-market instruments and reduced institutional autonomy. Diminished autonomy may in turn have implications for academic freedom.

Research shows that information cues influence public opinion on international cooperation, yet it is unclear whether all cues are equally effective in the context of a global crisis. This paper sheds light on this issue by analysing how frames in public discourse influence support for multilateral vaccine cooperation during Covid‐19. Building on research on in‐group favouritism, decision‐making under uncertainty, and public support for multilateralism, the paper argues that frames emphasizing vaccine nationalism are more potent than those emphasizing international cooperation and that nationalist political identities moderate these framing effects. An original survey experiment in the United Kingdom confirms this argument and shows that public support for multilateralism is substantial but vulnerable. A vaccine nationalism frame reduces support for multilateralism, while an international cooperation frame has no effect. Moreover, ‘Brexit identities’ moderate this framing effect, with ‘Leavers’ being more susceptible to the detrimental effect of the vaccine nationalism frame than ‘Remainers’.

Despite the generally accepted weakness of trade unions at the European Union level, an analysis of two high profile cases – the Services Directive and the Port Directive – shows that trade unions are able to mobilise effectively at the European level and, within constellations of actors, crucially impact EU decision making. In contrast to common claims that a lack of access to EU institutions makes such groups powerless, it is argued here that the exclusion of large opposing societal groups from consultations is neither a quick nor a sure fire recipe for dismantling opposition. On the contrary, it politicises the process and may lead to opposing groups mobilising in more contentious ways.

John Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) constitutes a powerful tool for understanding the policy process, and more specifically, agenda‐setting, through three separate streams: problems, policies and politics. This article argues that the MSF would benefit from further development of the problem stream. It introduces a clearer conception of agency into the problem stream by suggesting the inclusion of the problem broker. The problem broker is a role in which actors frame conditions as public problems and work to make policy makers accept these frames. The problem broker makes use of knowledge, values and emotions in the framing of problems. The use of these three elements is seen as a prerequisite for successful problem brokering – that is, for establishing a frame in the policy sphere. Other important factors are: persistence, access to policy makers, credibility and willingness. Problem brokers also need to know who to talk to, how and when in order to make an impact. The context, in terms of, for example, audience and national mood, is also crucial. The inclusion of the problem broker into the MSF strengthens the analytical separation between streams. According to Kingdon, policies can be developed independently from problems. The MSF, therefore, enables a study of policy generation. The inclusion of the problem broker, in the same sense, makes it possible to investigate problem framing as a separate process and enables a study of actors that frame problems without making policy suggestions. The MSF is, in its current form, not able to capture what these actors do. The main argument of this article is that it is crucial to study these actors as problem framing affects the work of policy entrepreneurs and, thereby, agenda‐setting and decision making.