Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

This study examines the influence of framing effects on public perceptions of development assistance through a qualitative literature-based approach, focusing on a cross-country comparison between Indonesia and Malaysia. The research aims to explore how different framing strategies—such as loss versus gain, ownership versus charity, and donor identity—shape perceptions of necessity, fairness, legitimacy, and alignment with national interests in two socio-politically distinct but culturally proximate contexts. Methodologically, the study synthesizes theoretical and empirical findings from political communication, development studies, and Southeast Asian media scholarship. Literature was systematically collected from peer-reviewed journals, policy reports, and relevant grey literature, then thematically coded to identify recurrent patterns, contextual moderators, and institutional influences. The results indicate that loss-framed messages generally heighten perceived urgency, while ownership and partnership frames are more effective in sustaining legitimacy, particularly when supported by transparency and participatory practices. Donor identity framing significantly affects legitimacy perceptions, with narratives emphasizing mutual benefit and co-prosperity outperforming those suggesting strategic competition or dependency. Country-specific differences emerge: Indonesian audiences respond more positively to frames highlighting transparency and community ownership, whereas Malaysian audiences are more receptive to frames underscoring competence, stability, and alignment with national development plans. The findings contribute theoretically by integrating cognitive and sociological framing theories with institutional and cultural moderators, and managerially by offering context-sensitive communication strategies for policymakers, donors, and civil society actors. This research underscores the necessity of aligning message content, messenger credibility, and institutional practice to maximize the positive impact of development assistance narratives.

Keywords

Framing Effects Development Assistance Public Perception Indonesia Malaysia

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Akhyar, M., & Rahmi, R. (2025). Framing Effects in Development Assistance Perceptions: A Cross-Country Comparison between Indonesia and Malaysia. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary, 5(4), 102–118. https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v5i4.1661
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Arnett, G. (2019). Images of dignity: Reframing poverty in development communication. Communication, Culture & Critique, 12(2), 215–232.
  2. Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
  3. Bermeo, S., & Leblang, D. (2015). Migration and foreign aid. International Organization, 69(3), 627–657.
  4. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318.
  5. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10(1), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
  6. Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Billiet, J. (2011). Cross-cultural analysis: Methods and applications. Routledge.
  7. de Vreese, C. H. (2005). News framing: Theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design, 13(1), 51–62.
  8. Dietrich, S., Hyde, S. D., & Winters, M. S. (2018). Foreign aid, elections, and political participation. World Development, 109, 107–118.
  9. Dogra, N. (2012). Representations of global poverty: Aid, development and international NGOs. I. B. Tauris.
  10. Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., & Fazio, L. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1, 13–29.
  11. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.
  12. Eyben, R. (2013). Uncovering the politics of “evidence” and results: A framing of power for development. Practical Action Publishing.
  13. Findley, M. G., Powell, J., Strandow, D., & Tanner, J. (2011). The localized geography of foreign aid: A new dataset and application to violent armed conflict. World Development, 39(11), 1995–2009.
  14. George, C. (2012). Freedom from the press: Journalism and state power in Singapore (with implications for Malaysia’s media). NUS Press.
  15. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.
  16. Heinrich, T., Kobayashi, Y., & Long, J. D. (2018). Voters get what they want (when they want it): Responsiveness in international aid. International Studies Quarterly, 62(1), 195–207.
  17. Henson, S., & Lindstrom, J. (2013). What determines public support for development? Development Policy Review, 31(2), 153–176.
  18. Hickel, J. (2017). The divide: A brief guide to global inequality and its solutions. Random House.
  19. Hopkins, D. J., & King, G. (2010). A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 229–247.
  20. Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2005). The “identified victim” effect: An identified group, or just a single individual? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(3), 157–167.
  21. Li, M., Zhang, W., & Leung, M. (2021). Public support for nuclear energy in Southeast Asia: Evidence from five countries. Energy Policy, 154, 112290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112290
  22. Lin, Y., Osman, M., & Ashcroft, R. (2023). Moral framing in fundraising: Effects on donations and donor satisfaction. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 36(2), e2311. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2311
  23. McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990
  24. Milner, H. V., & Tingley, D. (2013). The determinants of public opinion on foreign aid. International Interactions, 39(2), 389–401.
  25. Munafò, M. R., et al. (2017). A manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 0021.
  26. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221–246.
  27. Nisbet, M. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment, 51(2), 12–23.
  28. Oh, S. H., Paek, H. J., & Hove, T. (2023). Framing risk information to promote COVID-19 vaccination among university students: The role of hospitalization framing. Health Communication, 38(6), 741–751. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2021.1999864
  29. Parks, B., Rice, Z., & Custer, S. (2015). Aid transparency and local support for development projects. Development Policy Review, 33(3), 333–355.
  30. Paxton, P., & Knack, S. (2012). Individual values, democracy, and support for foreign aid. World Bank Economic Review, 26(2), 204–229.
  31. Rutherford, A. (2023). Political knowledge and susceptibility to framing effects. Journal of Political Psychology, 44(1), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12798
  32. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.
  33. Slovic, P. (2007). If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95.
  34. Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143–153.
  35. Smith, J., & Khan, L. (2025). Framing humanitarian AI: Public perceptions of digital aid innovation. Journal of Humanitarian Action, 12(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-025-00173-0
  36. Steele, J. (2018). News, publics, and the state in Malaysia: Community media interventions. Routledge.
  37. Strange, A. M., Dreher, A., Fuchs, A., Parks, B., & Tierney, M. J. (2017). Tracking underreported financial flows: China’s development finance and the aid–development nexus. AidData Working Paper.
  38. Tapsell, R. (2017). Media power in Indonesia: Oligarchs, citizens and the digital revolution. Rowman & Littlefield.
  39. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
  40. Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., & Mayorga, M. (2015). Pseudoinefficacy: Negative feelings from children who cannot be helped reduce warm glow for children who can be helped. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 616. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00616
  41. Winters, M. S. (2010). Accountability, participation and foreign aid effectiveness. International Studies Review, 12(2), 218–243.

Similar Articles

<< < 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.