| Collective actor | Intent of framing efforts | Content of frames | Emotion sought to be evoked and its object |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social movement (disruptive collective actor) | Strengthening the client’s trust in the social movement’s experiential knowledge | Experiential knowledge is relevant, safe, and/or reliable | Pride in supporting an alternative, peer-driven institutional project |
| Gaining the client’s attachment to the social movement as a collective actor | Deviance from the profession’s prescriptions is a righteous imperative | Anger at the profession for breaching its duty | |
| Causing the client’s detachment from the profession as a collective actor | Compliance with the profession’s prescriptions is morally flawed and/or self-degrading | Shame of complying with the profession’s prescriptions | |
| Undermining the client’s trust in the profession’s expert knowledge | Expert knowledge is irrelevant, dangerous, and/or unreliable | Fear of relying on established arrangements | |
| Profession (defensive collective actor) | Strengthening the client’s trust in the profession’s expert knowledge | Expert knowledge is relevant, safe, and/or reliable | Pride in supporting established arrangements |
| Gaining the client’s attachment to the profession as a collective actor | Compliance with the profession’s prescriptions is a righteous imperative | Anger at the movement for jeopardizing a proper response to their needs | |
| Causing the client’s detachment from the social movement as a collective actor | Deviance from the profession’s prescriptions is morally flawed and/or self-degrading | Shame of deviating from the profession’s prescriptions | |
| Undermining the client’s trust in the social movement’s experiential knowledge | Experiential knowledge is irrelevant, dangerous, and/or unreliable | Fear of relying on an alternative, peer-driven institutional project |
( Citation: Fligstein & McAdam, 2015 Fligstein, N. & McAdam, D. (2015). A theory of fields (First issued as an Oxford University Press paperback). Oxford University Press. ) conflict-oriented theory of fields emphasizes the power imbalance between marginalized challengers who seek to disrupt the institutional status quo and dominant incumbents who seek to defend it. It suggests that the emphasis on particular emotions evoked in the framing efforts of these collective actors may differ depending on their pursuit of a project of change or continuity, respectively. Empirical studies tend to corroborate this view, indicating that disruptive framing efforts of a challenger tend to emphasize pride of supporting its alternative institutional project and anger at the incumbent for breaching its duty ( Citation: Gamson, 1992 Gamson, W. (1992). Talking politics. Cambridge University Press. ; Citation: Gould, 2009 Gould, D. (2009). Moving politics: emotion and act up’s fight against AIDS. The University of Chicago Press. ) , while defensive framing efforts of an incumbent tend to emphasize shame of deviating from its prescriptions and fear of relying on the challenger’s alternative project ( Citation: Gill & Burrow, 2018 Gill, M. & Burrow, R. (2018). The function of fear in institutional maintenance: Feeling frightened as an essential ingredient in haute cuisine. Organization Studies, 39(4). 445–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617709306 ; Citation: Douglas Creed, Hudson & al., 2014 Douglas Creed, W., Hudson, B., Okhuysen, G. & Smith-Crowe, K. (2014). Swimming in a Sea of Shame: Incorporating Emotion into Explanations of Institutional Reproduction and Change. Academy of Management Review, 39(3). 275–301. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0074 ) . These different emphases may, in turn, affect how the framing efforts of challengers and incumbents resonate in the emotional experience of clients exposed to them. We unpack these insights in the next two sections.