<p>While there is a large political science literature on framing effects, almost none of it has focused on equivalency framing of actual problems and potential solutions. We investigate whether the public expresses more concern about societal problems when logically equivalent information concerning their prevalence is framed in negative rather than in positive terms, and whether support for ameliorative policies changes when policies are framed as reducing the incidence of bad outcomes as opposed to increasing the incidence of good ones. From experiments covering a diverse set of issues, we find that equivalency frames have a consistent effect on the public’s evaluation of social problems: negative frames provoke substantially more negative emotional reactions to problems and lead to judgments that the problems are more serious and deserving of government attention. At the same time, we find no differences in support for gain-framed versus loss-framed policies designed to ameliorate these problems.</p>