Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-rdph2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-08T05:22:02.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Source of Bias in Public Opinion Stability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2012

JAMES N. DRUCKMAN ,
JORDAN FEIN  and
THOMAS J. LEEPER
JAMES N. DRUCKMAN*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
JORDAN FEIN*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
THOMAS J. LEEPER*
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
James N. Druckman is Payson S. Wild Professor of Political Science and Faculty Fellow, Institute of Policy Research, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Scott Hall, 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208 ([email protected]).
Jordan Fein was an undergraduate student, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Scott Hall, 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208 ([email protected]).
Thomas J. Leeper is a Ph.D. candidate, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University, Scott Hall, 601 University Place, Evanston, IL 60208 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A long acknowledged but seldom addressed problem with political communication experiments concerns the use of captive participants. Study participants rarely have the opportunity to choose information themselves, instead receiving whatever information the experimenter provides. We relax this assumption in the context of an over-time framing experiment focused on opinions about health care policy. Our results dramatically deviate from extant understandings of over-time communication effects. Allowing individuals to choose information themselves—a common situation on many political issues—leads to the preeminence of early frames and the rejection of later frames. Instead of opinion decay, we find dogmatic adherence to opinions formed in response to the first frame to which participants were exposed (i.e., staunch opinion stability). The effects match those that occur when early frames are repeated multiple times. The results suggest that opinion stability may often reflect biased information seeking. Moreover, the findings have implications for a range of topics including the micro–macro disconnect in studies of public opinion, political polarization, normative evaluations of public opinion, the role of inequality considerations in the debate about health care, and, perhaps most importantly, the design of experimental studies of public opinion.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 106 , Issue 2 , May 2012 , pp. 430 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. 2004. “Musical Chairs.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Albertson, Bethany, and Lawrence, Adria. 2009. “After the Credits Roll.” American Politics Research 37: 275–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen D., Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2008. “The Strength of Issues.” American Political Science Review 102 (2): 215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Johnson, Martin. 2010. “Does Media Fragmentation Produce Mass Polarization?” Temple University. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Barabas, Jason, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2010. “Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?” American Political Science Review 104 (2): 226–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, Reuben M., and Kenny, David A.. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Matthew A., and Groeling, Tim. 2009. “Shot by the Messenger.” Political Behavior 31 (2): 157–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, W., Lance, , and Iyengar, Shanto. 2010. “The Shifting Foundations of Political Communication.” Journal of Communication 60 (1): 35–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berger, Ida E. 1992. “The Nature of Attitude Accessibility and Attitude Confidence.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 1: 103–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blalock, Jr., Hubert, M. 1979. Social Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Borah, Porismita. 2011. “Seeking More Information and Conversations.” Communication Research 38: 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G., and Ha, Shang E.. 2011. “Mediation Analysis is Harder Than it Looks.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Arthur Lupia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 508–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, John T., and Petty, Richard E.. 1989. “Effects of Message Repetition on Argument Processing, Recall, and Persuasion.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 10 (1): 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007a. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 637–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007b. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 10 (1): 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2010. “Dynamic Public Opinion.” American Political Science Review 104 (4): 663–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2011a.“Identifying Frames in Political News.” In Sourcebook for Political Communication Research, eds. Bucy, Erik P. and Holbert, R. Lance. New York: Routledge, 238–67.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2011b. “Strategies of Counter-framing.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Study of Political Psychology, Istanbul.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vreese, Claes H. 2004. “The Effects of Strategic News on Political Cynicism, Issue Evaluations, and Policy Support.” Mass Communication and Society 7 (2): 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiMaggio, Paul, Hargittai, Eszter, Celeste, Coral, and Shafer, Steven. 2004. “Digital Inequality.” In Social Inequality, ed. Neckerman, Kathryn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 355–400.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23: 225–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2011. “The Politics of Motivation.” Critical Review.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Bolsen, Toby. 2011. “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies.” Journal of Communication 61: 659–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur, eds. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Hennessy, Cari Lynn, Charles, Kristi St., and Weber, Jonathan. 2010. “Competing Rhetoric over Time.” Journal of Politics 72: 136–48.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Jacobs, Lawrence R.. 2009. “Presidential Responsiveness to Public Opinion.” In The Oxford Handbook of the American Presidency, eds. Edwards III, George C. and Howell, William G.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 160–81.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Kam, Cindy D.. 2011. “Students as Experimental Participants.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. New York: Cambridge University Press, 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., Kuklinski, James H., and Sigelman, Lee. 2009. “The Unmet Potential of Interdisciplinary Research.” Political Behavior 31 (4): 485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Leeper, Thomas J.. N.d. (a). “Is Public Opinion Stable?” Daedalus. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Leeper, Thomas J.. N.d. (b). “Learning More from Political Communication Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur. 2006. “Mind, Will and Choice.” In The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, eds. Goodin, Robert E. and Tilly, Charles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–131.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Nelson, Kjersten R.. 2003. “Framing and Deliberation.” American Journal of Political Science 47: 728–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Abrams, Samuel J.. 2008. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” Annual Review of Political Science 11 (1): 563–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, Brian J., and Kuklinski, James H.. 2011. “Experimental Estimation of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Related to Self-selection.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 724–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, Brian J., Kuklinski, James H., and Quirk, Paul J.. 2007. “The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined.” Political Analysis 15: 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Gimpel, James G., Green, Donald P., and Shaw, Daron R.. 2011. “How Large and Long-lasting Are the Persuasive Effects of Televised Campaign Ads?” American Political Science Review 105 (1): 135–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2002. “The Downstream Benefits of Experimentation.” Political Analysis 10: 394–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2008. Health at Risk. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, William, Albarracín, Dolores, Eagly, Alice H., Brechan, Inge, Lindberg, Matthew J., and Merill, Lisa. 2009. “Feeling Validated versus Being Correct.” Psychological Bulletin 135 (4): 555–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
HibbsDouglas A., Jr. Douglas A., Jr. 2008. “Implications of the ‘Bread and Peace’ Model for the 2008 Presidential Election.” Public Choice 137: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, Seth J., Lo, James, Vavreck, Lynn, and Zaller, John. 2008. “The Duration of Advertising Effects in the 2000 Presidential Campaign.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., Berent, Matthew K., Krosnick, Jon A., Visser, Penny S., and Boninger, David S.. 2005. “Attitude Importance and the Accumulation of Attitude-relevant Knowledge in Memory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (5): 749–69.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., Krosnick, Jon A., Visser, Penny S., Gardner, Wendi L., and Cacioppo, John T.. 2001. “Attitudes toward Presidential Candidates and Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 930–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovland, Carl I. 1959. “Reconciling Conflicting Results Derived from Experimental and Survey Studies of Attitude Change.” American Psychologist 14: 8–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 2010. “Framing Research.” In Winning with Words, eds. Schaffner, Brian F. and Sellers, Patrick J.. New York: Routledge, 185–91.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Hahn, Kyu S.. 2009. “Red Media, Blue Media.” Journal of Communication 59: 19–39.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Hahn, Kyu S., Krosnick, Jon A., and Walker, John. 2008. “Selective Exposure to Campaign Communication.” Journal of Politics 70: 186–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Kinder, Donald R., Peters, M.D., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 1984. “The Evening News and Presidential Evaluations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 778–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R. 2012 “Barack Obama and the Angry Left.” In Obama at the Crossroads, eds. Jacobs, Lawrence R. and King, Desmond S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 181–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Mettler, Suzanne. 2011. “Structural Framing.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Skocpol, Theda. 2007. Inequality and American Democracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Skocpol, Theda. 2010. Health Care Reform and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jerit, Jennifer. 2008. “Issue Framing and Engagement.” Political Behavior 30: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sung-youn, Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2010. “A Computational Model of the Citizen as Motivated Reasoner.” Political Behavior 32 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Young Mie. 2009. “Issue Publics in the New Information Environment.” Communication Research 36: 254–84.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Abelson, Robert P.. 1992. “The Case for Measuring Attitude Strength in Surveys.” In Questions about Questions, ed. Tanur, Judith M.. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 177–202.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Smith, Wendy A.. 1994. “Attitude Strength.” In Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, ed. Ramachandran, V. S.. San Diego: Academic Press, 279–89.Google Scholar
Lacy, Dean, and Lewis, Michael. 2011. “Does Answering Survey Questions Change How People Think about Political Issues?” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2004. Don't Think of an Elephant. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2006. How Voters Decide. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Eric, Sides, John, and Farrell, Henry. 2010. “Self-segregation or Deliberation?” Perspectives on Politics 8: 141–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecheler, Sophie K., and de Vreese, Claes H.. 2010. “What A Difference a Day Made?” University of Amsterdam. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Lecheler, Sophie K., and de Vreese, Claes H.. 2011. “Getting Real.” Journal of Communication 61 (5): 959–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S. 2011. “Do Partisan Media Polarize Voters?” University of Pennsylvania. Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Charles, S. Taber. 2000. “Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason, eds. Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Popkin, Samuel L.. New York: Cambridge University Press, 183–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, Julia, and Gollust, Sarah E.. 2010. “Playing Fair.” Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 35: 849–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthes, Jörg. 2008. “Media Frames and Political Judgments.” Studies in Communication Sciences 8: 251–78.Google Scholar
Miller, Joanne M., and Peterson, David A. M.. 2004. “Theoretical and Empirical Implications of Attitude Strength.” Journal of Politics 66: 847–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Dona-Gene. N.d. “It's About Time.” American Journal of Political Science, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Moons, Wesley G., Mackie, Diane M., and Garcia-Marques, Teresa. 2009. “The Impact of Repetition-induced Familiarity on Agreement with Weak and Strong Arguments.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96: 32–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murray, Keith B. 1991. “A Test of Services Marketing Theory.” Journal of Marketing 55: 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C., and Reeves, Byron. 2005. “The New Videomalaise.” American Political Science Review 99 (1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Bryner, Sarah McKinnon, and Carnahan, Dustin. 2011. “Media and Politics.” In Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, eds. Druckman, James N., Green, Donald P., Kuklinski, James H., and Lupia, Arthur. New York: Cambridge University Press, 201–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91: 567–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 1992. The Rational Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John W., Bettman, James R., and Johnson, Eric J.. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-broadcast Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Redlawsk, David P., Civettini, Andrew J. W., and Emmerson, Karen M.. 2010. “The Affective Tipping Point.” Political Psychology 31 (4): 563–93.Google Scholar
Rigby, Elizabeth, Soss, Joe, Booske, Bridget C., Rohan, Angela M. K., and Robert, Stephanie A.. 2009. “Public Responses to Health Disparities.” Social Science Quarterly 90: 1321–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert, Stephanie A., and Booske, Bridget C.. 2011. “U.S. Opinions on Health Determinants and Social Policy as Health Policy.” American Journal of Public Health 101: 1655–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Robert Y. 2011. “Public Opinion and Democracy.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (5): 982–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Stiglitz, Edward H.. 2012. The Reputational Premium. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Theriault, Sean M.. 2004. “The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing.” In Studies in Public Opinion, eds. Saris, Willem E. and Sniderman, Paul M.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 133–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stroud, Natalie Jomini. 2011. Niche News. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tewksbury, David, Jones, Jennifer, Peske, Matthew W., Raymond, Ashlea, and Vig, William. 2000. “The Interaction of News and Advocate Frames.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77 (4): 804–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, Penny S., Bizer, George Y., and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2006. “Exploring the Latent Structure of Strength-Related Attitude Attributes.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Zanna, Mark. P.. San Diego: Academic Press, 1–67.Google Scholar
Winter, Nicholas J. G. 2008. Dangerous Frames. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.