Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:01:40.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Through a Glass and Darkly: Attitudes Toward International Trade and the Curious Effects of Issue Framing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2006

Michael J. Hiscox
Michael J. Hiscox
Affiliation:
Government Department at Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Are most voters opposed to globalization? A growing body of empirical research, using data from available surveys of public opinion, suggests that antiglobalization sentiments are strong, especially among blue-collar workers. This article reports the findings from a survey experiment aimed at measuring the impact of issue framing on individuals' stated attitudes toward international trade. Respondents given an antitrade introduction to the survey question, linking trade to the possibility of job losses, were 17 percent less likely to favor increasing trade with other countries than were those asked the same question without any introduction at all. Curiously, respondents who were given a protrade introduction to the question, suggesting that trade can lead to lower prices for consumers, were not more likely to express support for trade than those who received no introduction. In addition, the responses of less educated individuals were more sensitive to framing effects than those of highly educated individuals. Without measuring and taking these types of framing effects into account, opinion surveys offer unreliable guides to gauging the extent (and distribution) of opposition to trade among voters. Results from a second experiment reveal that knowledge of the endorsement of trade openness by economists mitigates framing effects and raises overall support for trade liberalization by a substantial degree.I would like to thank Adam Berinsky, Mac Destler, Jeffry Frieden, Judith Goldstein, Jens Hainmueller, Helen Milner, Diana Mutz, Dani Rodrik, Ken Scheve, Mike Tomz, and seminar participants at Harvard, Duke, Columbia, Stanford, Princeton, Berkeley, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Pennsylvania for helpful comments on earlier drafts. My thanks also go to Lisa Martin and two anonymous IO reviewers.

Type
RESEARCH NOTES
Information
International Organization , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 755 - 780
Copyright
© 2006 The IO Foundation and Cambridge University Press

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

Almond, Gabriel. 1950. The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Balistreri, Edward J. 1997. The Performance of the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek Model in Predicting Endogenous Policy Forces at the Individual Level. Canadian Journal of Economics 30 (1):1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1998. Democracy with Attitudes. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August, Boston.
Bauer, Raymond A., Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis Anthony Dexter. 1972. American Business and Public Policy: The Politics of Foreign Trade. 2d ed. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
Beaulieu, Eugene. 2002. Factor or Industry Cleavages in Trade Policy? An Empirical Analysis of the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem. Economics and Politics 14 (2):99–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgoon, Brian, and Michael J. Hiscox. 2003. The Mysterious Case of Female Protectionism: Gender Bias in Attitudes Toward International Trade. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August, Philadelphia.
Converse, P. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics. In Ideology and Discontent, edited by D. Apter, 206–61. New York: Wiley.
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. 1989. What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Destler, I. M. 1995. American Trade Politics. 3d ed. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.
Druckman, James N. 2001a. The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence. Political Behavior 23 (3):225–56.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001b. Using Credible Advice to Overcome Framing Effects. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 17 (1):62–82.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001c. On the Limits of Framing Effects. Journal of Politics 63 (4):1041–66.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Kjersten R. Nelson. 2003. Framing and Deliberation. American Journal of Political Science 47 (4):729–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabel, Matthew J. 1998. Interests and Integration: Market Liberalization, Public Opinion, and European Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Grossman, Gene, and Elhanan Helpman. 1994. Protection for Sale. American Economic Review 84 (5):833–850.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P., and Mark R. Joslyn. 2001. Gun Policy, Opinion, Tragedy, and Blame Attribution. Journal of Politics 63 (2):520–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiscox, Michael J. 2002. International Trade and Political Conflict. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Holsti, Ole R. 1996. Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Irwin, Douglas A. 2002. Free Trade Under Fire. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jacoby, William G. 2000. Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending. American Journal of Political Science 44 (4):750–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Ronald. 1971. A Three-Factor Model in Theory, Trade, and History. In Trade, Balance of Payments, and Growth, edited by Jagdish Bhagwati, Ronald Jones, Robert A. Mundell, and Jaroslav Vanek, 3–21. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk. Econometrica 47 (2):263–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanouse, D., and L. Hanson. 1972. Negativity in Evaluations. In Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, edited by E. Jones et al. Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press.
Kinder, Donald R., and Lynn M. Sanders. 1990. Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks. Social Cognition 8:73–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krugman, Paul A. 1993. What Do Undergrads Need to Know About Trade? American Economic Review 83 (4):23–26.Google Scholar
Levin, Irwin P., Sandra L. Schneider, and Gary J. Gaeth. 1998. All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76:149–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: Macmillan.
Lupia, Arthur, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.
Magee, Stephen. 1980. Three Simple Tests of the Stolper-Samuelson Theorem. In Issues in International Economics, edited by P. Oppenheimer, 138–153. London: Oriel Press.
Manheim, Jarol M. 1991. All of the People All of the Time: Strategic Communication and American Politics. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
Mayda, Anna Maria, and Dani Rodrik. 2005. Why Are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist Than Others? European Economic Review 49 (6):1393–430.Google Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., and Clark Hubbard. 1996. Some of the People Some of the Time: Individual Differences in Acceptance of Political Accounts. In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, edited by Diana C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, and Richard A. Brody. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Milner, Helen V. 1997. Interests, Institutions, and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Mussa, M. 1974. Tariffs and the Distribution of Income. Journal of Political Economy 82:1191–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., and Donald R. Kinder. 1996. Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion. Journal of Politics 58 (4):1055–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Zoe M. Oxley, and Rosalee A. Clawson. 1997. Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects. Political Behavior 19 (3):221–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Rourke, Kevin, and Richard Sinnott. 2002. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences. In Brookings Trade Forum, edited by Susan M Collins and Dani Rodrik, 157–206. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans' Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pew 2003. The Pew Global Attitudes Project: Support for Free Trade. Released November 20. Available at 〈http://people-press.org/pgap/〉. Accessed 15 March 2006.
Popkin, Samuel. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA). Various years. International Trade. Available at 〈http://www.pipa.org/〉. Accessed 15 March 2006.
Pryor, Frederic. 2002. General Discussion. In Brookings Trade Forum, edited by Susan M Collins and Dani Rodrik, 201–3. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Rabin, Matthew. 1998. Psychology and Economics. Journal of Economic Literature 36 (2):11–46.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.
Rogowski, Ronald. 1989. Commerce and Coalitions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Schattschneider, E. E. 1935. Politics, Pressures, and the Tariff. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Matthew J. Slaughter. 2001. Globalization and the Perceptions of American Workers. Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics.
Schneider, William. 1985. Protectionist Push Is Coming from the Top. National Journal 27 April, 932.
Schuman, H., and S. Presser. 1981. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments in Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press.
Seligson, Mitchell A. 1999. Popular Support for Regional Economic Integration in Latin America. Journal of Latin American Studies 31 (1):129–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skowronski, J., and D. Carlston. 1989. Negativity and Extremity Biases in Impression Formation. Psychological Bulletin 105 (1):131–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M. 2000. Taking Sides: A Fixed Choice Theory of Political Reasoning. In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, edited by Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin, 67–84. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sniderman, Paul M., and Sean M. Theriault. 1999. The Dynamics of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April, Chicago.
Stanovich, Keith E., and Richard F. West. 1998. Individual Differences in Framing and Conjunction Effects. Thinking and Reasoning 4 (4):289–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stolper, W., and P. Samuelson. 1941. Protection and Real Wages. Review of Economic Studies 9 (1):58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.