Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-21T23:12:10.804Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reality Bites: The Limits of Framing Effects for Salient and Contested Policy Issues*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2015

Michael M. Bechtel ,
Jens Hainmueller ,
Dominik Hangartner  and
Marc Helbling
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A large literature argues that public opinion is vulnerable to various types of framing and cue effects. However, we lack evidence on whether existing findings, which are typically based on lab experiments involving low-salience issues, travel to salient and contentious political issues in real-world voting situations. We examine the relative importance of issue frames, partisan cues, and their interaction for opinion formation using a survey experiment conducted around a highly politicized referendum on immigration policy in Switzerland. We find that voters responded to frames and cues, regardless of their direction, by increasing support for the position that is in line with their pre-existing partisan attachment. This reinforcement effect was most visible among low knowledgeable voters that identified with the party that owned the issue. These results support some of the previous findings in the political communication literature, but at the same time also point toward possible limits to framing effects in the context of salient and contested policy issues.

Type
Research Note
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 3 , Supplement 3 , September 2015 , pp. 683 - 695
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Michael M. Bechtel, SNSF Research Professor, Department of Political Science, University of St. Gallen, Rosenbergstr. 51, CH-9000 St.Gallen ([email protected]). Jens Hainmueller, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 616 Serra Street, Stanford, 94305 ([email protected]). Dominik Hangartner, Associate Professor, Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE and Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Affolternstr. 56, CH-8050 Zurich ([email protected]). Marc Helbling. full professor in political science at the University of Bamberg and senior resarcher at WZB Berlin Social Science Center Reichpietschufer 50, D-10785 Berlin ([email protected]). The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support by the WZB Berlin Social Research Center. Michael M. Bechtel gratefully acknowledges support by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant #PP00P1-139035). The authors thank Judith Spirig for helpful comments. The usual disclaimer applies. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2014.39.

References

Aaroe, Lene. 2012. ‘When Citizens Go Against Elite Directions: Partisan Cues and Contrast Effects on Citizens’ Attitudes’. Party Politics 18(2):215–233.Google Scholar
Alba, Richard D., Rumbaut, Ruben G., and Marotz, Karen. 2005. ‘A Distorted Nation: Perceptions of Racial/Ethnic Group Sizes and Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Other Minorities’. Social Forces 84(2):901–919.Google Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Kolodny, Robin. 2009. ‘Educating the Least Informed: Group Endorsements in a Grassroots Campaign’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):755–770.Google Scholar
Barabas, Jason, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2010. ‘Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?’ American Political Science Review 104:226–242.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2000. ‘Partisanship and Voting Behavior 1952-1996’. American Journal of Political Science 44(1):35–50.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. ‘The Two Faces of Issue Voting’. American Political Science Review 74(1):78–91.Google Scholar
Chiricos, Ted, Hogan, Michael, and Gertz, Marc. 1997. ‘Racial Composition of the Neighborhood and Fear of Crime’. Criminology 35(1):107–129.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 1996. Creating Common Frames of Reference on Political Issues. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 195–224.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007a. Framing Public Opinion in Competetive Democracies’. American Political Science Review 101(4):637–655.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007b. Framing Theory’. Annual Review of Political Science 10:103–126.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2010. ‘Dynamic Public Opinion: Communciation Effects Over Time’. American Political Science Review 104(4):663–680.Google Scholar
Citrin, Jack, and Sides, John. 2008. ‘Immigration and the Imagined Community in Europe and the United States’. Political Studies 56(1):33–56.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N. 2001a. The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence’. Political Behavior 23(3):225–256.Google Scholar
Druckman, J. N.. 2001b. On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?’ Journal of Politics 63(4):1041–1066.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur. 2000. ‘Preference Formation’. Annual Review of Political Science 3(1):1–24.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Hennessy, Cari L., Charles, Kristi St., and Webber, Jonathan. 2010. ‘Competing Rhetoric Over Time: Frames Versus Cues’. Journal of Politics 72(1):136–148.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Leeper, Thomas J.. 2012. ‘Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and its Effects’. American Journal of Political Science 56(4):875–896.Google Scholar
Hartman, Todd K., and Weber, Christopher R.. 2009. ‘Who Said What? The Effects of Sources Cues in Issue Frames’. Political Behavior 31(4):537–558.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2011. ‘Policy Consequences of Direct Legislation Theory, Empirical Models and Evidence’. Quality and Quantity 45(3):559–578.Google Scholar
Jerit, Jerit, and Barabas, Jason. 2012. ‘Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment’. Journal of Politics 74(3):672–684.Google Scholar
Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2002. ‘Individual Opinion Formation in a Direct Democratic Campaign’. British Journal of Political Science 32(1):171–185.Google Scholar
Lebo, Matthew J., and Cassino, Daniel. 2007. ‘The Aggregated Consequences of Motivated Reasoning and the Dynamics of Partisan Presidential Approval’. Political Psychology 28(6):719–746.Google Scholar
Lecheler, Sophie, de Vreese, Claed H., and Slothuus, Rune. 2009. ‘Issue Importance as a Moderator of Framing Effects’. Communication Research 36(3):400–425.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. ‘Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections’. American Political Science Review 88(1):63–76.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Menning, Jesse O.. 2009. ‘When Can Politicians Scare Citizens Into Supporting Bad Policies?’ American Journal of Political Science 53(1):90–106.Google Scholar
McLaren, Lauren M. 2001. ‘Immigration and the New Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion in the European Union: The Effect of Elites and the EU on Individual-Level Opinions Regarding European and Non-European Immigrants’. European Journal of Political Research 39(1):81–108.Google Scholar
Milic, Thomas, and Vatter, Adrian. 2010. VOX Analysen der eidgenössischen Abstimmungen vom 28. November 2010. Bern: VOX Analysen.Google Scholar
Nadeau, Richard, Niemi, Richard G., and Levine, Jeffrey. 1993. ‘Innumeracy About Minority Populations’. Public Opinion Quarterly 57(3):332–347.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2011a. Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence’. Journal of Politics 73(4):1165–1177.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2011b. Polarizing Cues’. American Journal of Political Science 56(1):52–66.Google Scholar
Riker, William H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schläpfer, Felix. 2011. ‘Access to Party Positions and Preference Formation: A Field Experiment’. Swiss Political Science Review 17(1):75–91.Google Scholar
Schuck, Andreas R., and de Vreese, Claes H.. 2006. ‘Between Risk and Opportunity: News Framing and its Effects on Public Support for EU Enlargement’. European Journal of Communication 21(1):5–32.Google Scholar
Selb, Peter, Kriesi, Hanspeter, Hänggli, Regula, and Marr, Mirko. 2009. ‘Partisan Choices in a Direct-Democratic Campaign’. European Political Science Review 1(1):155–172.Google Scholar
Slothuus, Rune. 2010. ‘When Can Political Parties Lead Public Opinion? Evidence from a Natural Experiment’. Political Communication 27(2):158–177.Google Scholar
Slothuus, Rune, and de Vreese, Claes H.. 2010. ‘Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects’. American Journal of Political Science 72(3):630–645.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. ‘Motivated Scepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs’. American Journal of Political Science 50(3):755–769.Google Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1980. ‘A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Party Identification’. Political Behavior 2(1):33–60.Google Scholar
Wong, Cara J. 2007. ‘“Little” and “Big” Pictures in Our Heads: Race, Local Context, and Innumeracy About Racial Groups in the United States’. Public Opinion Quarterly 71(3):392–412.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bechtel supplementary material

Appendices A and B

Download Bechtel supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 172.6 KB