Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-dxfhg Total loading time: 0.555 Render date: 2021-03-06T11:58:43.320Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2015

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
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.

Footnotes

*

Michael M. Bechtel, SNSF Research Professor, Department of Political Science, University of St. Gallen, Rosenbergstr. 51, CH-9000 St.Gallen (mbechtel.mail@gmail.com). Jens Hainmueller, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science and Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, 616 Serra Street, Stanford, 94305 (jhain@stanford.edu). 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 (d.hangartner@lse.ac.uk). 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 (helbling@wzb.eu). 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):215233.CrossRefGoogle 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):901919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Kolodny, Robin. 2009. ‘Educating the Least Informed: Group Endorsements in a Grassroots Campaign’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):755770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabas, Jason, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2010. ‘Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?American Political Science Review 104:226242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2000. ‘Partisanship and Voting Behavior 1952-1996’. American Journal of Political Science 44(1):3550.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):7891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiricos, Ted, Hogan, Michael, and Gertz, Marc. 1997. ‘Racial Composition of the Neighborhood and Fear of Crime’. Criminology 35(1):107129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 1996. Creating Common Frames of Reference on Political Issues. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 195224.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007a. Framing Public Opinion in Competetive Democracies’. American Political Science Review 101(4):637655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2007b. Framing Theory’. Annual Review of Political Science 10:103126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. 2010. ‘Dynamic Public Opinion: Communciation Effects Over Time’. American Political Science Review 104(4):663680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citrin, Jack, and Sides, John. 2008. ‘Immigration and the Imagined Community in Europe and the United States’. Political Studies 56(1):3356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N. 2001a. The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence’. Political Behavior 23(3):225256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N.. 2001b. On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?Journal of Politics 63(4):10411066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Lupia, Arthur. 2000. ‘Preference Formation’. Annual Review of Political Science 3(1):124.CrossRefGoogle 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):136148.CrossRefGoogle 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):875896.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):537558.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2011. ‘Policy Consequences of Direct Legislation Theory, Empirical Models and Evidence’. Quality and Quantity 45(3):559578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerit, Jerit, and Barabas, Jason. 2012. ‘Partisan Perceptual Bias and the Information Environment’. Journal of Politics 74(3):672684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kriesi, Hanspeter. 2002. ‘Individual Opinion Formation in a Direct Democratic Campaign’. British Journal of Political Science 32(1):171185.CrossRefGoogle 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):719746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lecheler, Sophie, de Vreese, Claed H., and Slothuus, Rune. 2009. ‘Issue Importance as a Moderator of Framing Effects’. Communication Research 36(3):400425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. ‘Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections’. American Political Science Review 88(1):6376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Menning, Jesse O.. 2009. ‘When Can Politicians Scare Citizens Into Supporting Bad Policies?American Journal of Political Science 53(1):90106.CrossRefGoogle 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):81108.CrossRefGoogle 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):332347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2011a. Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence’. Journal of Politics 73(4):11651177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2011b. Polarizing Cues’. American Journal of Political Science 56(1):5266.CrossRefGoogle 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):7591.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):532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selb, Peter, Kriesi, Hanspeter, Hänggli, Regula, and Marr, Mirko. 2009. ‘Partisan Choices in a Direct-Democratic Campaign’. European Political Science Review 1(1):155172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slothuus, Rune. 2010. ‘When Can Political Parties Lead Public Opinion? Evidence from a Natural Experiment’. Political Communication 27(2):158177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slothuus, Rune, and de Vreese, Claes H.. 2010. ‘Political Parties, Motivated Reasoning, and Issue Framing Effects’. American Journal of Political Science 72(3):630645.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. ‘Motivated Scepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs’. American Journal of Political Science 50(3):755769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, Herbert F. 1980. ‘A Multidimensional Conceptualization of Party Identification’. Political Behavior 2(1):3360.CrossRefGoogle 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):392412.Google Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bechtel supplementary material

Appendices A and B

PDF 173 KB

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 45
Total number of PDF views: 504 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 6th March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

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

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

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

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

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

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *