Framing and Public Opinion
Andrews, Amelia C., Rosalee A. Clawson, Benjamin M. Gramig, and Leigh Raymond. 2016. "Finding the Right Value: Framing Effects on Domain Experts." Political Psychology 10: 1-18.
By defining the essence of a policy problem, an issue frame shapes how individuals think about a political issue. In this research, we investigate framing effects among domain experts, an understudied yet increasingly important set of individuals in the policymaking process. Because domain experts have extensive and highly structured knowledge on a particular topic, they are likely to actively process issue frames to which they are exposed. Consequently, we hypothesize that frames consistent with experts' values will be particularly influential, whereas frames inconsistent with their values will lead to contrast effects. We test our hypotheses on a unique set of domain experts by examining professional farmers' attitudes toward no-till agriculture. Using an experimental design, we find evidence that environmental values interact with frames to influence farmers' interest in no-till, especially when farmers are exposed to a novel frame.
By defining the essence of a policy problem, an issue frame shapes how individuals think about a political issue. In this research, we investigate framing effects among domain experts, an understudied yet increasingly important set of individuals in the policymaking process. Because domain experts have extensive and highly structured knowledge on a particular topic, they are likely to actively process issue frames to which they are exposed. Consequently, we hypothesize that frames consistent with experts' values will be particularly influential, whereas frames inconsistent with their values will lead to contrast effects. We test our hypotheses on a unique set of domain experts by examining professional farmers' attitudes toward no-till agriculture. Using an experimental design, we find evidence that environmental values interact with frames to influence farmers' interest in no-till, especially when farmers are exposed to a novel frame.
Wiest, Sara L., Leigh Raymond, and Rosalee A. Clawson. 2015. "Framing, Partisan Predispositions, and Public Opinion on Climate Change." Global Environmental Change 31: 187-198.
We investigate how different framing of climate change impacts affects public opinion on the issue. Using an experimental design, we examine the influence of frames presenting local versus global climate impacts and frames discussing projected losses versus those also discussing possible benefits of climate change, on individual perceptions of the severity of climate change, behavioral intentions to address climate change, and attitudes toward climate change policies. The results indicate that our impact frames influence public opinion, although the effects sometimes differ based on individuals’ partisan predispositions. Specifically, our study shows that local frames increase perceptions of the severity of the problem and support for local (sub-national) policy action for all subjects, as well as behavioral intentions for subjects who are Independents or Republicans. Presenting subjects with information on the potential benefits and losses of climate change weakens perceptions of problem severity for all subjects at the local and national level, decreases support for local policy action among Democrats, and has no effect on behavioral intentions. Overall, these results are consistent with policy research suggesting that perceptions of local vulnerability are an important factor in the adoption of sub-national climate change policies. The findings also imply that the effectiveness of particular climate change impact frames will vary from one state to another depending on a state's partisan leanings.
We investigate how different framing of climate change impacts affects public opinion on the issue. Using an experimental design, we examine the influence of frames presenting local versus global climate impacts and frames discussing projected losses versus those also discussing possible benefits of climate change, on individual perceptions of the severity of climate change, behavioral intentions to address climate change, and attitudes toward climate change policies. The results indicate that our impact frames influence public opinion, although the effects sometimes differ based on individuals’ partisan predispositions. Specifically, our study shows that local frames increase perceptions of the severity of the problem and support for local (sub-national) policy action for all subjects, as well as behavioral intentions for subjects who are Independents or Republicans. Presenting subjects with information on the potential benefits and losses of climate change weakens perceptions of problem severity for all subjects at the local and national level, decreases support for local policy action among Democrats, and has no effect on behavioral intentions. Overall, these results are consistent with policy research suggesting that perceptions of local vulnerability are an important factor in the adoption of sub-national climate change policies. The findings also imply that the effectiveness of particular climate change impact frames will vary from one state to another depending on a state's partisan leanings.
Andrews, Amelia, Rosalee A. Clawson, Benjamin M. Gramig, and Leigh Raymond. 2013. “Why Do Farmers Adopt Conservation Tillage? An Experimental Investigation of Framing Effects.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68(6): 501-511.
In this paper, framing effects are investigated in a new context: farmer decision making about conservation tillage practices. Primary hypotheses include the following: (1) frames (i.e., different arguments about or conceptions of an issue) portraying conservation tillage as “profitable” will generate more interest in the tillage technique among farmers than a control frame presenting only basic information; (2) frames discussing potential payments for “environmental benefits” will generate more positive attitudes than frames discussing payment for “storing carbon (C)” to limit climate change; and (3) framing effects will vary based on subjects' prior beliefs and experiences. These hypotheses were tested using a survey-based experiment administered to a national sample of row-crop farmers. Contrary to expectations, the profit frame and both payment frames had no effect on farmers' interest in conservation tillage across our entire sample. Consistent with the third hypothesis, however, a negative framing effect was found for the profit frame on nonadopters who reported no use of no-till in the past two years. These results support the argument regarding the importance of prior beliefs in reactions to frames. They also suggest the possibility of modest financial payments “crowding out” intrinsic motivations for contributions to public goods such as soil conservation. From a policy perspective, these findings also suggest the relative inefficacy of offers of modest conservation payments or profitability frames in promoting no-till farming, especially among nonadopters, and the need to find alternative frames that avoid reinforcing an argument that nonadopters appear to have already considered and rejected.
In this paper, framing effects are investigated in a new context: farmer decision making about conservation tillage practices. Primary hypotheses include the following: (1) frames (i.e., different arguments about or conceptions of an issue) portraying conservation tillage as “profitable” will generate more interest in the tillage technique among farmers than a control frame presenting only basic information; (2) frames discussing potential payments for “environmental benefits” will generate more positive attitudes than frames discussing payment for “storing carbon (C)” to limit climate change; and (3) framing effects will vary based on subjects' prior beliefs and experiences. These hypotheses were tested using a survey-based experiment administered to a national sample of row-crop farmers. Contrary to expectations, the profit frame and both payment frames had no effect on farmers' interest in conservation tillage across our entire sample. Consistent with the third hypothesis, however, a negative framing effect was found for the profit frame on nonadopters who reported no use of no-till in the past two years. These results support the argument regarding the importance of prior beliefs in reactions to frames. They also suggest the possibility of modest financial payments “crowding out” intrinsic motivations for contributions to public goods such as soil conservation. From a policy perspective, these findings also suggest the relative inefficacy of offers of modest conservation payments or profitability frames in promoting no-till farming, especially among nonadopters, and the need to find alternative frames that avoid reinforcing an argument that nonadopters appear to have already considered and rejected.
Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and its Effect on Tolerance." American Political Science Review 91:567-584.
Framing is the process by which a communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy. Two experiments examined the effect of news frames on tolerance for the Ku Klux Klan. The first presented research participants with one of two local news stories about a Klan rally that varied by frame: One framed the rally as a free speech issue, and the other framed it as a disruption of public order. Participants who viewed the free speech story expressed more tolerance for the Klan than participants who watched the public order story. Additional data indicate that frames affect tolerance by altering the perceived importance of public order values. The relative accessibility of free speech and public order concepts did not respond to framing. A second experiment used a simulated electronic news service to present different frames and replicated these findings.
Framing is the process by which a communication source, such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy. Two experiments examined the effect of news frames on tolerance for the Ku Klux Klan. The first presented research participants with one of two local news stories about a Klan rally that varied by frame: One framed the rally as a free speech issue, and the other framed it as a disruption of public order. Participants who viewed the free speech story expressed more tolerance for the Klan than participants who watched the public order story. Additional data indicate that frames affect tolerance by altering the perceived importance of public order values. The relative accessibility of free speech and public order concepts did not respond to framing. A second experiment used a simulated electronic news service to present different frames and replicated these findings.
Nelson, Thomas E., Zoe M. Oxley, and Rosalee A. Clawson. 1997. "Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects." Political Behavior 19:221-246.
Framing is the process by which a communication source constructs and defines a social or political issue for its audience. While many observers of political communication and the mass media have discussed framing, few have explicitly described how framing affects public opinion. In this paper we offer a theory of framing effects, with a specific focus on the psychological mechanisms by which framing influences political attitudes. We discuss important conceptual differences between framing and traditional theories of persuasion that focus on belief change. We outline a set of hypotheses about the interaction between framing and audience sophistication, and test these in an experiment. The results support our argument that framing is not merely persuasion, as it is traditionally conceived. We close by reflecting on the various routes by which political communications can influence attitudes.
Framing is the process by which a communication source constructs and defines a social or political issue for its audience. While many observers of political communication and the mass media have discussed framing, few have explicitly described how framing affects public opinion. In this paper we offer a theory of framing effects, with a specific focus on the psychological mechanisms by which framing influences political attitudes. We discuss important conceptual differences between framing and traditional theories of persuasion that focus on belief change. We outline a set of hypotheses about the interaction between framing and audience sophistication, and test these in an experiment. The results support our argument that framing is not merely persuasion, as it is traditionally conceived. We close by reflecting on the various routes by which political communications can influence attitudes.