Real, but Limited: A Meta-Analytic Assessment of Framing Effects in the Political Domain

Abstract

In the past three decades, scholars have frequently used the concept of framing effects to assess the competence of citizens' political judgments and how susceptible they are to elite influence. Yet prior framing studies have reached mixed conclusions, and few have provided systematic cumulative evidence. This study evaluates the overall efficacy of different types of framing effects in the political domain by systematically meta-analyzing this large and diverse literature. A combined analysis of 138 experiments reveals that when examined across contexts, framing exerts medium-sized effects on citizens' political attitudes and emotions. However, framing effects on behavior are negligible, and small effects are also found in more realistic studies employing frame competition. These findings suggest that although elites can influence citizens by framing issues, their capacity to do so is constrained. Overall, citizens appear to be more competent than some scholars envision them to be.

Influencing climate change attitudes in the United States: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The summary effect was small with few significant moderators of it. The summary effect was smaller than that of a more specific metaanalysis on framing and climate change attitudes (SMD = 0.17; Li & Su, 2018), smaller than that of a meta-analysis on framing and political attitudes (positive frames vs. control: d = 0.24; Amsalem & Zoizner, 2020), and it was much smaller than that of a meta-analysis on interventions targeting pro-environmental behaviors (g = 0.45; Osbaldiston & Schott, 2012).…”

Till austerity do us part? A survey experiment on support for the euro in Italy

“…A large literature has shown that framing effects substantially affect individual-level preferences (Amsalem and Zoizner, 2020; Chong and Druckman, 2007a, 2007b; Lupia, 1994; Slothuus and de Vreese, 2010) as individuals update their preferences based on new information (Zaller, 1992). This literature has highlighted both the effect of equivalence frames, which ‘present the same information in either a positive or negative light’, and emphasis frames, which ‘vary how the information is presented and its content’ (Amsalem and Zoizner, 2020: 4; also see Cacciatore et al., 2016; Chong and Druckman, 2007b). Emphasis frames usually have a stronger effect than equivalence frames because they provide information the receivers may not possess or focus their attention on aspects they may not be attentive to when considering an issue.…”

“…Framing effects on support for the euro Preferences for euro remain or exit are unlikely to be fixed. A large literature has shown that framing effects substantially affect individual-level preferences (Amsalem and Zoizner, 2020;Druckman, 2007a, 2007b;Lupia, 1994;Slothuus and de Vreese, 2010) as individuals update their preferences based on new information (Zaller, 1992). This literature has highlighted both the effect of equivalence frames, which 'present the same information in either a positive or negative light', and emphasis frames, which 'vary how the information is presented and its content' (Amsalem and Zoizner, 2020: 4; also see Cacciatore et al, 2016;Chong and Druckman, 2007b).…”

“… 5 Some authors distinguish further between ‘emphasis framing’ and ‘information persuasion’ (Leeper and Slothuus, 2019). As explained above, we follow Amsalem and Zoizner (2020) and consider framing to include both.…”

Strategic Interdependence and Preferences for Debt Mutualization in the Eurozone

“…47. Amsalem andZoizner 2020;Chong and Druckman 2007b;Chong and Druckman 2007a;Lupia 1994;Slothuus andde Vreese 2010. 48.…”