Values, Political Knowledge, and Public Opinion about Gay Rights

Abstract

This study examines how political knowledge has shaped the effects of two values-egalitarianism and traditional morality-on American public opinion about gay rights and whether media framing accounts for the role that knowledge has played. An analysis of mass media coverage during the peak years of the debate over gay rights (1990-97) showed that the implications of moral traditionalism were virtually undisputed in this debate, whereas both sides laid claim to egalitarianism. Analysis of American National Election Studies survey data demonstrated that in 1992 and 1996 the impact of moral traditionalism on public opinion grew stronger as political knowledge increased, whereas the impact of egalitarianism did not vary across levels of knowledge. Thus, the results suggest that the extent to which political knowledge moderates a value's effect on opinion can depend on whether public debate provides an undisputed frame or competing frames for that value. One could, in turn, frame the implications of this finding for democratic politics in more than one way.

Framing Public Discussion of Gay Civil Unions

“…A second line of study emphasizes a psychological conception of framing and focuses on individual patterns of information processing and opinion formation. This type of research tends to be experimental in nature, focusing on some particular aspect of news coverage (for instance, the adoption of a "human interest" frame or a "strategy" frame in reporting the news) and tracing the influence of alternatively framed news stories on individual cognitions and attitudes (e.g., Brewer 2002;Jamieson 1996, 1997;Druckman 2001;Iyengar 1987Iyengar , 1991Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley 1997;Price, Tewksbury, and Powers 1997. ) Experiments have commonly manipulated frames through experimentally prepared news stories or through survey questions worded to highlight certain issue frames (e.g., Jacoby 2000; Kinder and Sanders 1990).…”

“…A few studies have begun to explore the limits of framing effects, focusing on the ways people can spontaneously activate considerations outside of a frame imposed by reporting (Price, Tewksbury, and Powers 1997), or make use of source credibility judgments to reject frames (Druckman 2001). Some studies have examined responses to mixed-message sets, including opposing frames (Brewer 2002;Druckman and Nelson 2002). But the unit of analysis invariably remains the individual, and the process of interest remains a cognitive response to a frame manipulation rather than the social construction of meaning.…”

“…As with many gay rights issues, media discourse over the legal standing of gay partnerships has been framed largely in terms of two core values: morality and equality (Brewer, 2002(Brewer, , 2003Bull and Gallagher 2001;Rimmerman, Wald, and Wilcox 2000). Concerns over "equal rights" are commonly invoked by gay activists.…”

“…Although there are clear pro/con orientations implicit in both frames, with the former lending support and the latter opposition, we would do well to note that a "frame typically implies a range of positions, rather than any single one, allowing for a degree of controversy among those who share a common frame" (Gamson and Modigliani 1989, p. 3). Brewer (2002), for instance, found from an analysis of open-ended survey questions that respondents invoked both morality and equality concerns when asked about gay rights, even after exposure to news stories intended to frame their responses one way or the other. Thus, we would not expect uniform positive or negative responses to the proposition that gay partnerships should be given legal standing based solely on the adoption of one or the other frame; instead, we would expect to find general tendencies of groups to argue, predominantly pro or con, in keeping with the general frame.…”

“…Our results here, which focus on what Gamson (1992, p. 180) calls "effects in use," suggest much more moderate influences-filtered as they are through active discussion and group negotiation. Some researchers (Brewer 2002(Brewer , 2003Druckman and Nelson 2003) have recently drawn attention to the possibility that exposure to competing frames, interpersonal conversation, or both can substantially weaken framing effects. Our data offers convincing evidence supportive of this line of theorizing.…”