Who Said What? The Effects of Source Cues in Issue Frames

Abstract

Drawing on previous research concerning the role that source cues play in political information processing, we examine whether an ideological identity match between the source of a framed message and the respondent moderates framing effects. We test our hypotheses in two experiments concerning attitudes toward a proposed rally by the Ku Klux Klan. In Experiment 1 (N = 274), we test our hypothesis in a simple issue framing experiment. We find that framing effects occur for strong identifiers only when there is a match between the ideology of the speaker and respondent. In Experiment 2 (N = 259), we examine whether matched frames resonate equally well when individuals are simultaneously exposed to competing frames. The results from this experiment provide mixed support for our hypotheses. The results from our studies suggest that identity matching is an important factor to consider in future framing research. WHO SAID WHAT? 3 Who Said What? The Effects of Source Cues in Issue FramesOver the past two decades, public opinion scholars have accumulated strong evidence of framing effects for a wide range of social and political issues (Gamson, 1992; Gamson and Mogdigliani, 1987;Iyengar, 1991;Iyengar and Kinder, 1987;Kinder and Sanders, 1996;Nelson and Kinder, 1996;Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley, 1997;Schuman and Presser, 1981). Consistent evidence has demonstrated that subtle differences in the presentation of information can influence how people form and change their political attitudes (for an excellent summary, see Druckman, 2004, as well as Chong and Druckman, 2007a). This research has led some scholars to revisit models of information processing and conclude that citizens do not possess concrete attitudes, per se; rather, they construct opinions based upon whatever information is accessible at the time (Zaller and Feldman, 1992). This "top-of-the-head" approach suggests that characteristics of the sender, receiver, and message interact to produce attitude formation and change (Zaller, 1992). In this paper, we extend this line of inquiry by considering the role of social influence in political communication.Specifically, we explore whether ideological identities of the message source and recipient affect susceptibility to issue frames. Theory and HypothesesScholars have traditionally defined framing as the process by which potentially relevant considerations are made available, which, in turn, influence how an individual thinks about an issue (Nelson et al., 1997). A framing effect occurs when the considerations highlighted in a frame move people to endorse or oppose a specific policy (Gamson, 1992). A frame is said to be effective when it shifts an opinion distribution in a particular direction. For example, individuals exposed to a freedom of speech frame are more likely to allow a disliked group to demonstrate in public, while those that received a public safety and order frame are quick to restrict the groups' first-amendment

When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions

“…If we had manipulated the sources of the competing claims rather than the source of the news article, our results would likely have been different. Finally, it is possible that the lack of significant source effects is a more general property of two-sided message environments- Hartman and Weber (2009) find that the source framing effects observed in a one-sided message environment were no longer significant in a two-sided message environment. …”

“…5 For instance, in a dynamic process tracing experiment, Redlawsk (2002) finds that subjects who were not given 4 In the experimental design sections below, we provide details about specific corrections and why one ideological group is likely to resist them while the other is likely to be more welcoming. 5 Backfire effects have also been observed as a result of source partisanship mismatches (Kriner and Howell n.d;Hartman and Weber 2009) or contrast effects in frame strength (Chong and Druckman 2007). The increase in support for the death penalty observed in Peffley and Hurwitz (2007) when whites are told that the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory faction against blacks could also be interpreted as a backfire effect.…”

“…By contrast, for non-conservatives, agreement went from 22% to 13% (n = 97). 22 More generally, Hartman and Weber (2009) and Baum and Groeling (2009) find that messages from sources that match a subject's ideological or partisan affiliation are more persuasive than those that do not.…”

Recategorizing political frames: a systematic review of metaphorical framing in experiments on political communication

“…In this stage, studies were included instead of publications, because publications can contain multiple relevant studies (examples of papers reporting on more than one experiment are Chong & Druckman, 2007a;Hartman & Weber, 2009). This resulted in 319 relevant studies.…”

“…De Vreese, 2004), 'equality frame' (e.g. Joslyn & Haider-Markel, 2002) and the 'public order frame' (Hartman & Weber, 2009), because the basic meaning of the words economic, consequences, equality, public, and order are the same as their contextual meaning in the studies.…”