Political Behavior

, 31:537 | Cite as

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

Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Framing Attitude change Persuasion Source cues Competitive framing 

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 111–137. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14, 63–82.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, P. R. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values? Political Psychology, 22, 45–64. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer, P. R. (2003). The shifting foundations of public opinion about Gay Rights. The Journal of Politics, 65, 1208–1220. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer, P. R., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26, 929–948. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00451.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 867–899. doi:10.2307/2111577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. The American Political Science Review, 101, 637–655. doi:10.1017/S0003055407070554.Google Scholar
  11. Cialdini, R. (1984). Influence: Science and practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645. doi:10.2307/2110756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1984). Group identification, values, and the nature of political beliefs. American Politics Research, 12, 151–175.Google Scholar
  15. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Druckman, J. N. (2001a). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? The Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066. doi:10.1111/0022-3816.00100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Druckman, J. N. (2001b). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23, 225–256. doi:10.1023/A:1015006907312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. The American Political Science Review, 98, 671–686. doi:10.1017/S0003055404041413.Google Scholar
  19. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729–745. doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  21. Feldman, S., & Weber, C. R. (2008, July). Understanding social conservatism: Values, threats, and framing issue preferences. Paper Presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology.Google Scholar
  22. French, J. R. R., Jr. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63, 181–194. doi:10.1037/h0046123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. French, J. R. R., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  24. Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137–177.Google Scholar
  26. Gerber, A., & Green, D. P. (1998). Rational learning and partisan attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 794–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2004). Does identity or economic rationality drive public opinion on European integration. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37, 415–420.Google Scholar
  28. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22, 127–156. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible?: How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). New that matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jaccard, J. (2001). Interaction effects in logistic regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  32. Jaccard, J., & Turrisi, R. (2003). Interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  33. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60. doi:10.1177/002200275800200106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78. doi:10.1086/266996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice; how the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Duell.Google Scholar
  37. McClosky, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 136–314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  39. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  40. Mondak, J. J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: The cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 186–212.Google Scholar
  41. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing effects of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583. doi:10.2307/2952075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson, T. E., & Garst, J. (2005). Value-based political messages and persuasion: Relationships among speaker, recipient, and evoked values. Political Psychology, 26, 489–515. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00428.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. The Journal of Politics, 58, 1055–1078. doi:10.2307/2960149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1981). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  45. Shamir, M., & Arian, A. (1999). Collective identity and electoral competition in Israel. The American Political Science Review, 93, 265–277. doi:10.2307/2585395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual process model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology, 29, 1–28.Google Scholar
  47. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. Saris & P. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Tate, K. (2003). Black faces in the mirror: African Americans and their representatives in the US Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Tomz, M., & Sniderman, P. M. (n.d.). Brand names and the organization of mass belief systems. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  50. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Zaller, J. R., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36, 579–616. doi:10.2307/2111583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Government and Justice StudiesAppalachian State UniversityBooneUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political Science, Manship School of Mass CommunicationLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA

Personalised recommendations