Political Behavior

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 375–394 | Cite as

Values, Frames, and Persuasion in Presidential Nomination Campaigns

This paper examines the persuasability of rhetorical value framing within a presidential nominating campaign, in an effort to understand how values and value-laden language may provide useful signals in electoral contexts where partisan cues are absent. Relying on a survey-experiment conducted during the 2000 Republican nomination campaign, I evaluate the relative persuasiveness of arguments framed in either individualistic or egalitarian terms. Drawing upon an “active-receiver” model of framing effects, I posit that Republican primary voters respond more readily to candidates when they use individualistic frames than when they use egalitarian frames, because individualism is a more “chronically accessible” value construct for Republicans. Furthermore, I hypothesize that this dynamic is particularly pronounced among more educated respondents, who have been trained to recognize abstract value cues and automatically apply them to applied political contexts. The experimental findings support these hypotheses.

Keywords

values framing persuasion primaries nominations partisanship rhetoric communication campaigns survey experiments education 

References

  1. Abramowitz, , Alan, , Saunders, , Kyle,  L. 1998Ideological realignment in the U.S. electorateJournal of Politics60634652Google Scholar
  2. Abramson, , Paul, , Aldrich, , John, , Paolino, , Phil, , David, , Rohde,  1992‘Sophisticated Voting’ in the 1988 presidential primariesAmerican Political Science Review865569Google Scholar
  3. Barker David, C. 2002Rushed to Judgment: Talk Radio, Persuasion, and American Political BehaviorColumbia University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, David C., and Lawrence, Adam B. (2006) (forthcoming). Media favoritism and presidential nominations: reviving the direct effects model. Political Communication Google Scholar
  5. Bartels, , Larry,  1988The Dynamics of Presidential PrimariesPrinceton University PressPrinceton, NJGoogle Scholar
  6. Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William R., and Golder, Matt. (2002). Understanding interaction models: what we thought we knew but obviously didn’t. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Politics, New York UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer, , Paul, R. 2001Value words and lizard brains: do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values?Political Psychology224564Google Scholar
  8. Chaiken, , Shelly,  1980Heuristic versus systematic information processing in the use of source versus message cues in persuasionJournal of Personality and Social Psychology39752766Google Scholar
  9. Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., Eagly, A.H. 1989

    Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context

    Uleman, J.S.Bargh, J.A. eds. Unintended ThoughtGuilford PressNew York212252
    Google Scholar
  10. Chong, , Dennis,  1996

    Creating common frames of reference on political issues

    Mutz Diana, C.Paul Sniderman, M.Brody Richard, A. eds. Political persuasion and attitude changeUniversity of Michigan PressAnn Arbor, MI195224
    Google Scholar
  11. Cobb, , Michael, D., Kuklinski, , James, H. 1997Changing minds: political arguments and political persuasionAmerican Journal of Political Science4188121Google Scholar
  12. Delli, , Carpini, , Michael, X., Keeter, , Scott,  1993Measuring political knowledge: putting first things firstAmerican Journal of Political Science2895126Google Scholar
  13. Druckman, , James,  2001On the limits of framing effects: who can frame?Journal of Politics6310411067CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fazio, R. 1986

    How do attitudes guide behavior?

    Sorrentino, R.Higgins, E. eds. Handbook of motivation and cognition: foundations of social behaviorGuilford PressNew York
    Google Scholar
  15. Feldman, , Stanley,  1988Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of core beliefs and valuesAmerican Journal of Political Science32416440Google Scholar
  16. Feldman, Stanley. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In: Sears, David O., Huddy Leonie, and Jervis Robert (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  17. Feldman, S, Steenbergen, Marco R. 2001The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfareAmerican Journal of Political Science45658677Google Scholar
  18. Finkel, Steven 1993Reexamining the minimal effects model in recent presidential campaignsJournal of Politics55121Google Scholar
  19. Gelman, Andrew, King, Gary 1993Why are American presidential election campaign polls so variable when votes are so predictable?British Journal of Political Science2340951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gomez, Brad T., Wilson, J. Matthew 2001Political sophistication and economic voting in the American electorate: a theory of heterogeneous attributionAmerican Journal of Political Science.45899914Google Scholar
  21. Goren, Paul 2000Political expertise and principled political thoughtPolitical Research Quarterly53117136Google Scholar
  22. Hochschild, Jennifer 1981What’s Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive JusticeHarvard University PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Holbrook, Thomas M 1996Do Campaigns Matter?SageThousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  24. Hurwitz, Jon, Peffley, Mark 1987How are foreign policy attitudes structured?: a hierarchical modelAmerican Political Science Review8110991120Google Scholar
  25. Iyengar, Shanto 1991Is anyone responsible?University of Chicago PressChicagoGoogle Scholar
  26. Iyengar, Shanto, Kinder, Donald R. 1987News that MattersUniversity of Chicago PressChicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  27. Jaccard, James, Turrisi, Robert, and Wan, Choi K. (1990). Interaction Effects in Multiple Regression (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences #72). Newbury Park: Sage. Google Scholar
  28. Jacoby, William G. 2000Issue framing and public opinion on government spendingAmerican Journal of Political Science4475067Google Scholar
  29. Katz, I., Hass, R. G. 1988Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structuresJournal of Personality and Social Psychology55892905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kerlinger, F. N. 1984Liberalism and conservatism: The nature and structure of social attitudesErlbaumHillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  31. Kluckhohn, C. 1951

    Values and value–orientations in the theory of action

    Parsons, T.Shils, E. eds. Toward a general theory of actionHarvard University PressCambridge, MA
    Google Scholar
  32. Krosnick, Jon A., Kinder, Donald R. 1990Altering the foundations of support for the president through primingAmerican Political Science Review84497512Google Scholar
  33. Lakoff, George 2002Moral politicsUniversity of Chicago PressChicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  34. Lau, Richard R. 1989Construct accessibility and electoral choicePolitical Behavior11532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lau, Richard R., Sigelman, Lee, Heldman, Caroline, Babbitt, Paul 1999The effects of negative political advertisements: a meta–analytic assessmentAmerican Political Science Review93851875Google Scholar
  36. Layman, Geoffrey 2001The Great Divide: Religious and Cultural Conflict in American Party PoliticsColumbia University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Long Scott, J. 1997Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent VariablesSage PublicationsThousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  38. Luskin, Robert 1987Measuring political sophisticationAmerican Journal of Political Science31856899Google Scholar
  39. McClosky, H., Zaller, J. 1984The American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward Capitalism and DemocracyHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller, Joanne M., Krosnick, Jon A. 1996

    News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: a program of research on the priming hypothesis

    Diana, MutzSniderman, Paul M.Brody, Richard A. eds. Political persuasion and attitude changeUniversity of Michigan PressAnn Arbor, MI
    Google Scholar
  41. Mutz, Diana C.Sniderman, Paul M.Brody, Richard A. eds. 1996Political Persuasion and Attitude ChangeUniversity of Michigan PressAnn Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  42. Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., Oxley, Zoe M. 1997Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on toleranceAmerican Political Science Review91567584Google Scholar
  43. Norpoth, Helmut, Lodge, Miltion 1985The difference between attitudes and nonattitudes in the mass public: just measurements?American Journal of Political Science29291307Google Scholar
  44. Paolino, Philip, Shaw, Daron R. 2001Lifting the hood on the straight-talk express: examining the McCain phenomenonAmerican Politics Research29483506Google Scholar
  45. Popkin, Samuel L. 1991The Reasoning VoterUniversity of Chicago PressChicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  46. Rasinski, K.A. 1987What’s fair is fair—or is it? Value differences underlying public views about social justiceJournal of Personality and Social Psychology5320111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rokeach, Milton. 1973The Nature of Human ValuesFree PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Sears, David O. 1986College sophomores in the laboratory: influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human natureJournal of Personality and Social Psychology51515530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shaw, Daron 1999A study of presidential campaign event effects from 1952 to 1992Journal of Politics61387423Google Scholar
  50. Sniderman, Paul M. 1993

    The new look in public opinion research

    Ada, Finifter eds. Political Science: The State of The Discipline IIAmerican Political Science AssociationWashington, D.C
    Google Scholar
  51. Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., Tetlock, Paul E. 1991Reasoning and choice: explorations in political psychologyCambridge University PressCambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  52. Stone, Walter, Rapoport, Ronald 1994Candidate perception among nomination activists: A new look at the moderation hypothesisJournal of Politics56103452Google Scholar
  53. Stone, Walter, Rapoport, Ronald, Atkeson, Lonna. 1995A simulation model of presidential nomination choiceAmerican Journal of Political Science3913561Google Scholar
  54. Tetlock, Philip E. 1986A value pluralism model of ideological reasoningJournal of Personality and Social Psychology50819827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Verba, Sidney, Orren, Gary R. 1985Equality in America: The View from the TopHarvard University PressCambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  56. Zaller, John 1992The Nature and Origin of Mass OpinionCambridge University PressCambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  57. Zaller, John 1996

    The myth of massive media impact revived: new support for a discredited idea

    DianaC., MutzPaul Sniderman, M.Brody, Richard A. eds. Political Persuasion and attitude ChangeUniversity of Michigan PressAnn Arbor, MI
    Google Scholar
  58. Zaller, John, Feldman, Stanley 1992A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions or revealing preferencesAmerican Journal of Political Science36579616Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations