Political Behavior

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 225–256 | Cite as

The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence

  • James N. Druckman

Abstract

Social scientists have documented framing effects in a wide range of contexts, including surveys, experiments, and actual political campaigns. Many view work on framing effects as evidence of citizen incompetence—that is, evidence that citizens base their preferences on arbitrary information and/or are subject to extensive elite manipulation. Yet, we continue to lack a consensus on what a framing effect is as well as an understanding of how and when framing effects occur. In this article, I examine (1) the different ways that scholars have employed the concepts of framing and framing effects, (2) how framing effects may violate some basic criteria of citizen competence, and (3) what we know about how and when framing effects work. I conclude that while the evidence to date suggests some isolated cases of incompetence, the more general message is that citizens use frames in a competent and well-reasoned manner.

framing effects competence public opinion mass communication behavioral decision theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Allen,Barbara, O 'Loughlin,Paula, Jasperson,Amy,and Sullivan, John L.(1994).The media and the Gulf War:framing,priming,and the spiral of silence.Polity27: 255–284.Google Scholar
  2. Alvarez, R.Michael,and Brehm,John (1995).American ambivalence toward abortion policy:a heteroskedastic probit method for assessing conflicting values.American Journal of Political Science39:1055–1082.Google Scholar
  3. Alvarez, R.Michael,and Brehm,John (1997).Are Americans ambivalent about racial policies?American Journal of Political Science41:345–374.Google Scholar
  4. Alvarez, R.Michael,and Brehm,John (1998).Speaking in two voices:American equivocation about the internal revenue service.American Journal of Political Science42: 418–452.Google Scholar
  5. Alvarez,R.Michael,and Brehm,John (2000).Binding the frame:how important are frames for survey response?Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,Washington,DC,August 31–September 2.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, Kenneth J.(1982).Risk perception in psychology and economics.Economic Inquiry20:1–9.Google Scholar
  7. Ball-Rokeach,S.J., Power, Gerard J., Guthrie, K.Kendall,and Waring, H.Ross (1990). Value-framing abortion in the United States:an application of media system dependency theory.International Journal of Public Opinion Research2:249–273.Google Scholar
  8. Bargh, John A., Bond,R., Lombardi,W.,and Tota,M.(1986).The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50:869–878.Google Scholar
  9. Bargh, John A.,and Pietromonaco,Paula (1982).Automatic information processing and social perception:the influence of trait information presented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology43:438–449.Google Scholar
  10. Bartels,Larry M.(1998).Democracy with attitudes.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,Boston,MA,September 3–6.Google Scholar
  11. Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F.,and McPhee, William N.(1954).Voting:A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Berinsky, Adam J.,and Kinder, Donald R.(2000).Making sense of issues through frames:understanding the Kosova crisis.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,Washington,DC,August 31–September 2.Google Scholar
  13. Bishop, George F., Oldendick, Robert W.,and Tuchfarber, Alfred J.(1982).Political.DRUCKMAN 250 information processing:question order and context effects.Political Behavior4: 177–200.Google Scholar
  14. Bless,Herbert, Betsch,Tilmann,and Franzen,Axel (1998).Framing the framing effect:the impact of context cues on solutions to the “Asian disease ”problem.European Journal of Social Psychology28:287–291.Google Scholar
  15. Boettcher,III, William A.(2000).Framing effects in the “real world ”:evaluating the political psychology adaptation of prospect theory.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,Washington,DC,August 31–September 2.Google Scholar
  16. Bohm,Peter,and Lind,Hans (1992).A note on the robustness of a classical framing result.Journal of Economic Psychology13:355–361.Google Scholar
  17. Brewer, Paul R.(2000).Passive receivers or motivated reasoners?:an experimental study of how citizens process value frames.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association,Chicago,IL,April 27–30.Google Scholar
  18. Brewer, Paul R.(2001).Value words and lizard brains:do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values?Political Psychology22:45–64.Google Scholar
  19. Cappella, Joseph N.,and Jamieson, Kathleen Hall (1997).Spiral of Cynicism:The Press and the Public Good.New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Chong,Dennis (1993).How people think,reason,and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science37:867–899.Google Scholar
  21. Chong,Dennis (1996).Creating common frames of reference on political issues.In Diana C.Mutz, Paul M.Sniderman,and Richard A.Brody (eds.),Political Persuasion and Attitude Change,pp.195–224.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  22. Chong,Dennis (2000).Rational Lives:Norms and Values in Politics and Society.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Cohen,Jacob,and Cohen,Patricia (1983).Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Converse, Philip E.(1964).The nature of belief systems in mass publics.In David E. Apter (ed.),Ideology and Discontent,pp.206–261.New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  25. Converse, Philip E.(2000).Assessing the capacity of mass electorates.Annual Review of Political Science3:331–353.Google Scholar
  26. Dahl, Robert A.(1971).Polyarchy:Participation and Opposition.New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Dawes, Robyn M.(1988).Rational Choice in an Uncertain World.San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  28. Druckman, James N.(2001a).On the limits of framing effects:who can frame?Journal of Politics63:1041–1066.Google Scholar
  29. Druckman, James N.(2001b).Using credible advice to overcome framing effects. Journal of Law,Economics, & Organization17:62–82.Google Scholar
  30. Druckman, James N.,and Lupia,Arthur (2000).Preference formation.Annual Review of Political Science3:1–24.Google Scholar
  31. Edelman,Murray (1993).Contestable categories and public opinion.Political Communication10:231–242.Google Scholar
  32. Entman, Robert M.(1991).Framing U.S.coverage of international news:contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran air incidents.Journal of Communication41:6–27.Google Scholar
  33. Entman, Robert M.(1993).Framing:toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43:51–58.Google Scholar
  34. Fagley,N.S.,and Miller, Paul M.(1987).The effects of decision framing on choice of risky vs.certain options.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes39:264–277.Google Scholar
  35. Fagley,N.S.,and Miller, Paul M.(1990).The effect of framing on choice:interactions with risk-taking propensity,cognitive style,and sex.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin16:496–510.Google Scholar
  36. Fagley,N.S.,and Miller, Paul M.(1997).Framing effects and arenas of choice:your money or your life?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes71: 355–373.Google Scholar
  37. Farr,James (1993).Framing democratic discussion.In George E.Marcus and Russell L.Hanson (eds.),Reconsidering the Democratic Public,pp.379–391.University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Fazio, Russell H.(1995).Attitudes as object-evaluation associations:determinants, consequences,and correlates of attitude accessibility.In Richard E.Petty and Jon A.Krosnick (eds.),Attitude Strength:Antecedents and Consequences,pp.247–282. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Federico, Christopher M.(2001).Predispositions,sophistication,and the framing of affirmative action.Unpublished paper,University of California,Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  40. Fillmore, Charles J.(1985).Frames and the semantics of understanding.Quaderni di Semantica6:222–254.Google Scholar
  41. Freedman,Paul (2000).The political logic of framing.Unpublished paper,University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  42. Frisch,Deborah (1993).Reasons for framing effects.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes54:399–429.Google Scholar
  43. Gamson, William A.(1992).Talking Politics.New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Gamson, William A.,and Lasch, Katherine E.(1983).The political culture of social welfare policy.In Shimon E.Spiro and Ephraim Yuchtman-Yaar (eds.),Evaluating the Welfare State,pp.397–415.New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  45. Gamson, William A.,and Modigliani,Andre (1987).The changing culture of affirmative action.In Richard D.Braungart (ed.),Research in Political Sociology,vol.3, pp.137–177.Greenwich,CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  46. Gamson, William A.,and Modigliani,Andre (1989).Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power:a constructionist approach.American Journal of Sociology95: 1–37.Google Scholar
  47. Gitlin,Todd (1980).The Whole World Is Watching:Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left.Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  48. Goffman,Erving (1974).Frame Analysis:An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Gross,Kimberly (2000).The limits of framing:how framing effects may be limited or enhanced by individual level predispositions.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association,Chicago,IL,April 27–30.Google Scholar
  50. Gross, Kimberly Ann,and D 'Ambrosio,Lisa (1999).Media framing,causal attribution and emotions:an experimental investigation of the framing of emotion response. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,Atlanta,GA,September 2–5.Google Scholar
  51. Haider-Markel, Donald P.,and Joslyn, Mark R.(2001a).Gun policy,opinion,tragedy, and blame attribution:the conditional influence of issue frames.Journal of Politics63:520–543.Google Scholar
  52. Haider-Markel, Donald P.,and Joslyn, Mark R.(2001b).Should we really “kill ”the messenger:issue frames and the limited role of messengers.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,San Francisco,CA, August 30–September 2.Google Scholar
  53. Herr, Paul M.(1986).Consequences of priming:judgment and behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51:1106–1115.Google Scholar
  54. Higgins, E.Tory,and Rholes, William S.,and Jones, Carl R.(1977).Category accessibility and impression formation.Journal of Experimental Psychology13:141–154.Google Scholar
  55. Hyman, Herbert H.,and Sheatsley, Paul B.(1950).The current status of American public opinion.In J.C.Payne (ed.),The Teaching of Contemporary Affairs,pp. 1134.New York: National Council of Social Studies.Google Scholar
  56. Iyengar,Shanto (1990).The accessibility bias in politics:television news and public opinion.International Journal of Public Opinion Research2:1–15.Google Scholar
  57. Iyengar,Shanto (1991).Is Anyone Responsible?:How Television Frames Political Issues.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Jackman,Simon,and Sniderman, Paul M.(1999).Institutional organization of choice spaces:a political conception of political psychology.Unpublished paper,Stanford University.Google Scholar
  59. Jacoby, William G.(2000).Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science44:750–767.Google Scholar
  60. Jones, Bryan D.(2001).Politics and the Architecture of Choice:Bounded Rationality and Governance.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  61. Joslyn, Mark R.,and Haider-Markel, Donald P.(2001).The two faces of issue framing: examining framing effects on personal opinion and perception of public opinion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas,NV,March.Google Scholar
  62. Kahneman,Daniel,and Tversky,Amos (1984).Choices,values,and frames.American Psychologist39:341–350.Google Scholar
  63. Kellstedt, Paul M.(2000).Media framing and the dynamics of racial policy preferences.American Journal of Political Science44:239–255.Google Scholar
  64. Kinder, Donald R.(1998).Communication and opinion.Annual Review of Political Science1:167–197.Google Scholar
  65. Kinder, Donald R.,and Herzog,Don (1993).Democratic discussion.In George E. Marcus and Russell L.Hanson (eds.),Reconsidering the Democratic Public,pp. 347–377.University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Kinder, Donald R.,and Sanders, Lynn M.(1990).Mimicking political debate with survey questions:the case of white opinion on affirmative action for blacks.Social Cognition8:73–103.Google Scholar
  67. Kinder, Donald R.,and Sanders, Lynn M.(1996).Divided By Color:Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Kowert, Paul A.,and Hermann, Margaret G.(1997).Who takes risks?:daring and caution in foreign policy making.Journal of Conflict Resolution41:611–637.Google Scholar
  69. Krosnick, Jon A.(1988).The role of attitude importance in social evaluation:a study of policy preferences,presidential candidate evaluations,and voting behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology55:196–210.Google Scholar
  70. Krosnick, Jon A.(1989).Attitude importance and attitude accessibility.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin55:297–308Google Scholar
  71. Kühberger,Anton (1995).The framing of decisions:a new look at old problems.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes62:230–240.Google Scholar
  72. Kühberger,Anton (1998).The influence of framing on risky decisions:a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes75:23–55.Google Scholar
  73. Kühberger,Anton, Schulte-Mecklenbeck,Michael,and Perner,Josef (1999).The effects of framing,reflection,probability,and payoff on risk preference in choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes78:204–231Google Scholar
  74. Kuklinski, James H.,and Hurley, Norman L.(1994).On hearing and interpreting political messages:a cautionary tale of citizen cue-taking.Journal of Politics56:729–751.Google Scholar
  75. Kuklinski, James H.,and Hurley, Norman L.(1996).It 's a matter of interpretation.In Diana C.Mutz, Paul M.Sniderman,and Richard A.Brody (eds.),Political Persuasion and Attitude Change,pp.125–144.Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  76. Kuklinski James H.,and Quirk, Paul J.(2000).Reconsidering the rational public:cognition,heuristics,and mass opinion.In Arthur Lupia, Mathew D.McCubbins,and Samuel L.Popkin (eds.),Elements of Reason:Cognition,Choice,and the Bounds of Rationality,pp.153–182.New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Jerit,Jennifer, Schwieder,David,and Rich, Robert F.(2000).Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship.Journal of Politics62:790–816.Google Scholar
  78. Lacy,Dean (1997).A theory of nonseparable preferences in survey responses.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Methodology Society,Columbus, Ohio,July.Google Scholar
  79. Lau, Richard R., Smith, Richard A.,and Fiske, Susan T.(1991).Political beliefs,policy interpretations,and political persuasion.Journal of Politics53:644–675.Google Scholar
  80. Levin, Irwin P.,and Chapman, Daniel P.(1990).Risk taking,frame of reference,and characterization of victim groups in AIDS treatment decisions.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology26:421–434.Google Scholar
  81. Levin, Irwin P., Schneider, Sandra L.,and Gaeth, Gary J.(1998).All frames are not created equal:a typology and critical analysis of framing effects.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes76:149–188.Google Scholar
  82. Lupia,Arthur,and McCubbins, Mathew D.(1998).The Democratic Dilemma:Can Citizens Learn What They Need To Know?New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Manheim, Jarol B.(1991).All of the People All of the Time:Strategic Communication and American Politics.Armonk,NY: M.E.Sharpe,Inc.Google Scholar
  84. Martin,Leonard L.,and Achee,John W.(1992).Beyond accessibility:the role of processing objectives in judgment.In Leonard L.Martin and Abraham Tesser (eds.), The Construction of Social Judgments,pp.195–216.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  85. McCaffery,Edward J., Kahneman,Daniel J.,and Spitzer,Matthew L.(1995).Framing the jury:cognitive perspectives on pain and suffering awards.Virginia Law Review81:1341–1420.Google Scholar
  86. Mendelsohn,Matthew (1996).The media and interpersonal communication:the priming of issues,leaders,and party identification.Journal of Politics58:112–125.Google Scholar
  87. Meyerowitz,Beth E.,and Chaiken,Shelly (1987).The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes,intentions,and behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology52:500–510.Google Scholar
  88. Miller,Joanne M.,and Krosnick,Jon A.(1996).News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations:a program of research on the priming hypothesis.In Diana C.Mutz, Paul M.Sniderman,and Richard A.Brody (eds.),Political Persuasion and Attitude Change,pp.79–99.Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  89. Miller,Joanne M.,and Krosnick,Jon A.(2000).News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations:politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source.American Journal of Political Science44:295–309.Google Scholar
  90. Miller, Paul M.,and Fagley,N.S.(1991).The effects of framing,problem variations, and providing rationale on choice.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin17: 517–522.Google Scholar
  91. Mueller, John E.(1994).Policy and Opinion in the Gulf War.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  92. Nelson, Thomas E.(2000.)Goals and values in the language of issue framing.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington,DC,August 31–September 2.Google Scholar
  93. Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A.,and Oxley, Zoe M.(1997a).Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance.American Political Science Review91:567–583.Google Scholar
  94. Nelson, Thomas E.,and Kinder, Donald R.(1996).Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion.Journal of Politics58:1055–1078.Google Scholar
  95. Nelson, Thomas E.,and Oxley, Zoe M.(1999).Issue framing effects and belief importance and opinion.Journal of Politics61:1040–1067.Google Scholar
  96. Nelson, Thomas E., Oxley, Zoe M.,and Clawson, Rosalee A.(1997b).Toward a psychology of framing effects.Political Behavior19:221–246.Google Scholar
  97. Nelson, Thomas E., Willey,Elaine,and Oxley, Zoe M.(1998).Belief content,importance,and accessibility in issue opinion.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association,Boston,MA,September 3–6.Google Scholar
  98. Page, Benjamin I.,and Shapiro, Robert Y.(1992).The Rational Public:Fifty Years of Trends in Americans 'Policy Preferences.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  99. Pan,Zhongdang,and Kosicki, Gerald M.(1993).Framing analysis:an approach to news discourse.Political Communication10:55–75.Google Scholar
  100. Parenti, Michael (1999).Methods of media manipulation.In Ray Eldon Hiebert (ed.), Impact of Mass Media:Current Issues.4th ed,pp.120–124.New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  101. Patterson, Thomas E.(1993).Out of Order.New York: Alfred A.Knopf.Google Scholar
  102. Payne, John W., Bettman, James R.,and Johnson, Eric J.(1993).The Adaptive Decision Maker.New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  103. Petrocik,John R.(1996).Issue ownership in presidential elections,with a 1980 case study.American Journal of Political Science40:825–850.Google Scholar
  104. Petty, Richard E.,and Wegener, Duane T.(1998).Attitude change:multiple roles for persuasion variables.In Daniel T. Gilbert,Susan T.Fiske,and Gardner Lindzey (eds.),Handbook of Social Psychology,4th ed.,vol.II,pp.323–390.New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  105. Popkin, Samuel L.(1994).The Reasoning Voter:Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns,2nd ed.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  106. Price,Vincent,and Na,Eun-Kyung (2000).Citizen deliberation and resistance to framing effects.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research,Portland,Oregon,May.Google Scholar
  107. Price,Vincent,and Tewksbury,David (1997).News values and public opinion:a theoretical account of media priming and framing.In George A.Barnett and Franklin J. Boster (eds.),Progress in Communication Sciences:Advances in Persuasion,vol.13, pp.173–212.Greenwich,CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  108. Price,Vincent, Tewksbury,David,and Powers,Elizabeth (1997).Switching trains of thought:the impact of news frames on readers 'cognitive responses.Communication Research24:481–506.Google Scholar
  109. Quattrone,George,and Tversky,Amos (1988).Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice.American Political Science Review82:719–736.Google Scholar
  110. Rabin,Matthew (1998).Psychology and economics.Journal of Economic Literature36:11–46.Google Scholar
  111. Rhee, June Woong (1997).Strategy and issue frames in election campaign coverage: social cognitive account of framing effects.Journal of Communication47:26–48Google Scholar
  112. Riker, William H.(1986).The Art of Political Manipulation.New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  113. Riker, William H.(1995).The political psychology of rational choice theory.Political Psychology16:23–44.Google Scholar
  114. Riker, William H.(1996).The Strategy of Rhetoric:Campaigning for the American Constitution.Randall L.Calvert, John Mueller,and Rick K.Wilson (eds.).New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Schattschneider,E.E.(1960).The Semisovereign People:A Realist 's View of Democracy in America.New York:Holt, Rinehart,and Winston.Google Scholar
  116. Scheufele, Dietram A.(1999).Framing as a theory of media effects.Journal of Communication49:103–122.Google Scholar
  117. Scheufele, Dietram A.(2000).Agenda-setting,priming,and framing revisited:another look at cognitive effects of political communication.Mass Communication & Society3:297–316.Google Scholar
  118. Schuman,Howard,and Ludwig,Jacob (1983).The norm of even-handedness in surveys as in life.American Sociological Review48:112–120.Google Scholar
  119. Schuman,Howard,and Presser,Stanley (1981).Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys:Experiments in Question Form,Wording,and Context.New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  120. Schumpeter, Joseph Alois (1942).Capitalism,Socialism,and Democracy.New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  121. Schwarz,Norbert (1996).Cognition and Communication:Judgmental Biases,Research Methods,and the Logic of Conversation.Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  122. Sears, David O.,and Lau,Richard R.(1983).Inducing apparently self-interested political preferences.American Journal of Political Science27:223–52.Google Scholar
  123. Shah, Dhavan V., Domke,David,and Wackman, Daniel B.(1996).“To thine own self be true ”:values,framing,and voter decision-making strategies.Communication Research23:509–560.Google Scholar
  124. Sieck,Winston,and Yates, J.Frank (1997).Exposition effects on decision making: choice and confidence in choice.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes70:207–219.Google Scholar
  125. Silverstein,Gordon (2000).How law kills politics.Unpublished paper,University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  126. Simon, Adam F.(2001).A unified method for analyzing media framing.In Roderick P.Hart and Daron R.Shaw (eds.),Communication in U.S.Elections:New Agendas, pp.75–89.Lanham,MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  127. Sniderman, Paul M.(2000).Taking sides:a fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In Arthur Lupia, Mathew D.McCubbins,and Samuel L.Popkin (eds.),Elements of Reason:Cognition,Choice,and the Bounds of Rationality,pp.67–84.New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  128. Sniderman, Paul M.,Brody, Richard A.,and Tetlock, Philip E.(1991).Reasoning and Choice:Explorations in Political Psychology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  129. Sniderman, Paul M.,and Theriault, Sean M.(1999).The dynamics of political argument and the logic of issue framing.Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association,Chicago,IL,April 15–17.Google Scholar
  130. Somin,Ilya (1998).Voter ignorance and the democratic ideal.Critical Review12: 413–458.Google Scholar
  131. Stanovich,Keith E.,and West,Richard F.(1998).Individual differences in framing and conjunction effects.Thinking and Reasoning4:289–317.Google Scholar
  132. Stapel,Diederik, Koomen,Willem,and Zeelenberg,Marcel (1998).The impact of accuracy motivation on interpretation,comparison,and correction processes:accuracy ?knowledge accessibility effects.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74:878–893.Google Scholar
  133. Sweetser,Eve and Fauconnier,Gilles (1996).Cognitive links and domains:basic aspects of mental space theory.In Gilles Fauconnier and Eve Sweetser(eds.),Spaces, Worlds,and Grammar,pp.1–28.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  134. Takemura,Kazuhisa (1994).Influence of elaboration on the framing of decision.The Journal of Psychology128:33–39.Google Scholar
  135. Tetlock, Philip E.(1986).A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50:819–827.Google Scholar
  136. The American Heritage Dictionary,Second college edition (1983).Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  137. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language,Second edition (1987).Edited by Stuart Berg Flexner,Random House Inc.Google Scholar
  138. Tourangeau,Roger, Rasinski, Kenneth A., Bradburn,Norman,and D 'Andrade,Roy (1989).Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology25:401–421.Google Scholar
  139. Tversky,Amos,and Kahneman,Daniel (1981).The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science211:453–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  140. Tversky,Amos,and Kahneman,Daniel (1987).Rational choice and the framing of decisions.In Robin M.Hogarth and Melvin W.Reder (eds.),Rational Choice:The Contrast Between Economics and Psychology,pp.67–94.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  141. Tversky,Amos,and Thaler, Richard H.(1990).Preference reversals.Journal of Economic Perspectives4:201–211.Google Scholar
  142. Tykocinski,Orit, Higgins, E.Tory,and Chaiken,Shelly (1994).Message framing,selfdiscrepancies,and yielding to persuasive messages:the motivational significance of psychological situations.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin20:107–115.Google Scholar
  143. van der Pligt, Joop,and Eiser, J. Richard (1984).Dimensional salience,judgment,and attitudes.In J. Richard Eiser (ed.),Attitudinal Judgment,pp.161–177.New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  144. Wang,X.T.(1996).Framing effects:dynamics and task domains.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes68:145–157.Google Scholar
  145. Wittman,Donald (1995).The Myth of Democratic Failure:Why Political Institutions Are Efficient.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  146. Wyer Jr., Robert S.,and Srull, Thomas K.(1989).Memory and Cognition in its Social Context.Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  147. Zald,Mayer N.(1996).Culture,ideology,and strategic framing.In Doug McAdam, John D.McCarthy,and Mayer N.Zald (eds.),Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  148. Zaller,John (1992).The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion,pp.261–274.New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • James N. Druckman
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolis

Personalised recommendations