On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?

Public opinion often depends on which frames elites choose to use. For example, citizens' opinions about a Ku Klux Klan rally may depend on whether elites frame it as a free speech issue or a public safety issue. An important concern is that elites face few constraints to using frames to influence and manipulate citizens' opinions. Indeed, virtually no work has investigated the limits of framing effects. In this article, I explore these limits by focusing on one particular constraint-the credibility of the frame's source. I present two laboratory experiments that suggest that elites face a clear and systematic constraint to using frames to influence and manipulate public opinion.

[1]  James N. Druckman,et al.  The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence , 2001 .

[2]  B. Rundquist.  Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. By Bryan D. Jones. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. $15.95 , 1996, American Political Science Review.

[3]  J. Krosnick,et al.  NewsMedia Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: A Program of Research on the Priming Hypothesis , 1996 .

[4]  D. Kinder.  COMMUNICATION AND OPINION , 1998 .

[5]  Methods for identifying consequential beliefs: Implications for understanding attitude strength , 1995 .

[6]  S. Feldman,et al.  The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State , 1992 .

[7]  Thomas E. Nelson,et al.  Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion , 1996, The Journal of Politics.

[8]  B. Jones.  Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy , 1994 .

[9]  Dennis Chong.  Rational Lives: Norms and Values in Politics and Society , 2000 .

[10]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. , 1998 .

[11]  James H. Kuklinski,et al.  On Hearing and Interpreting Political Messages: A Cautionary Tale of Citizen Cue-Taking , 1994, The Journal of Politics.

[12]  Michael D. Cobb,et al.  Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion , 1997 .

[13]  Russell H. Fazio,et al.  Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. , 1995 .

[14]  Mathew D. McCubbins,et al.  The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? , 1998 .

[15]  Framing Democratic Discussion , 1993 .

[16]  W. Riker.  The art of political manipulation , 1987 .

[17]  James H. Kuklinski,et al.  Reconsidering the Rational Public: Cognition, Heuristics, and Mass Opinion , 2000 .

[18]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  The Measurement of Values in Surveys: A Comparison of Ratings and Rankings , 1985 .

[19]  R. Wyer,et al.  The Cognitive and Affective Bases of Political Tolerance Judgments , 1991 .

[20]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted Source , 2000 .

[21]  Don Mixon,et al.  Instead of deception. , 1972 .

[22]  Franziska Marquart,et al.  Communication and persuasion : central and peripheral routes to attitude change , 1988 .

[23]  Thomas E. Nelson,et al.  Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance , 1997, American Political Science Review.

[24]  P. Sniderman.  Elements of Reason: Taking Sides: A Fixed Choice Theory of Political Reasoning , 2000 .

[25]  A. Meta-analysis,et al.  The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions , 1998 .

[26]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[27]  W. Gamson,et al.  The Changing Culture of Affirmative Action , 1987 .

[28]  Dennis Chong.  How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties , 1993 .

[29]  Thomas E. Nelson,et al.  Issue Framing Effects on Belief Importance and Opinion , 1999, The Journal of Politics.

[30]  William Allen,et al.  The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness , 1953 .

[31]  Denise M. Driscoll,et al.  Priming and the Differential Use of Dimensions in Evaluation , 1990 .

[32]  W. Riker.  Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting: Heresthetic and Rhetoric in the Spatial Model , 1990 .

[33]  Robert M. Entman,et al.  Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm , 1993 .

[34]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Comparisons of Party Identification and Policy Preferences: The Impact of Survey Question Format , 1993 .

[35]  T. K. Srull,et al.  Memory and Cognition in Its Social Context , 1989 .

[36]  D. O. Sears.  College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature. , 1986 .

[37]  C. I. Hovland,et al.  The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness , 1951 .

[38]  M. Rabin.  Psychology and Economics , 1997 .

[39]  D. Kinder,et al.  Mimicking Political Debate with Survey Questions: The Case of White Opinion on Affirmative Action for Blacks , 1990 .

[40]  S. Iyengar.  Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. , 1991 .

[41]  Thomas E. Nelson,et al.  Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects , 1997 .

[42]  A. Kühberger,et al.  The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis. , 1998, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[43]  A. Lupia.  Thinking about Political Psychology: Who Can Persuade Whom? Implications from the Nexus of Psychology and Rational Choice Theory , 2002 .

[44]  D. Rucinski.  The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .