IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v53y2009i2p411-426.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opinions

Author

Listed:
  • Jennifer Jerit

Abstract

When political actors debate the merits of a public policy, they often focus on the consequences of a bill or legislative proposal, with supporters and opponents making stark but contradictory predictions about the future. Building upon the framing literature, I examine how rhetoric about a policy's consequences influences public opinion. I show that predictive appeals work largely by altering people's beliefs about the impact of a policy. Following in the tradition of recent framing research, this article also examines how opinions are influenced when people are exposed to opposing predictions. The analysis focuses on two strategies that are common in real‐world debates—the direct rebuttal (in which an initial appeal is challenged by a statement making the opposite prediction) and the alternate frame (which counters an initial appeal by shifting the focus to some other consequence). There are important differences in the effectiveness of these two strategies—a finding that has implications for the study of competitive framing and the policymaking process more generally.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Jerit, 2009. "How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opinions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 411-426, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:53:y:2009:i:2:p:411-426
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00378.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00378.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00378.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henry J. Aaron & John B. Shoven, 1999. "Should the United States Privatize Social Security?," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262011743 edited by Benjamin M. Friedman, April.
    2. Arthur Lupia & Jesse O. Menning, 2009. "When Can Politicians Scare Citizens Into Supporting Bad Policies?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 90-106, January.
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Druckman, James N., 2004. "Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 671-686, November.
    5. Tomz, Michael & Wittenberg, Jason & King, Gary, 2003. "Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 8(i01).
    6. Ted Brader & Nicholas A. Valentino & Elizabeth Suhay, 2008. "What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 959-978, October.
    7. Nelson, Thomas E. & Clawson, Rosalee A. & Oxley, Zoe M., 1997. "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 567-583, September.
    8. James N. Druckman & Kjersten R. Nelson, 2003. "Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 729-745, October.
    9. J. Tobin Grant & Thomas J. Rudolph, 2003. "Value Conflict, Group Affect, and the Issue of Campaign Finance," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 453-469, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Iris Stucki & Fritz Sager, 2018. "Aristotelian framing: logos, ethos, pathos and the use of evidence in policy frames," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(3), pages 373-385, September.
    2. Beesley, Celeste & Hawkins, Darren, 2022. "Corruption, institutional trust and political engagement in Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    3. Rodríguez Chatruc, Marisol & Stein, Ernesto & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2021. "How issue framing shapes trade attitudes: Evidence from a multi-country survey experiment," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    4. Stefanie Haeffele & Virgil Henry Storr, 2021. "Rhetoric as a Way of Limiting the Range of Acceptable Policy Positions," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 36(Spring 20), pages 1-16.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William A. Boettcher III & Michael D. Cobb, 2009. "“Don’t Let Them Die in Vainâ€," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(5), pages 677-697, October.
    2. Kehrberg Jason, 2020. "Authoritarianism, Prejudice, and Support for Welfare Chauvinism in the United States," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 195-212, December.
    3. Paul A. Djupe & Andrew R. Lewis & Ted G. Jelen & Charles D. Dahan, 2014. "Rights Talk: The Opinion Dynamics of Rights Framing," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(3), pages 652-668, September.
    4. Scott Radnitz, 2018. "Historical narratives and post-conflict reconciliation: An experiment in Azerbaijan," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(2), pages 154-174, March.
    5. Lisa J. Carlson & Raymond Dacey, 2014. "The use of fear and anger to alter crisis initiation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(2), pages 168-192, April.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:4:p:517-533 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Blount, Sally & Larrick, Richard P., 2000. "Framing the Game: Examining Frame Choice in Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 43-71, January.
    8. Hemesath, Sebastian & Tepe, Markus, 2023. "Framing the approval to test self-driving cars on public roads. The effect of safety and competitiveness on citizens' agreement," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    9. Rachael M. Moyer, 2022. "Images of controversy: Examining cognition of hydraulic fracturing among policy elites and the general public," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 39(4), pages 441-467, July.
    10. Gabriel S. Lenz, 2009. "Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 821-837, October.
    11. Waheed, Hassam, 2023. "Nudging smokers away from lighting up: A meta-analysis of framing effect in current smokers," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Cheryl Boudreau, 2012. "Greater than the sum of their parts? When combinations of institutions improve citizens’ decisions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 24(1), pages 90-109, January.
    13. Monika Bütler & Michel André Maréchal, 2007. "Framing Effects in Political Decision Making: Evidence From a Natural Voting Experiment," University of St. Gallen Department of Economics working paper series 2007 2007-04, Department of Economics, University of St. Gallen.
    14. Brian D. Feinstein & Jennifer Nou, 2023. "Strategic subdelegation," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 746-817, December.
    15. Daniel A. DeCaro & Marci S. DeCaro & Jared M. Hotaling & Joseph G. Johnson, 2020. "Procedural and economic utilities in consequentialist choice: Trading freedom of choice to minimize financial losses," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(4), pages 517-533, July.
    16. Chang, Daphne & Chen, Roy & Krupka, Erin, 2019. "Rhetoric matters: A social norms explanation for the anomaly of framing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 158-178.
    17. Stadelmann-Steffen, Isabelle, 2019. "Bad news is bad news: Information effects and citizens’ socio-political acceptance of new technologies of electricity transmission," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 531-545.
    18. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    19. Ademmer, Esther & Akgüç, Mehtap & Barslund, Mikkel & Di Bartolomeo, Anna & Benček, David & Groll, Dominik & Hoxhaj, Rezart & Lanati, Mauro & Laurentsyeva, Nadzeya & Lücke, Matthias & Ludolph, Lars & R, 2017. "2017 MEDAM Assessment Report on Asylum and Migration Policies in Europe. Sharing responsibility for refugees and expanding legal immigration," MEDAM Assessment Report on Asylum and Migration Policies in Europe, Mercator Dialogue on Asylum and Migration (MEDAM), number 182239.
    20. Qingjiang Yao & Zhaoxi Liu & Lowndes F. Stephens, 2020. "Exploring the dynamics in the environmental discourse: the longitudinal interaction among public opinion, presidential opinion, media coverage, policymaking in 3 decades and an integrated model of med," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(1), pages 14-28, March.
    21. HORIUCHI Yusaku & ONO Yoshikuni, 2018. "Public Opposition to Refugee Resettlement: The case of Japan," Discussion papers 18050, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:53:y:2009:i:2:p:411-426. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.