Nelson (2004). “Policy Goals, Public Rhetoric and Political Attitudes,” Journal of Politics, 66(2). 581-605.

Identification: Nelson, T. (2004). “Policy Goals, Public Rhetoric and Political Attitudes,” Journal of Politics, 66(2). 581-605.

Independent variables: In the laboratory experiment perspectives on three controversial policy matters were manipulated in the form of a newspaper article. Adoption law, affirmative actions and school voucher text was manipulated to represent either a “pro” frame or a “con” frame.
In the survey-based experiment manipulation took the form of changed question wording addressing doctor assisted suicide and school vouchers.

Dependent variables: There were three dependent variables: 1.) Policy opinions, 2.) Personal goal priorities and 3.) (objective) beliefs about the consequences of policy change.

Theories, rationales, and predictions: Nelson expected positive and negative frames to have a corresponding impact on participants’ “sense of the relative importance of competing policy goals” as well as participants’ policy opinions (591), and that the differences in policy opinions are explained by differences in goal priorities (586); Nelson did not expect the frames to have an impact on the participants’ beliefs about the consequences of policy change.

Subjects: Laboratory subjects were college undergraduates. The total number included in each of the experiments varied for each policy topic. There were around 20-60 participants for each condition.
Survey-based experiment subjects were residents of Ohio, contacted via telephone; over 800 people responded. Demographic details about those interviewed over the telephone are available upon request, by the author.

Procedure: two procedures were executed by the author: 1.) a laboratory experiment which “created stimuli that mimicked three types of framing rhetoric”, to examine if frames that target POLICY GOALS influence POLITICAL OPINIONS)
…and 2.) a survey-based experiment to test whether the framing effect found in the laboratory was replicable and could be “generalized beyond the sample, setting and issues of the laboratory studies” (596).
For each experiment participants were asked for their opinion about a policy issue that embodied a conflict between two meaningful socio-political goals or values. All participants were randomly assigned to either a “pro” frame or a “con” frame for each issue; both frames presented the same basic factual information about the issue. After reading the “pro” frame article or the “con” framed article which manipulated policy priorities in the form of persuasive argument using one of the three kinds of framing rhetoric (see Key Terms below), participants reported: 1.) their issue priorities 2.) their opinions on the issue and 3.) their beliefs about the consequences of a policy change (the three dependent variables).

Major results: A difference of means test found that frames do, indeed, affect participants’ sense of issue priorities which in turn influence their policy opinions.

Discussion: Whereas other approaches portray citizens as cognitive misers who do not think deeply about particular issues, especially in the realm of politics, this study anticipates that participants are aware on the conflicting values implicit in the policy topics. Yet even when existing beliefs are present, opinions can be shifted by means of policy/goal prioritizing. Thus the significance of this study is to introduce avenues for goal manipulation when conflicting opinions are already available, accessible and applicable; these avenues are GOAL RANKING, ISSUE CATEGORIZATION AND LABELING, AND INSTITUTIONAL ROLE ASSIGNMENT.

Question to consider: How do Nelson’s findings contribute to the discussion of media effects models, i.e. the minimal effects model, the not-so-minimal effects model?

Key Terms:
Framing: alternative descriptions or interpretations of the same information, problem or solution.
Three types of framing rhetoric: 1.) GOAL RANKING: trivializing the goal represented by the opponent.2.) ISSUE CATEGORIZATION AND LABELING: refute applicability of the categorization of the opposing information, “thereby denying the relevance of a rival goal or value” (585). 3.) INSTITUTIONAL ROLE ASSIGNMENT: arguing a goal or value is the responsibility of a particular institution and that goal or value should take precedence over any rivaling goals or values when determining the institutions policies.