Pin the Tale on the Donkey (or Elephant): The Impact of Political Group Affiliation on Framing Effects

1. Pin the Tale on the Donkey (or Elephant): The Impact of Political Group Affiliation on Framing Effects Presented at University of California, Irvine by Jessica Summers May 13, 2006

2. What is “framing” exactly? Example: Abortion “Pro-Life!” “Pro-Choice!”

3. What is “framing” exactly? More Examples: Don’t say “Government,” say “Washington” “Abuse of Power” Don’t say “Drilling for Oil,” say “Exploring for Energy” Don’t say “Tax Reform,” say “Tax Simplification” Don’t say “Undocumented Workers,” say “Illegal Aliens” Don’t say “Healthcare Choice,” say “The Right to Choose” • Courtesy of Mr. Lakoff • & the Democrats • Courtesy of Mr. Luntz • & the Republicans

4. A Very Brief History Goffman: “…frames help classify, allowing users to locate, perceive, identify, and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete occurrences…” (1974) Zaller: “Passive Receiver” theory (1992)

5. A More Modern Definition -Three Characteristics of Frames (Reese, 2001): • “active, organizing structures” Emphasis Suppression • “durable” over time “Cold war” • “symbolic forms of expression”

6. Filling Gaps in the Research Framing & the General Public Changing Frames & Effects on Audience Perception Lang & Lang, 1983 (Watergate) Effects of Political Party Affiliation on Attitude Cohen (2003) Limitations on Framing Effects Brewer, 2001; Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994; Druckman, 2001; Druckman & Nelson, 2003; Entman, 1993; Iyengar, 1991; Kosicki et al, 1994

7. The Impact of Political Group Affiliation on Framing Effects • Cohen’s Study (2003) – reference to different political groups (Democrat or Republican) impacts participants’ support of identical policies • Druckman’s Study (2001) – manipulation of the perceived credibility of source (Colin Powell vs. Jerry Springer)

8. The Impact of Political Group Affiliation on Framing Effects My Question: How will political party affiliation affect perceptions of changing (inconsistent) frames?

9. Methods • Finding real-life issues Kuwait Conflict (1991) Kosovo Conflict (1999) George H. W. Bush (Republican) Bill Clinton (Democrat) Darfur Conflict (2003) Politician (No Affiliation Given)

10. Methods Developing two “inconsistent” frames - Speech 1: “U.S. Interests” - Speech 2: “Humanitarian Interests”

11. Methods Sample of the Transcripts The following is a transcript of President Bill Clinton’s speech during a White House press conference (August 15, 1998): President Clinton:Thank you. Thank you very much. I would like to begin today by addressing the recent conflict in Kosovo. Two weeks ago, Kosovo was invaded by the military forces of Slobodan Milosevic, and many are now wondering where the U.S. stands on its policy. Kosovo is not an easy problem, but if we don't stop the conflict now, it clearly will spread and then we will not be able to stop it except at far greater cost and risk. If we continue along the present course, the safety of the American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Albania and the moderate Balkan states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard…Intervening in Kosovo will be a matter of vital interest to the U.S. The following is a transcript of President George H.W. Bush’s speech during a White House press conference (August 15, 1990): President Bush: Thank you. Thank you very much. I would like to begin today by addressing the recent conflict in Kuwait. Two weeks ago, Kuwait was invaded by the military forces of Saddam Hussein, and many are now wondering where the U.S. stands on its policy. Kuwait is not an easy problem, but if we don't stop the conflict now, it clearly will spread and then we will not be able to stop it except at far greater cost and risk. If we continue along the present course, the safety of the American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard…Intervening in Kuwait will be a matter of vital interest to the U.S.

12. The hypotheses • Democrats exposed to the Republican issue (Kuwait) will be moresensitive to the inconsistency between the frames than those exposed to the Democrat issue • Republicans exposed to the Democrat issue (Kosovo) will be more sensitive to the inconsistency between the frames than those exposed to the Republican issue • There will be no partisan bias in their responses to the Neutral (Darfur) issue

13. Procedure • Subjects randomly assigned to one of three political issues: Democrat (Clinton-Kosovo), Republican (Bush-Kuwait), or No Affiliation (Neutral-Darfur) • Pretest questionnaire determined political affiliation and knowledge of/attitude on the issue (taken from Cohen, 2003) • Identical stimulus materials read (1 Factsheet on the conflict and 2 speeches) • Posttest questionnaire: 1) Attitude/ Attitude Strength on the issue 2) 12 questions to measure sensitivity to frame inconsistencies (Pan & Kosicki, 2001) 3) 9 questions to measure dominance of one frame over the other

14. Results 256 Total Respondents (Students at UC Irvine)

15. Results

16. Results: Sensitivity to frame inconsistencies 5 = Perceived as more consistent

17. Results: Sensitivity to frame inconsistencies Although not statistically significant, we see a trend that supports our hypothesis: - Democrats find the Kuwait frames to be more inconsistent - Republicans find the Kosovo frames to be more inconsistent 5 = Perceived as more consistent

18. Results: Perceptions of the politician’s character 5 = More favorable perception of the politician

19. Results: Perceptions of the politician’s character Once again, we see a trend that supports our hypothesis: - Democrats find Bush to be more inconsistent & dishonest - Republicans find Clinton to be more inconsistent & dishonest 5 = More favorable perception of the politician Statistically significant (p<0.05)

20. Results: Dominant Frame 5 = “U.S. Interests” as the dominant frame 1 = “Humanitarian Interests” as the dominant frame

21. Results: Dominant Frame - Democrats believe the military was sent to Kosovo more for Humanitarian Interests - Republicans believe the military was sent to Kosovo more for U.S. Interests 5 = “U.S. Interests” as the dominant frame 1 = “Humanitarian Interests” as the dominant frame

22. Conclusions- Inconsistencies in frames go largely unnoticed - However, when presented with information from an unfavorable political party, inconsistencies seem to become more apparent to the individual - When presented with information from a favorable political party, people seem to ignore the inconsistencies and adopt the more positive frame * Connection to Motivated Reasoning (Ditto et al, 1998) and Biased Assimilation (Lord et al, 1979)Future Endeavors- Increase sample size, find a stronger Republican/conservative sample - Further exploration of the Darfur phenomenon

23. Acknowledgements • Dr. Peter H. Ditto, UCI • Mentor • Dr. Valerie Jenness, UCI • Honors Seminar Instructor • Eden Epstein, UCI • Andrew Mastronarde, UCI • Wonderfully Helpful Graduate Students • Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) • Funding

24. Political chaos is connected with the decay of language... one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. - George Orwell For more information, please contact:Jessica SummersDepartment of Social EcologyUniversity of California, Irvinejsummers@uci.edu