Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending

Jacoby, William G.

doi:10.2307/2669279

Cited by 447 publications

(295 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

279

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Brewer and Gross, 2005;Iyengar and McGrady, 2005;Jacoby, 2000;Levin et al, 1998;Tversky and Kahneman, 1981). Further, research into a type of framing known as emphasis framing, demonstrates that such effects can be achieved by simply focusing people's attention on certain features of a debate or issue (i.e.…”

Section: Framing: It Has Long Been Recognized That the Manner In Whicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Article available under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. 1 Now published in Energy Policy:Jones, C. R., Eiser, J. R., & Gamble, T. R. (2012). Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK. Energy Policy, 41, 451-465.Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK. showed an apparent increase in the endorsement of nuclear following climate change 'framing'. > Studies 2 and 3 contradict this finding, suggesting that 'framing' had a limited direct effect on preferences for nuclear power. 3 AbstractIn 2007 the UK government's public consultation on the future of nuclear power courted much criticism. Three studies were conducted to assess whether key arguments used by government within this consultation might have influenced public opinion about the technology. Participants first read a passage of text which made salient certain positive (climate change mitigation, increased energy security) or negative (nuclear waste) aspects of the nuclear debate. Participants then completed a task that required them to create an electricity mix for the UK by varying the contributions made by each of five energy sources (coal, gas, nuclear, renewables and electric import). Study 1 seemed to indicate that pitching the debate in terms of climate change mitigation was effective in increasing endorsement of nuclear power.The results of studies 2 and 3, however, contested this conclusion suggesting that these arguments were having little direct impact upon participants' preferences for nuclear power. The results of these studies hold implications for UK energy policy and attitude assessment and can contribute to the understanding of how the arguments used by government in the 2007 consultation might have influenced public opinion. Running HeadThe impact of framing on the favourability of nuclear power.

show abstract

Section: Framing: It Has Long Been Recognized That the Manner In Whicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the impact of framing on the comparative favourability of nuclear power as an electricity generating option in the UK

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On balance, then, Americans espouse operationally liberal views, supporting a robust federal government, but at the same time more Americans consider themselves conservative than consider themselves liberal (Free and Cantril 1967, Miller 1992, Cantril and Cantril 1999, Jacoby 2000, Schiffer 2000, Stimson 2004, Ellis and Stimson 2012. The common observation about this asymmetry is that more than a poorly informed public is at work.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideological Labels in America

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper extends Ellis and Stimson's (2012) study of the operational-symbolic paradox using issue-level measures of ideological incongruence based on respondent positions and symbolic labels for these positions across 14 issues. Like Ellis and Stimson, we find that substantial numbers-over 30 percent-of Americans experience conflicted conservatism. Our issue-level data reveal, furthermore, that conflicted conservatism is most common on the issues of education and welfare spending. In addition, we also find that 20 percent of Americans exhibit conflicted liberalism. We then replicate Ellis and Stimson's finding that conflicted conservatism is associated with low sophistication and religiosity, but also find that it is associated with being socialized in a post-1960s generation and using Fox News as a main news source. Finally, we show the important role played by identities, with both conflicted conservatism and conflicted liberalism linked with partisan and ideological identities, and conflicted liberalism additionally associated with ethnic identities.

show abstract

“…(National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius 2012). 4 We investigate behavioral intentions as opposed to public opinion (see Jacoby, 2000), as individuals may support or oppose a policy without it affecting their compliance with that policy. 5 The ideal test would require variation in how a policy is articulated (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%