Issue reframing occurs when parties, while addressing an issue, shift the frame toward other policy domains. The literature has found that party issue framing affects how voters think about issues, yet scholars remain largely in the dark as to when and how parties frame issues. The study at hand theorizes and investigates when and how parties reframe issues in their external communication. Drawing on novel Belgian data about parties’ official stances regarding a large number of policy issues combined with their verbal argumentation of why they took this exact position, we test a new theory about the drivers and mechanisms of issue reframing. We find that parties reframe issues in terms of policy domains that are both salient to the general public and that are salient to the party itself—meaning that it has a history of devoting attention to the policy domain and “owns” it.
AnsolabehereSIyengarS (1994) Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: the joint effects of advertising and news coverage in Campaigns. The Public Opinion Quarterly58(3): 335–357.
2.
ArbourB (2014) Issue frame ownership: the partisan roots of campaign rhetoric. Political Communication31(4): 604–627. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2013.852639.
3.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BorahP (2011) Conceptual issues in framing theory: a systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication61(2): 246–263. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x.
5.
BudgeI (2015) Issue emphases, saliency theory and issue ownership: a historical and conceptual analysis. West European Politics38(4): 761–777. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2015.1039374.
6.
BudgeIFarlieDJ (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in 23 Democracies. London [U.A.]: Allen & Unwin.
7.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007b) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science10(1): 103–126.
8.
DalmusCHänggliRBBernhardL (2016) Issue Competition between Parties across Communication Channels: An Empirical Analysis of the 2011 Swiss Federal Elections. NCCR Challenges to Democracy in the 21st Century (Working Paper No. 93).
9.
DamoreDF (2004) The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly57: 391–397.
10.
DamoreDF (2005) Issue convergence in presidential campaigns. Political Behavior27(1): 71–97. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-005-3077-6.
11.
De VreeseC (2005) News framing: theory and typology. Information Design Journal + Document Design13(1): 51–62.
12.
DolezalMEnnser-JedenastikLMüllerWC. (2014) How parties compete for votes: a test of saliency theory. European Journal of Political Research53(1): 57–76. DOI: 10.1111/1475-6765.12017.
13.
DruckmanJNHennessyCLKiferMJ. (2010) Issue engagement on congressional candidate web sites, 2002–2006. Social Science Computer Review28(1): 3–23. DOI: 10.1177/0894439309335485.
14.
EganPJ (2013) Partisan Priorities: How Issue Ownership Drives and Distorts American Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Green-PedersenCMortensenPB (2010) Who sets the agenda and who responds to it in the Danish parliament? A new model of issue competition and agenda-setting. European Journal of Political Research49(2): 257–281. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01897.x.
16.
HänggliRKriesiH (2010) Political framing strategies and their impact on media framing in a Swiss direct-democratic campaign. Political Communication27(2): 141–157. DOI: 10.1080/10584600903501484.
17.
HelblingMHoeglingerDWüestB (2010) How political parties frame European integration. European Journal of Political Research49(4): 495–521. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01908.x
18.
HolianDB (2004) He’s stealing my issues! Clinton’s crime rhetoric and the dynamics of issue ownership. Political Behavior26(2): 95–124. DOI: 10.1023/B: POBE.0000035959.35567.16.
19.
JacobyWG (2000) Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science44(4): 750–767. DOI: 10.2307/2669279.
20.
JeritJ (2007) Issue framing and engagement: rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior30(1): 1–24. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-007-9041-x.
21.
KinderDR (2003) Communication and politics in the age of information. In: SearsDOHuddyLJervisR (eds), Handbook of Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 253–284.
22.
LipsitzK (2013) Issue convergence is nothing more than issue convergence. Political Research Quarterly66(4): 843–855. DOI: 10.1177/1065912913477735.
23.
NadeauRPétryFBélangerÉ (2010) Issue-based strategies in election campaigns: the case of health care in the 2000 Canadian federal election. Political Communication27(4): 367–388. DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2010.516797.
24.
PetrocikJ (1989) The theory of issue ownership: Issues, agendas, and electoral coalitions in the 1988 elections. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
25.
PetrocikJ (1996) Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science40(3): 825–850.
26.
RikerWH (1993) Rhetorical interaction in the ratification campaigns. In: RikerWH (ed), Agenda Formation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, pp. 81–120.
27.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt.
28.
SidesJ (2006) The origins of campaign agendas. British Journal of Political Science36(3): 407. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123406000226.
29.
SidesJ (2007) The consequences of campaign agendas. American Politics Research35(4): 465–488. DOI: 10.1177/1532673X07300648.
30.
SigelmanLBuellE (2004) Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in U.S. Presidential campaigns, 1960–2000. American Journal of Political Science48: 650–661.
31.
SimonAF (2002) The Winning Message: Candidate Behavior, Campaign Discourse, and Democracy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
SlothuusR (2010) When can political parties lead public opinion? Evidence from a natural experiment. Political Communication27(2): 158–177. DOI: 10.1080/10584601003709381.
33.
van de WardtM (2015) Conforming to the dominant discourse: framing distance and multiparty competition. West European Politics38(4): 839–868. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2015.1039378.
34.
VliegenthartRWalgraveS (2011) When the media matter for politics: partisan moderators of the mass media’s agenda-setting influence on parliament in Belgium. Party Politics17(3): 321–342.
35.
WalgraveSSwertKD (2007) Where does issue ownership come from? From the party or from the media? Issue-party identifications in Belgium, 1991–2005. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics12(1): 37–67. DOI: 10.1177/1081180X06297572.
36.
WalgraveSTreschALefevereJ (2015) The Conceptualisation and Measurement of Issue Ownership. West European Politics38(4): 778–796.
37.
WilliamsMH (2006) The Impact of Radical Right-Wing Parties in West European Democracies (First Edition edition). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
