The current public backlash against several trade agreements has triggered a vivid discourse about the impact of top-down communication of such initiatives on public opinion. Findings from previous work on the impact of issue frames provide distinct expectations about the influence of different types of messages on people’s opinion. However, little is known about the mechanisms underlying the impact of message cues on opinion formation. In this article, we shed light on one potential mechanism that mediates issue framing effects: individuals’ emotional reaction. By means of a survey-embedded experiment conducted in the United States and Germany, we expose respondents to different frames about the benefits and risks of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement. The results show that frames have a significant effect on public opinion, but frames that emphasize losses seem more persuasive than frames promoting the gains from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Complementing our empirical investigation, with a causal mediation analysis we find that framing effects are indeed mediated by people’s emotional responses to the frames.
AaroeL (2011) Investigating Frame Strength: The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames. Political Communication28: 207–226.
2.
AbelsonRPKinderDRPetersMD, et al. (1982) Affective and Semantic Components in Political Personal Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology42 (4): 619–630.
3.
BrewerPRGrafJWillnatL (2003) Priming or Framing: Media Influence on Attitudes Toward Foreign Countries. International Communication Gazette65 (6): 493–508.
4.
ChongDDruckmanJ (2007) Framing Theory. Annual Review of Political Science10: 103–126.
5.
CloreGLStorbeckJ (2006) Affect as Information about Liking, Efficacy, and Importance. In: ForgasJ (ed.) Affect in Social Thinking and Behavior. New York: Psychology Press, pp.123–142.
6.
De VreeseCHLechelerS (2016) Framing Theory. In: MazzoleniGBarnhurstKGIkedaK, et al. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp.404–413.
7.
DruckmanJ (2004) Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects. American Political Science Review98 (4): 671–686.
8.
DruckmanJLupiaA (2000) Preference Formation. Annual Review of Political Science3: 1–24.
9.
DruckmanJNMcDermottR (2008) Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice. Political Behavior30: 297–321.
10.
DruckmanJNNelsonKR (2003) Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Influence. American Journal of Political Science47 (4): 729–745.
11.
FiskeSTTaylorSE (1991) Social Cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
GamsonWA (1992) Talking Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
GrantJTRudolphTJ (2003) Value Conflict, Group Affect, and the Issue of Campaign Finance. American Journal of Political Science47 (3): 453–469.
14.
GrossK (2008) Framing Persuasive Appeals: Episodic and Thematic Framing, Emotional Response, and Policy Opinion. Political Psychology29 (2): 169–192.
15.
GrossKD’AmbrosioL (2004) Framing Emotional Response. Political Psychology25 (1): 1–29.
16.
GuisingerA (2009) Determining Trade Policy: Do Voters Hold Politicians Accountable?International Organization63 (3): 533–557.
17.
ImaiKKeeleLTingleyD, et al. (2011) Unpacking the Black Box of Causality: Learning About Causal Mechanisms from Experimental and Observational Studies. American Political Science Review105 (4): 765–789.
18.
IyengarS (1991) Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
19.
IzardCE (2007) Basic Emotions, Natural Kinds, Emotion Schemas, and a New Paradigm. Perspectives on Psychological Science2 (3): 260–280.
20.
JacobyWG (2000) Issue Framing and Public Opinion on Government Spending. American Journal of Political Science44 (4): 750–767.
21.
KeltnerDEllsworthPCEdwardsK (1993) Beyond Simple Pessimism: Effects of Sadness and Anger on Social Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology64 (5): 740–752.
22.
KimHJCameronGT (2011) Emotions Matter in Crisis: The Role of Anger and Sadness in the Publics’ Response to Crisis News Framing and Corporate Crisis Response. Communication Research20 (10): 1–30.
23.
KinderDR (2003) Communication and Politics in the Age of Information. In: SearsDOHuddyLJervisRL (eds) Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.357–393.
24.
LazarusRS (1991) Emotion and Adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
LechelerSBosLVliegenthartR (2015) The Mediating Role of Emotions: News Framing Effects on Opinions about Immigration. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly94 (4): 812–838.
26.
LechelerSSchuckARTde VreeseCH (2013) Dealing with Feeling: Positive and Negative Discrete Emotions as Mediators of News Framing Effects. Communications: The European Journal of Communication38 (2): 189–209.
27.
LernerJSKelltnerD (2001) Fear, Anger, and Risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology81: 146–159.
28.
MarcusGE (1988) The Structure of Emotional Response: 1984 Presidential Candidates. American Political Science Review82 (3): 737–761.
29.
MarcusGE (2002) The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
30.
MarcusGEMacKuenMB (1993) Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement during Presidential Campaigns. American Political Science Review87 (3): 672–685.
31.
MendelbergT (2001) The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
NabiRL (1998) The Effect of Visuals on Attitudes toward Animal Experimentation. Communication Quarterly46: 472–484.
33.
NelsonTEKinderDR (1996) Issue Frames and in American Public Opinion. Journal of Politics58: 1055–1078.
34.
NelsonTEOxleyZM (1999) Issue Framing Effect on Belief Importance and Opinion. Journal of Politics61 (4): 1040–1067.
35.
NelsonTEClawsonRAOxleyZM (1997a) Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance. American Political Science Review91: 567–583.
36.
NelsonTEOxleyZMClawsonRA (1997b) Toward a Psychology of Framing Effects. Political Behavior19 (3): 221–246.
37.
NicholsonSPHowardRM (2003) Framing Support for the Supreme Court in the Aftermath of Bush V. Gore. Journal of Politics65 (3): 676–695.
38.
NisbetECCooperKEGarrettRK (2015) The Partisan Brain: How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science658 (1): 36–66.
39.
PriceVTewksburyD (1997) News Values and Public Opinion: A Theoretical Account of Media Priming and Framing. In: BarnettGBosterFJ (eds) Progress in the Communication Sciences. New York: Ablex, pp.173–212.
40.
RussellJA (2003) Core Affect and the Psychological Construction of Emotion. Psychological Review110 (1): 145–172.
41.
SchachterSSingerJ (1962) Cognitive, Social, and Physiological Determinants of Emotional State. Psychological Review69 (5): 379–399.
42.
SchattschneiderEE (1960) Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
43.
ScheufeleDATewksburyD (2007) Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models. Journal of Communication57 (1): 9–20.
44.
SchuckAFeinholdtA (2014) News Framing Effects and Emotions: Research Trends and Developments. In: ScottRKosslynS (eds) Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp.1–15.
45.
SchwarzNCloreGL (1983) Mood, Misattribution, and Judgments of Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology45: 513–523.
46.
SchwarzNCloreGL (1988) How Do I Feel about It? The Informative Function of Mood. In: FiedlerKForgasJ (eds) Affect, Cognition, and Social Behaviour. Toronto, ON, Canada: C.J. Hogrefe, pp.44–62.
47.
SchwarzNCloreGL (1996) Feelings and Phenomenal Experiences. In: HigginsETKruglanskiA (eds) Social Psychology: A Handbook of Basic Principle. New York: Guilford Press, pp.533–465.
48.
ShenFEdwardsHH (2005) Economic Individualism, Humanitarianism, and Welfare Reform: A Value-Based Account of Framing Effects. Journal of Communication55 (4): 795–809.
49.
SnidermanPMTheriaultSM (2004) The Structure of Political Argument and the Logic of Issue Framing. In: SarisWESnidermanPM (eds) Studies in Public Opinion. Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.133–166.
50.
WatsonDLeeACTellegenA (1988) Development and Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54 (6): 1063–1070.
51.
WatsonDWieseDVaidyaJ, et al. (1999) The Two General Activation Systems of Affect: Structural Findings, Evolutionary Considerations, and Psychobiological Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology76 (5): 820–838.
52.
ZallerJFeldmanS (1992) A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences. American Journal of Political Science36 (1): 579–616.
