Analogies have captivated philosophers for millennia, yet their effects on modern public opinion preferences remain largely unexplored. Nevertheless, the lack of evidence as to whether analogies aid in political persuasion has not stopped politicians from using these rhetorical devices in public debates. To examine such strategic attempts to garner political support, we conducted survey experiments in the United States that featured the analogical arguments being used by Democrats and Republicans as well as some of the policy rationales that accompanied their appeals. The results revealed that analogies—especially those that also provided the underlying policy logic—increased support for individual health coverage mandates, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and even single payer national health proposals. However, we demonstrated that rebutting flawed analogies was also possible. Thus, within the health care arena, framing proposals with analogies can alter policy preferences significantly, providing a way to deliver policy rationales persuasively.
AmiraK.CooperC. A.KnottsH. G.WoffordC. (2018). The southern accent as a heuristic in American campaigns and elections. American Politics Research, 46(6), 1065–1093.
2.
AronowP. M.SamiiC. (2016). Does regression produce representative estimates of causal effects?American Journal of Political Science, 60(1), 250–267.
3.
ArpanL. M. (2009). The effects of exemplification on perceptions of news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 12(3), 249–270.
4.
BarabasC. (1990). Technical writing in a corporate culture: A study of the nature of information. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
5.
BarabasJ. (2009). Not the next IRA: How health savings accounts shape public opinion. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 34(2), 181–217.
6.
BarabasJ.JeritJ. (2010). Are survey experiments externally valid?American Political Science Review, 104(2), 226–242.
7.
BarryC. L.BrescollV. L.BrownellK. D.SchlesingerM. (2009). Obesity metaphors: How beliefs about the causes of obesity affect support for public policy. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 7–47.
8.
BerinskyA. J.KinderD. R. (2006). Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics, 68(3), 640–656.
9.
BolsenT.DruckmanJ. N.CookF. L. (2014). How frames can undermine support for scientific adaptations: Politicization and the status-quo bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(1), 1–26.
10.
BougherL. D. (2012). The case for metaphor in political reasoning and cognition. Political Psychology, 33(1), 145–163.
11.
BrewerP. R.GrossK. (2005). Values, framing, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26(6), 929–948.
12.
BrosiusH. B.BatheltA. (1994). The utility of exemplars in persuasive communications. Communication Research, 21(1), 48–78.
13.
ButlerS. M. (1989). Assuring affordable health care for all Americans (Heritage Lectures, 218). Heritage Foundation.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
16.
CarminesE. G.KuklinskiJ. H. (1990). Incentives, opportunities, and the logic of public opinion in American political representation. In FerejohnJ. A.KuklinskiJ. H. (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 240–268). University of Illinois Press.
17.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007a). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.
18.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
19.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007c). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 99–118.
20.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 663–680.
21.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2013). Counterframing effects. Journal of Politics, 75(1), 1–16.
22.
ChongD.MullinixK. J. (2019). Information and issue constraints on party cues. American Politics Research, 47(6), 1209–1238.
23.
ChristensonD. P.KrinerD. L. (2017). Mobilizing the public against the president: Congress and the political costs of unilateral action. American Journal of Political Science, 61(4), 769–785.
24.
CliffordS.JeritJ. (2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. Journal of Politics, 75(3), 659–671.
25.
CliffordS.JeritJ. (2018). Disgust, anxiety, and political learning in the face of threat. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 266–279.
26.
ConoverP. J.FeldmanS. (1986). The role of inference in the perception of political candidates. In LauR. R.SearsD. O. (Eds.), Political cognition: The 19th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 127–158). Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
ConoverP. J.FeldmanS. (1989). Candidate perception in an ambiguous world: Campaigns, cues, and inference processes. American Journal of Political Science, 33, 912–940.
28.
CookF. L.BarabasJ.PageB. I. (2002). Invoking public opinion: Policy elites and social security. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(2), 235–264.
29.
CornerA.HahnU.OaksfordM. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 133–152.
30.
CosmidesL.ToobyJ. (1994). Better than rational: Evolutionary psychology and the invisible hand. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 327–332.
31.
DamoreD. F. (2004). The dynamics of issue ownership in presidential campaigns. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 391–397.
32.
DoonanM. T.TullK. R. (2010). Health care reform in Massachusetts: Implementation of coverage expansions and a health insurance mandate. Milbank Quarterly, 88(1), 54–80.
33.
DowlingC. M.HendersonM.MillerM. G. (2020). Knowledge persists, opinions drift: Learning and opinion change in a three-wave panel experiment. American Politics Research, 48(2), 263–274.
34.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper & Row.
35.
DruckmanJ. N.LeeperT. J. (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments: Pretreatment and its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 875–896.
36.
DysonS. B.PrestonT. (2006). Individual characteristics of political leaders and the use of analogy in foreign policy decision making. Political Psychology, 27(2), 265–288.
37.
EntmanR. M. (1991). Framing U.S. coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air incidents. Journal of Communication, 41(4), 6–27.
38.
FiskeS. T.LinvilleP. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(4), 543–557.
39.
FiskeS. T.TaylorS. E. (1991). Social cognition. McGraw-Hill.
40.
FranzM. M.RidoutT. N. (2007). Does political advertising persuade?Political Behavior, 29(4), 465–491.
41.
FridkinK. L.KenneyP. J. (2011). The role of candidate traits in campaigns. Journal of Politics, 73(1), 61–73.
42.
GentnerD. (1983). Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science, 7(2), 155–170.
43.
GentnerD.LoewensteinJ.ThompsonL.ForbusK. D. (2009). Reviving inert knowledge: Analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science, 33(8), 1343–1382.
44.
GentnerD.MarkmanA. B. (1994). Structural alignment in comparison: No difference without similarity. Psychological Science, 5(3), 152–158.
45.
GentnerD.RattermannM. J.ForbusK. D. (1993). The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrievability from inferential soundness. Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 524–575.
46.
GerberA.MalhotraN. (2008). Do statistical reporting standards affect what is published? Publication bias in two leading political science journals. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 3(3), 313–326.
47.
GerberA. S.GreenD. P.KaplanE. H.ShapiroI.SmithR. M.MassoudT. (2014). The illusion of learning from observational research. In Field experiments and their critics: Essays on the uses and abuses of experimentation in the social sciences (pp. 9–32). https://yalebooks.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/TOC/Teele_TOC.pdf
48.
GerringJ. (2011). Social science methodology: A unified framework. Cambridge University Press.
49.
GigerenzerG. (2008). Rationality for mortals: How people cope with uncertainty. Oxford University Press.
50.
GigerenzerG.GoldsteinD. G. (1999). Betting on one good reason: The take the best heuristic. In GigerenzerG.ToddP. M., & ABC Research Group (Eds.), Simple heuristics that make us smart (pp. 75–95). Oxford University Press.
51.
GoodinR. E.ReinM.MoranM. (2011). Overview of public policy: The public and its policies. In GoodinR. E. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of political science (pp. 885–918). Oxford University Press.
52.
GottfriedJ. A.HardyB. W.WinnegK. M.JamiesonK. H. (2013). Did fact checking matter in the 2012 presidential campaign?American Behavioral Scientist, 57(11), 1558–1567.
53.
GrandeD.GollustS. E.AschD. A. (2011). Polling analysis: Public support for health reform was broader than reported and depended on how proposals were framed. Health Affairs, 30(7), 1242–1249.
GusmanoM. K.SchlesingerM.ThomasT. (2002). Policy feedback and public opinion: The role of employer responsibility in social policy. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 27(5), 731–772.
56.
HalpernD. F.HansenC.RieferD. (1990). Analogies as an aid to understanding and memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 298–305.
57.
HamillR.LodgeM.BlakeF. (1985). The breadth, depth, and utility of class, partisan, and ideological schemata. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 850–870.
58.
HemmerC. (1999). Historical analogies and the definition of interests: The Iranian hostage crisis and Ronald Reagan’s policy toward the hostages in Lebanon. Political Psychology, 20(2), 267–289.
59.
HillS.LoJ.VavreckL.ZallerJ. (2013). How quickly we forget: The duration of persuasion effects from mass communication. Political Communication, 30, 521–547.
60.
HovlandC. I.LumsdaineA. A.SheffieldF. D. (1949). Studies in social psychology in World War II. Experiments on mass communication (Vol. 3). Princeton University Press.
61.
HuberG. A.ArceneauxK. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 957–977.
62.
JacobsA. M.MatthewsJ. S. (2012). Why do citizens discount the future? Public opinion and the timing of policy consequences. British Journal of Political Science, 42(4), 903–935.
63.
JacobsL. R. (2014). Health reform and the future of American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 12(3), 631–642.
64.
JacobsL. R.MettlerS. (2011). Why public opinion changes: The implications for health and health policy. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 36(6), 917–933.
65.
JacobsL. R.MettlerS. (2016). Liking health reform but turned off by toxic politics. Health Affairs, 35(5), 915–922.
66.
JensenC.PetersenM. B. (2017). The deservingness heuristic and the politics of health care. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 68–83.
67.
JeritJ. (2006). Reform, rescue, or run out of money? Problem definition in the Social Security reform debate. Harvard International Journal of Press/politics, 11(1), 9–28.
68.
JeritJ. (2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in public policy debates. Political Behavior, 30(1), 1–24.
69.
JeritJ.BarabasJ. (2006). Bankrupt rhetoric: How misleading information affects knowledge about social security. International Journal of Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(3), 278–303.
70.
JeritJ.BarabasJ.CliffordS. (2013). Comparing contemporaneous laboratory and field experiments on media effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77(1), 256–282.
KaneJ. V.BarabasJ. (2019). No harm in checking: Using factual manipulation checks to assess attentiveness in experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 63(1), 234–249.
74.
KeeneyR. L.RaiffaH. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge University Press.
75.
KhongY. F. (1992). Analogies at war: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam decisions of 1965. Princeton University Press.
KrupnikovY.LevineA. S. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 59–80.
78.
LakoffG. (1990). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
79.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (2003). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
80.
LandtsheerC. D.De VriesP.VertessenD. (2008). Political impression management: How metaphors, sound bites, appearance effectiveness, and personality traits can win elections. Journal of Political Marketing, 7(3–4), 217–238.
81.
LauR. R.RedlawskD. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951–971.
82.
LauR. R.SchlesingerM. (2005). Policy frames, metaphorical reasoning, and support for public policies. Political Psychology, 26(1), 77–114.
83.
LauR. R.SearsD. O. (Eds.). (1986). Political cognition: The 19th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition, held on the campus of Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, May 18-20, 1984. Lawrence Erlbaum.
84.
LauR. R.SigelmanL.RovnerI. B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176–1209.
85.
LodeE. (1999). Slippery slope arguments and legal reasoning. California Law Review, 87, Article 1469.
86.
LodgeM.HamillR. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review, 80(2), 505–519.
87.
LupiaA. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review, 88(1), 63–76.
88.
LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D.ArthurL. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?Cambridge University Press.
89.
MondakJ. J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: The cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 186–212.
90.
MondakJ. J.LewisC. J.SidesJ. C.KangJ.LongJ. O. (2004). Presidential source cues and policy appraisals, 1981-2000. American Politics Research, 32(2), 219–235.
91.
MontgomeryJ. M.NyhanB.TorresM. (2018). How conditioning on posttreatment variables can ruin your experiment and what to do about it. American Journal of Political Science, 62(3), 760–775.
92.
MullinixK. J.LeeperT. J.DruckmanJ. N.FreeseJ. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138.
93.
MutzD. C.SnidermanP. M.BrodyR. A. (Eds.). (1996). Political persuasion and attitude change. University of Michigan Press.
94.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A.OxleyZ. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583.
95.
NisbetM. C. (2009). Communicating climate change: Why frames matter for public engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12–23.
96.
OberlanderJ. (2003). The political life of Medicare. University of Chicago Press.
97.
OberlanderJ. (2013). The future of ObamaCare. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 68(4), 265–266.
98.
OberlanderJ. (2019). Navigating the shifting terrain of US health care reform—Medicare for all, single payer, and the public option. Milbank Quarterly, 97(4), 939–953.
99.
PadenC.PageB. I. (2003). Congress invokes public opinion on welfare reform. American Politics Research, 31(6), 670–679.
100.
PageB. I. (1996). Who deliberates?: Mass media in modern democracy. University of Chicago Press.
101.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (Eds.), Communication and persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer.
RahnW. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496.
104.
RidoutT. N.SearlesK. (2011). It’s my campaign I’ll cry if I want to: How and when campaigns use emotional appeals. Political Psychology, 32(3), 439–458.
105.
RikerW. H.MuellerJ. P. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American Constitution. Yale University Press.
106.
SagiE.GentnerD.LovettA. (2012). What difference reveals about similarity. Cognitive Science, 36(6), 1019–1050.
107.
SamiiC. (2016). Causal empiricism in quantitative research. Journal of Politics, 78(3), 941–955.
SchlesingerM.LauR. R. (2000). The meaning and measure of policy metaphors. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 611–626.
110.
ShimkoK. L. (1994). Metaphors and foreign policy decision making. Political Psychology, 15, 655–671.
111.
SimonA. F.JeritJ. (2007). Toward a theory relating political discourse, media, and public opinion. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 254–271.
112.
SimonH. A. (1957). A behavioral model of rational choice. In SimonH. A. (Ed.), Models of man, social and rational: Mathematical essays on rational human behavior in a social setting (pp. 241–260). Wiley.
113.
SimonH. A. (1985). Human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79(2), 293–304.
114.
SnidermanP. M.HagenM. G.TetlockP. E.BradyH. E. (1986). Reasoning chains: Causal models of policy reasoning in mass publics. British Journal of Political Science, 16(4), 405–430.
115.
SnidermanP. M.TheriaultS. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In SarisW. E.SnidermanP. M. (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 133–165). Princeton University Press.
116.
SossJ. (1999). Lessons of welfare: Policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363–380.
117.
SossJ.SchramS. F. (2007). A public transformed? Welfare reform as policy feedback. American Political Science Review, 101(1), 111–127.
118.
StapelD. A.SpearsR. (1996). Guilty by disassociation (and innocent by association): The impact of relevant and irrelevant analogies on political judgments. Political Behavior, 18(3), 289–309.
119.
StoneD. (2001). The policy paradox: The art of political decision making. W. W. Norton.
ThibodeauP. H.BoroditskyL. (2011). Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLOS ONE, 6(2), Article e16782.
122.
TverskyA. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352.
123.
UtychS. M. (2018). Negative affective language in politics. American Politics Research, 46(1), 77–102.
124.
VolokhE. (2003). The mechanisms of the slippery slope. Harvard Law Review, 116(4), 1026–1137.
125.
WintersieckA. L. (2017). Debating the truth: The impact of fact-checking during electoral debates. American Politics Research, 45(2), 304–331.
126.
ZashinE.ChapmanP. C. (1974). The uses of metaphor and analogy: Toward a renewal of political language. Journal of Politics, 36(2), 290–326.
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.
