How does policy-relevant information change citizens’ policy attitudes? Though giving numerical information about social conditions has been found, at times, to change policy attitudes, why it works (or doesn’t) is poorly understood. I argue new or corrective information may not translate into policy-attitude change in part because it fails to instill a sense of need for change. Perceived problem seriousness, an affect-laden judgment about the acceptability of the status quo, may therefore be an important psychological mechanism through which information changes people’s minds. To perceive a problem, conditions must seem worse than they ought to be. Previous research, however, presents numerical information without a point of reference from which citizens can base their judgments. By contextualizing facts with reference points from the past (time) as well as other countries (space), four survey experiments show that numerical information about a range of social problems can change policy attitudes by first changing their perceived seriousness.
AlvarezR. M.AtkesonLRLevinI.LiY. (2019). “Paying attention to inattentive survey respondents.”. Political Analysis, 27(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.57
3.
AytaçS. E. (2020). Do voters respond to relative economic performance?Public Opinion Quarterly, 84(2), 493–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfaa023
4.
BerinksyAdam J. (2007). Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites, and American Public Support for Military Conflict. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 975–997. DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00602.x.
5.
BisgaardM.SlothuusR. (2018). Partisan elites as culprits? How party cues shape partisan perceptual gaps. American Journal of Political Science, 62(2), 456–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12349
6.
BorA.SimonovitsG. (2021). Empathy, deservingness, and preferences for welfare assistance: A large-scale online perspective-taking experiment. Political Behavior, 43(3), 1247–1264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09728-4
7.
BoudreauC.MacKenzieS. A. (2018). Wanting what is fair: How party cues and information about income inequality affect public support for taxes. Journal of Politics, 80(2), 367–381. https://doi.org/10.1086/694784
8.
BraderT.ValentinoN. A.SuhayE. (2008). What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00353.x
9.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933
10.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. University of Chicago Press.
11.
CampbellT. H.KayA. C. (2014). Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(5), 809–824. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037963
12.
CharbonneauE.Van RyzinG. G. (2015). Benchmarks and citizen judgments of local government performance: Findings from a survey experiment. Prague Medical Report, 17(2), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.798027
ChongD.MullinixK. J. (2019). Information and issue constraints on party cues. Archives of Pharmacal Research, 47(6), 1209–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x18803887
15.
CondonM.WichowskyA. (2020). Inequality in the social mind: Social comparison and support for redistribution. Journal of Politics, 82(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1086/705686
16.
Delli CarpiniM. X.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
17.
DruckmanJ. N.KamC. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants: A defense of the ‘narrow data base’. In DruckmanJ. N.GreenD. P.KuklinskiJ. H.LupiaA. (Eds), Handbook of experimental political science (pp. 41–57). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511921452.004
18.
DruckmanJ. N.NelsonK. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ con- versations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00051
19.
ElderE. M.O’BrianN. A. (2022). Social groups as the source of political belief systems: Fresh evidence on an old theory. American Political Science Review, 116(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000326
20.
GainesB.KuklinskiJ.QuirkP.PeytonP.VerkuilenJ. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 957–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00601.x
21.
GilensM. (2001). Political ignorance and collective policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(2), 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401002222
GrossK. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00622.x
24.
HaselswerdtJ.BartelsB. L. (2015). Public opinion, policy tools, and the status quo: Evidence from a survey experiment. Political Research Quarterly, 68(3), 607–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915591217
25.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (Second). Guilford Press.
26.
HochschildJ. L. (2001). Where you stand depends on what you see: Connections among values, perceptions of fact, and political prescriptions. In KuklinskiJ. H. (Ed), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 313–340). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511896941.015
27.
HopkinsD. J.SidesJ.CitrinJ. (2019). The muted consequences of correct information about immigration. The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 315–320. https://doi.org/10.1086/699914
28.
ImaiK.KeeleL.TingleyD.YamamotoT. (2011). Unpacking the Black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000414
29.
ImaiK.YamamotoT. (2013). Identification and sensitivity analysis for multiple causal mechanisms: Revisiting evidence from framing experiments. Political Analysis, 21(2), 141–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mps040
30.
IyengarS.KinderD. R. (1987). News that matters. Chicago University Press.
31.
JalalH.BuchanichJ. M.RobertsM. S.BalmertL. C.ZhangK.BurkeD. S. (2018). Changing dynamics of the drug overdose epidemic in the United States from 1979 through. Science, 361(6408), eaau1184. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau1184
32.
JensenC.PetersenM. B. (2017). The deservingness heuristic and the politics of health care. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12251
33.
JørgensenF. J.OsmundsenM. (2022). Correcting citizens’ misperceptions about non- western immigrants: Corrective information, interpretations, and policy opinions. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9(1), 64–73.
34.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.JeritJ.SchwiederD.RichR. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-3816.00033
LenzG. S. (2012). Follow the leader? How voters respond to politicians’ policies and performance. Chicago University Press.
40.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press.
41.
MillerJ. M.KrosnickJ. A.FabrigarL. R. (2017). The origins of policy issue salience: Personal and national importance impact on behavioral, cognitive, and emotional issue engagement. In KrosnickJ. A.ChiangI.-C. A.StarkT. H. (Eds), Political psychology: New explorations (pp. 125–172). Routledge.
42.
MonizP. (2022). How bad is it? Elite influence and the perceived seriousness of the coronavirus pandemic. 2022. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 9(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2020.45
43.
NadeauR.NiemiR. G.LevineJ. (1993). Innumeracy about minority populations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(3), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1086/269379
44.
NelsonT. E.KinderD. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055–1078. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960149
45.
NetherlandJ.HansenH. (2017). White opioids: Pharmaceutical race and the war on drugs that wasn’t. BioSocieties, 12(2), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1057/biosoc.2015.46
46.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2
OlsenA. L. (2017). Compared to what? How social and historical reference points affect citizens’ performance evaluations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(4), 562–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux023
49.
OxleyD. R.VedlitzA.WoodB. D. (2014). The effect of persuasive messages on policy problem recognition. Policy Studies Journal, 42(2), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12058
50.
Pew Research Center (2018). Little partisan agreement on the pressing problems facing the U.S.
51.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/2939044
52.
SigelmanL.NiemiR. G. (2001). Innumeracy about minority populations: African Americans and whites compared. 2000, innumeracy about minority populations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(1), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/320039
ThalA. (2017). Class isolation and affluent Americans’ perception of social conditions. Political Behavior, 39(2), 401–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9361-9
TingleyD.YamamotoT.HiroseK.KeeleL.ImaiK. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i05
57.
VanderWeeleT. (2015). Explanation in causal inference: Methods for mediation and interaction. Oxford University Press.
58.
WeinerB. (1980). A cognitive (Attribution)-Emotion-Action model of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2), 186–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.2.186
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.
