Humans evolved to attend to valence and group membership when learning about their environment. The political domain offers a unique opportunity to study the simultaneous influence of these two broad, domain-general features of human experience. We examined whether the pervasive tendency for negatively valenced frames to “stick” in the mind applies to both intergroup and intragroup political contexts. In a preregistered experiment, we tested the effects of negative-to-positive (vs. positive-to-negative) reframing on people’s candidate preferences, first in the absence of party cue information and then in two partisan contexts: an intergroup context (analogous to a U.S. general election between opposing political parties) and an intragroup context (analogous to a U.S. primary election between candidates of the same party). We observed a persistent negativity bias in reframing effects, even in the presence of party cues. The results pave the way for future research at the intersection of psychology and political science.
AfifiW. A.BurgoonJ. K. (2000). The impact of violations on uncertainty and the consequences for attractiveness. Human Communication Research, 26, 203–233.
2.
AllportG. W. (1935). Attitudes. In MurchisonC. (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
3.
AschS. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41, 258.
4.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117–150.
5.
BaumeisterR. F.BratslavskyE.FinkenauerC.VohsK. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.
6.
BélangerÉ.MeguidB. M. (2008). Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies, 27, 477–491. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2008.01.001
7.
BerinskyA. J.KinderD. R. (2006). Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics, 68, 640–656. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00451.x
8.
BohannonJ. (2016). Mechanical Turk upends social sciences. Science, 352, 1263–1264.
9.
BonneauC. W.CannD. M. (2015). Party identification and vote choice in partisan and nonpartisan elections. Political Behavior, 37, 43–66.
10.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love and outgroup hate?Journal of social issues, 55, 429–444.
11.
BullockJ. G.GerberA. S.HillS. J.HuberG. A. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10, 519–578. doi:10.1561/100.00014074
12.
CacioppoJ. T.BerntsonG. G. (1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 401.
13.
CampbellA.ConverseP. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American Voter. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. doi:10.2307/1952653
14.
CarstensenL. L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312, 1913–1915.
ChangC. C. (2003). Party bias in political-advertising processing—Results from an experiment involving the 1998 Taipei mayoral election. Journal of Advertising, 32, 55–67. doi:10.2307/4622160
17.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007a). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637–655.
18.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
19.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. American Political Science Review, 104, 663–680.
20.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2013). Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics, 75, 1–16.
21.
ClaassenR. L.HightonB. (2006). Does policy debate reduce information effects in public opinion? Analyzing the evolution of public opinion on health care. Journal of Politics, 68, 410–420.
22.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808.
23.
ConverseP. E. (2000). Assessing the capacity of mass electorates. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 331–353.
24.
DruckmanJ. N.FeinJ.LeeperT. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106, 430–454.
25.
EntmanR. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.
26.
FiskeS. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889–906. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.6.889
27.
FlemingM. A.PettyR. E. (2000). Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. In TerryD. J.HoggM. A. (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership. (Vol. 8., p. 347). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
GawronskiB.RydellR. J.VervlietB.De HouwerJ. (2010). Generalization versus contextualization in automatic evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 683.
29.
GlanzerM.CunitzA. R. (1966). Two storage mechanisms in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5, 351–360.
30.
GorenPaul. (2002). Character weakness, partisan bias, and presidential evaluation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 627–641.
31.
GrossK. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29, 169–192.
32.
HansenC. H.HansenR. D. (1988). Finding the face in the crowd: An anger superiority effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 917–924. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.917
33.
HartP. S.NisbetE. C. (2011). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39, 701–723.
34.
HastorfA. H.CantrilH. (1954). They saw a game: A case study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Social Psychology, 49, 129–134. doi:10.1037/h0057880
35.
HewstoneM. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311–335.
36.
HowardJ. W.RothbartM. (1980). Social categorization and memory for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301.
37.
JacobsonG. C.CarsonJ. L. (2015). The politics of congressional elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
38.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292. doi:10.2307/1914185
39.
KatzD. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 163–204.
40.
KühbergerA. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23–55. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2781
41.
KuklinskiJ. H.QuirkP. J.JeritJ.SchwiederD.RobertF. R. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62, 790–816.
42.
LagattutaK. H.SayfanL. (2013). Not all past events are equal: Biased attention and emerging heuristics in children’s past-to-future forecasting. Child Development, 84, 2094–2111.
LechelerS.De VreeseC. H. (2011). Getting real: The duration of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 61, 959–983.
45.
LedgerwoodA.BoydstunA. E. (2014). Sticky prospects: Loss frames are cognitively stickier than gain frames. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 376–385.
46.
LedgerwoodA.CallahanS. P.ChaikenS. (2014). Changing minds: Persuasion in negotiation and conflict resolution. In ColemanP. T.DeutschM.MarcusE. C. (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
47.
LedgerwoodA.SoderbergC.SparksJ. (2017). Designing a study to maximize informational value. In PluckerJ.MakelM. (Eds.), Doing good social science: Trust, accuracy, and transparency (pp. 33–58). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
48.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76, 149–188. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9831520
49.
LupiaA.McCubbinsM. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
50.
MarkusH.ZajoncR. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 137–230). New York, NY: Random House.
51.
McDermottR.FowlerJ. H.SmirnovO. (2008). On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. The Journal of Politics, 70, 335. doi:10.1017/S0022381608080341
52.
MurdockB. B.Jr. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 482.
53.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A., & OxleyZ. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567–583.
54.
PeetersG.CzapinskiJ. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 33–60. doi:10.1080/14792779108401856
55.
PrattoF.JohnO. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380–391.
56.
RholesW. S.RubleD. N. (1986). Children’s impressions of other persons: The effects of temporal separation of behavioral information. Child Development, 57, 872–878.
57.
RozinP.RoyzmanE. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320.
58.
SchallerM. (1992). In-group favoritism and statistical reasoning in social inference: Implications for formation and maintenance of group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 61.
59.
SchultzW. (2000). Multiple reward signals in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 1, 199–207.
60.
SchwarzN. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American Psychologist, 54, 93.
61.
SeuntjensT. G.RatliffK. A. (2017). You never get a second chance to make a (good) first impression: The asymmetric influence of positive and negative information on impression formation. Unpublished manuscript.
62.
SimonsD. J.ShodaY.LindsayD. S. (2017). Constraints on Generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/1745691617708630
SparksJ. & LedgerwoodA. (2017). Framing and reframing effects across adulthood. Unpublished manuscript.
65.
SparksJ.LedgerwoodA. (2017). When good is stickier than bad: Understanding gain/loss asymmetries in sequential framing effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 1086–1105. doi:10.1037/xge0000311
66.
SteigerJ. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 164–182.
67.
TajfelH.BilligM.BundyR.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.
68.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In NelsonW. A. (Ed.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x
69.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
70.
WellsC.ReedyJ.GastilJ.LeeC. (2009). Information distortion and voting choices: The origins and effects of factual beliefs in initiative elections. Political Psychology, 30, 953–969. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00735.x
71.
WestenD.BlagovP. S.HarenskiK.KiltsC.HamannS. (2006). Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An FMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1947–1958. doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.194
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.
