Frames shape public opinion on policy issues, with implications for policy adoption and agenda-setting. What impact do common issue frames for racial equity in education have on voters’ support for racially equitable education policy? Across survey experiments with two independent representative polls of California voters, framing effects were moderated by voters’ prior policy preferences. Among respondents concerned with tax policy, a frame emphasizing the economic benefits of equity elicited higher priority for racial equity in education. Among respondents concerned with social justice, an “equal opportunity” frame elicited higher priority ratings. However, exploratory analyses showed frames only mattered when respondents held mixed policy preferences. Among respondents who (a) valued both tax policy and social justice issues, or who (b) valued neither, both frames were equally impactful.
BellE. (2019). Deserving to whom? Investigating heterogeneity in the impact of social constructions of target populations on support for affirmative action. Policy Studies Journal, 49, 268–299.
2.
BenfordR. D.SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.
3.
BrewerP. R. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values?Political Psychology, 22, 45–64.
4.
BrooksC.ManzaJ. (2006). Social policy responsiveness in developed democracies. American Sociological Review, 71, 474–494.
5.
BursteinP. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 29–40.
6.
CareyR. L. (2014). A cultural analysis of the achievement gap discourse: Challenging the language and labels used in the work of school reform. Urban Education, 49, 440–468.
7.
CarterP. L.WelnerK. G. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance. Oxford University Press.
8.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.
9.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2010). Dynamic public opinion: Communication effects over time. The American Political Science Review, 104, 663–680.
10.
ChongD.DruckmanJ. N. (2013). Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 1–16.
11.
DarbyD.RuryJ. L. (2018). The color of mind: Why the origins of the achievement gap matter for justice. University of Chicago Press.
12.
DaveyL. (2009). Strategies for framing racial disparities: A FrameWorks Institute message brief. FrameWorks Institute.
13.
DeeT. S. (2005). A teacher like me: Does race, ethnicity, or gender matter?The American Economic Review, 90, 158–165.
14.
DelgadoC. M. (2013). Framing the gap: Education reform and conceptions of racial equity [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
15.
DruckmanJ. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame?The Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.
16.
DruckmanJ. N.NelsonK. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745.
17.
EgaliteA. J.KisidaB. (2018). The effects of teacher match on students’ academic perceptions and attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(1), 59–81.
18.
EngN. (2016). Educational inequality: Broadening public attitudes through framing. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 676–695.
19.
EnglishM.KallaJ. L. (2021). Racial equality frames and public policy support: Survey experimental research [Working paper]. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/tdkf3
20.
FrameWorks Institute. (2009). Enough blame to go around: Understanding the public discourse on education reform.
GershensonS.HartC. M.HymanJ.LindsayC. A.PapageorgeN. W. (2022). The long-run impacts of same-race teachers. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(4), 300–342.
Haider-MarkelD. P.JoslynM. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attrition: The conditional influence of issue frames. The Journal of Politics, 62, 520–543.
25.
HardistyD. J.JohnsonE. J.WeberE. U. (2010). A dirty word or a dirty world? Attribute framing, political affiliation, and query theory. Psychological Science, 21, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609355572
26.
HillardA. G. (2003). No mystery: Closing the achievement gap between Africans and excellence. In PerryT.SteeleC.HilliardA. G. III (Eds.), Young, gifted and Black (pp. 131–165). Beacon Press.
27.
HoustonD. M. (2021). Polarization and the politics of education: What moves partisan opinion?Educational Policy, 35, 566–589.
IngramH.SchneiderA. (2015). Making distinctions: The social construction of target populations. In FischerF.TorgersonD.DurnovaA.OrsiniM. (Eds.), Handbook of critical policy studies (pp. 259–273). Edward Elgar Publishing.
30.
JeffersC. (2019). Cultural constructivism. In GlasgowJ.HaslangerS.JeffersC.SpencerQ. (Eds.), What is race? Four philosophical views (pp. 38–72). Oxford University Press.
KinderD. R.HerzogD. (1993). Democratic discussion. In MarcusG. E.HansonR. L. (Eds.), Reconsidering the Democratic Public (pp. 347–377). Penn State University Press.
33.
KuchirkoY.NayfieldI. (2021). Ethnic-racial socialization in the context of the achievement gap discourse. Journal of Social Issues, 77, 1174–1187.
34.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U. S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3–12.
35.
LakoffG. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
36.
LechelerS.de VreeseC. H. (2019). News framing effects. Routledge.
37.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A topology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.
38.
LindsayC. A.HartC. M. (2017). Exposure to same-race teachers and student disciplinary outcomes for Black students in North Carolina. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 485–510.
McNeilB. J.PaukerS. G.SoxH. C.JrTverskyA. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259–1262.
41.
MettlerS.SossJ. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 55–73.
42.
MilnerH. R. (2013). Rethinking achievement gap talk in urban education. Urban Education, 48, 3–8.
NelsonT. E.OxleyZ. M.ClawsonR. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19, 221–249.
45.
PapageorgeN. W.GershensonS.KangK. M. (2020). Teacher expectations matter. Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(2), 234–251.
46.
Patton DavisL.MuseusS. D. (2019). What is deficit thinking? An analysis of conceptualizations of deficit thinking and implications for scholarly research. Currents, 1(1), 117–130.
47.
PerryT. (2003). Up from the parched earth: Toward a theory of African-American achievement. In PerryT.SteeleC.HilliardA. G. III (Eds.), Young, gifted and Black (pp. 1–10). Beacon Press.
48.
QuinnD. M. (2020a). Experimental effects of “achievement gap” news reporting on viewers’ racial stereotypes, inequality explanations, and inequality prioritization. Educational Researcher, 49(7), 482–492.
49.
QuinnD. M. (2020b). Experimental evidence on teachers’ racial bias in student evaluation: The role of grading scales. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(3), 375–392.
50.
QuinnD. M.DesruisseauxT. M. (2022). Replicating and extending effects of “achievement gap” discourse. Educational Researcher, 51(7), 496–499.
ScheufeleD. A.TewksburyD. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57, 9–20.
55.
SchneiderA.IngramH. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347.
56.
ShenF.EdwardsH. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value- based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 795–809.
57.
SlothuusR. (2010). When can political parties lead public opinion? Evidence from a natural experiment. Political Communication, 27, 158–177.
58.
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 (pp. 133–165). Princeton University Press.
59.
TaylorV. J.WaltonG. M. (2011). Stereotype threat undermines academic learning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(8), 1055–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211406506
60.
TenenbaumH. R.RuckM. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253–273.
61.
TourangeauR.RipsL. J.RasinskiK. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.
62.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59, S251–S278.
63.
ValantJ.NewarkD. A. (2016). The politics of achievement gaps: US public opinion on race-based and wealth-based differences in test scores. Educational Researcher, 45(6), 331–346.
64.
WheelerS. C.PettyR. E. (2001). The effects of stereotype activation on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 797–826.
65.
YoungI. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.
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.
