Complementary or Competing Frames? The Impact of Economic and Public Health Messages on COVID-19 Attitudes

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2022-04-19 DOI:10.1017/XPS.2022.6

Emma R. Knapp, Brianna A. Smith, Matthew P. Motta

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract The American reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic is polarized, with conservatives often less willing to engage in risk-mitigation strategies such as mask-wearing and vaccination. COVID-19 narratives are also polarized, as some conservative elites focus on the economy over public health. In this registered report, we test whether combining economic and public health messages can persuade individuals to increase support for COVID-19 risk mitigation. We present preliminary evidence that the combination of messages is complementary, rather than competing or polarizing. When given a message emphasizing COVID-19’s negative health and economic effects in a pilot study, conservatives increased their support for a broad range of risk-mitigation strategies, while liberals maintained high levels of support. A preregistered larger-n follow-up study, however, failed to replicate this effect. While complementary frames may be a promising way to persuade voters on some issues, they may also struggle to overcome high levels of existing polarization.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

互补框架还是竞争框架？经济和公共卫生信息对新冠肺炎态度的影响

摘要美国对新冠肺炎大流行的反应两极分化，保守派通常不太愿意采取戴口罩和接种疫苗等风险缓解策略。新冠肺炎的叙述也两极分化，因为一些保守派精英关注经济而非公共卫生。在这份注册报告中，我们测试了经济和公共卫生信息的结合是否可以说服个人增加对新冠肺炎风险缓解的支持。我们提供的初步证据表明，信息的组合是互补的，而不是竞争或两极分化。在一项试点研究中，当收到强调新冠肺炎对健康和经济的负面影响的信息时，保守派增加了对广泛风险缓解策略的支持，而自由派则保持了高水平的支持。然而，一项预先注册的大规模随访研究未能复制这种效果。虽然互补框架可能是在某些问题上说服选民的一种很有前途的方式，但它们也可能难以克服现有的高度两极分化。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.