When can political parties lead public opinion? Evidence from a natural experiment

Political Communication

Volumn 27, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 158-177

  Slothuus, Rune ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Beliefs; Issue framing; Natural experiment; Party cues; Political parties

Indexed keywords

EID: 77952516303     PISSN: 10584609     EISSN: 10917675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10584601003709381     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Andersen, J. G. (1999). Situationen efter valget [The situation after the election]. In J. Andersen, O. Borre, J. G. Andersen, & H. J. Nielsen (Eds.), Vælgere med omtanke: En analyse af folketingsvalget 1998 (pp. 261-272). Aarhus, Denmark: Systime.
2. Andersen, J. G. (2008). Public support for the Danish welfare state: Interests and values, institutions and performance. In E. Albæk, L. C. Eliason, A. S. Nørgaard, & H. Schwartz (Eds.), Crisis, miracles, and beyond: Negotiated adoption of the Danish welfare state (pp. 75-114). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
3. Andersen, J. G., Rathlev, J., Andersen, D., & Pedersen, T. (2005). Valgundersøgelsen 2005: Teknisk rapport [The Danish national election study 2005: Technical report]. Aalborg, Denmark: Aarlborg University, Department of Economics, Politics, and Administration.
4. Barabas, J., & Jerit, J. (in press). External validity in survey experiments. American Political Science Review.
5. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
6. Berinsky, A. J., & Kinder, D. R. (2006). Making sense of issues through media frames: Understanding the Kosovo crisis. Journal of Politics, 68, 640-656.
7. Bille, L. (2006). Denmark. European Journal of Political Research, 45, 1084-1093.
8. Binderkrantz, A. (2008). Competition for attention: Interest groups in the news in a Danish election. In D. M. Farrell & R. Schmidt-Beck (Eds.), Non-party actors in electoral politics (pp. 127-149). Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos-Verlag.
9. Blekesaune,M., & Quadagno, J. (2003). Public attitudes toward welfare state policies: A comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociological Review, 19, 415-427.
10. Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights: A framingbased account. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173-201.
11. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. NewYork: Wiley.
12. Carmines, E. G., & Wagner, M.W. (2006). Political issues and party alignments: Assessing the issue evolution perspective. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 67-81.
13. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? American Journal of Political Science, 50, 464-477.
14. Chong, D. (1993). How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 867-899.
15. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007a). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101, 637-655.
16. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007b). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103-126.
17. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2008). Dynamic public opinion: Framing effects over time. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
18. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (in press). Identifying frames in political news. In E. P. Bucy & R. L. Holbert (Eds.), Sourcebook for political communication research: Methods, measures, and analytical techniques. New York: Routledge.
19. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
20. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing effects: Who can frame? Journal of Politics, 63, 1041-1066.
21. Druckman, J. N. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98, 671-686.
22. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens' conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47, 729-745.
23. Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of power: Framing news, public opinion, and U.S. foreign policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. Journal of Politics, 69, 957-974.
25. Gamson, W. A., Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. Research in Political Sociology, 3, 137-177.
26. Gilens, M., & Murakawa, N. (2002). Elite cues and political decision-making. In M. X. Delli-Carpini, L. Huddy, & R. Y. Shapiro (Eds.), Research in micropolitics (Vol. 6, pp. 15-49). Amsterdam: JAI Press.
27. Goren, P. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 881-896.
28. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29. Green-Pedersen, C. (2002). The politics of justification. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
30. Huber, G. A., & Arceneaux, K. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 957-977.
31. Iyengar, S., & Simon, A. F. (2000). New perspectives and evidence of political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 149-169.
32. Jacoby, W. G. (1988). The impact of party identification on issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 643-661.
33. Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 750-767.
34. Jerit, J. (2008). Issue framing and engagement: Rhetorical strategy in pubic policy debates. Political Behavior, 30, 1-24.
35. Kam, C. (2005).Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163-182.
36. Kinder, D. R. (2003). Communication and politics in the age of information. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 357-393). New York: Oxford University Press.
37. Kinder, D. R. (2007). Curmudgeonly advice. Journal of Communication, 57, 155-162.
38. Koch, J. W. (1998). Political rhetoric and political persuasion: The changing structure of citizens' preferences on health care insurance during policy debate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 209-229.
39. Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91, 567-583.
40. O'Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
41. Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 179-212.
42. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barnett & F. J. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Vol. 13, pp. 173-212). London: Ablex.
43. Ross, F. (2001). "Beyond left and right": The new partisan politics of welfare. Governance, 13, 155-183.
44. Schoenbach, K., de Ridder, J., & Lauf, E. (2001). Politicians on TV news: Getting attention in Dutch and German election campaigns. European Journal of Political Research, 39, 519-531.
45. Shah, D. V., Domke, D., & Wackman, D. B. (1996). "To thine own self be true": Values, framing, and voter decision-making strategies. Communication Research, 23, 509-560.
46. Shen, F. Y., & Edwards, H. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55, 795-809.
47. Slothuus, R. (2008). More than weighting cognitive importance: A dual-process model of issue framing effects. Political Psychology, 29, 1-28.
48. Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (in press). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. Journal of Politics.
49. Sniderman, P. M. (2000). Taking sides: A fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason (pp. 67-84). New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Sniderman, P. M., & Bullock, J. (2004). A consistency theory of public opinion and political choice: The hypothesis of menu dependence. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 337-357). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
51. Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 133-165). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52. Taber, C., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
53. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54. Zaller, J. (1996). The myth of massive media impact revived: New support for a discredited idea. In D. C. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 17-78). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.