Moral Concerns and Policy Attitudes: Investigating the Influence of Elite Rhetoric

Political Communication

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 229-248

  Clifford, Scott ^a   Jerit, Jennifer ^b   Rainey, Carlisle ^c   Motyl, Matt ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON   (United States)

^b STONY BROOK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

elite rhetoric; framing; Moral Foundations Theory; persuasion; stem cell research

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928703423     PISSN: 10584609     EISSN: 10917675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2014.944320     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Adams, G. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Political Science Review, 41(3), 718–737.
2. Arceneaux, K., Johnson, M., & Cryderman, J. (2013). Communication, persuasion, and the conditioning value of selective exposure: Like minds may unite and divide but they mostly tune out. Political Communication, 30(2), 213–231.
3. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The Four Horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, efficiency, intention, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 1–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Barker, D. C. (2005). Values, frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns. Political Behavior, 27(4), 375–394.
5. Baumgartner, F. R., De Boef, S. L., & Boydstun, A. E. (2008). The decline of the death penalty and the discovery of innocence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
6. Baunach, D. M. (2012). Changing same-sex marriage attitudes in America from 1988 through 2010. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(2), 364–378.
7. Berry, W., DeMeritt, J. H. R., & Esarey, J. (2010). Testing for interaction in binary logit and probit models: Is a product term essential? American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 248–266.
8. Biggers, D. R. (2011). When ballot issues matter: Social issue ballot measures and their impact on turnout. Political Behavior, 33(1), 3–25.
9. Brewer, P. (2002). Framing, value words, and citizens’ explanations of their issue opinions. Political Communication, 19, 303–316.
10. Brewer, P. (2003). The shifting foundations of public opinion about gay rights. Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1208–1220.
11. Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.
12. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13. Carsey, T. M., & Layman, G. C. (2006). Changing sides or changing minds? Party identification and policy preferences in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 464–477.
14. Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral Foundations Theory and the debate over stem cell research. Journal of Politics, 75(3), 659–671.
15. Ditto, P. C., & Koleva, S. P. (2011). Moral empathy gaps and the American culture war. Emotion Review, 3(3), 331–332.
16. Domke, D., Shah, D. V., & Wackman, D. E. (1998). “Moral referendums”: Values, news media, and the process of candidate choice. Political Communication, 15, 301–321.
17. Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). Learning more from political communication experiments: Pretreatment and its effects. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 875–896.
18. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62.
19. Fowler, E. F., & Gollust, S. (2013, April). Old news? Why measuring real-world exposure to competitive framing matters. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
20. Goidel, R. K., & Nisbet, M. C. (2006). Exploring the roots of public participation in the controversy over embryonic stem cell research and cloning. Political Behavior, 28(2), 175–192.
21. Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust Web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about Internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(February/March), 93–104.
22. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.
23. Graham, J., Iyer, R., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.
24. Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2001). Gun policy, opinion, tragedy, and blame attribution: The conditional influence of issue frames. Journal of Politics, 63(2), 520–543.
25. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
26. Haidt, J. (2003). The emotional dog does learn new tricks: A reply to Pizarro and Bloom (2003). Psychological Review, 110(1), 197–198.
27. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(Fall), 55–66.
28. Hainmueller, J. (2012). Entropy balancing for causal effects: A multivariate reweighting method to produce balanced samples in observational studies. Political Analysis, 20(1), 25–46.
29. Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 963.
30. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cognition and Emotion, 23(4), 714–725.
31. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., Iyer, R., & Haidt, J. (2011). Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism, and voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 537–544.
32. Kertzer, J. D., Powers, K., Rathburn, B. C., & Iyer, R. (2014). Moral support: How moral values shape foreign policy preferences. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 825–840.
33. Kidwell, B., Farmer, A., & Hardesty, D. M. (2013). Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 350–367.
34. King, G., Tomz, M., & Wittenberg, J. (2000). Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 341–355.
35. Koleva, S., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184–194.
36. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
37. Liu, B. S., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 4, 316–323.
38. Marietta, M. (2009). The absolutist advantage: Sacred rhetoric in contemporary presidential debate. Political Communication, 26, 388–411.
39. Mintrom, M. (2008). Competitive federalism and the governance of controversial science. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 39(4), 606–631.
40. Mooney, C. Z. (1999). The politics of morality policy: Symposium editor’s introduction. Policy Studies Journal, 27(4), 675–680.
41. Mooney, C. Z. (2001). The public clash of private values. In C. Z. Mooney (Ed.), The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Seven Bridges Press.
42. Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative vs. participatory democracy. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43. Nisbet, M. C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90–112.
44. Nisbet, M. C., & Becker, A. B. (2014). The polls—trends: Public opinion about stem cell research across U.S. elections and legislative debates, 2002–2010. Public Opinion Quarterly, 78(4), 1003–1022.
45. Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70.
46. Nisbet, M. C., & Goidel, R. K. (2007). Understanding citizen perceptions of science controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public Understanding of Science, 16, 421–440.
47. Nisbet, M. C., Markowitz, E. M., & Kotcher, J. E. (2012). Winning the conversation: Framing and moral messaging in environmental campaigns. In L. Ahern & D. Bortree (Eds.), Talking green: Exploring current issues in environmental communication (pp. 9–36). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
48. Ryan, T. J. (2014). Reconsidering moral issues in politics. Journal of Politics, 76(2), 380–397.
49. Shen, F., & Edwards, H. H. (2005). Economic individualism, humanitarianism, and welfare reform: A value-based account of framing effects. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 795–809.
50. Skitka, L. J.,& Bauman, C. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29(1), 29–54.
51. Terrizzi, J. A., Jr., Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes towards homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 587–592.
52. Weber, C., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34, 107–126.
53. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101–126.
54. Winterich, K. P., Zhang, Y., & Mittal, V. (2012). How political identity and charity positioning increase donations: Insights from Moral Foundations Theory. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29, 346–354.
55. Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.