IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v56y2022i3d10.1007_s11135-021-01168-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Polarizing policy opinions with conflict framed information: activating negative views of political parties in a multi-party system

Author

Listed:
  • Dieter Dekeyser

    (Ghent University)

  • Henk Roose

    (Ghent University)

Abstract

Policy news often places emphasis on conflict between political parties. This partisan conflict is expected to motivate people to distance their own opinions away from the policy positions of antagonistic political parties (i.e., opinion polarization). This paper tests if opinion polarization occurs in a multi-party system when people are exposed to conflict framed information. We use an experimental design which exposes participants (N = 256) to a news article about unemployment benefits. This news article is adapted for each respondent to focus on the political party s/he dislikes the most. This ensures that each participant is exposed to polarizing policy information. The news article is then manipulated by altering the policy position of the antagonistic political party (i.e., support or opposition) and the framing of the story (i.e., conflict vs. no conflict). The results show that respondents are less in favor of the unemployment policy when the antagonistic political party supports this policy, and a conflict framing is applied. However, the policy positions of this antagonistic party do not affect policy support when partisan conflict is not emphasized.

Suggested Citation

  • Dieter Dekeyser & Henk Roose, 2022. "Polarizing policy opinions with conflict framed information: activating negative views of political parties in a multi-party system," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1121-1138, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-021-01168-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-021-01168-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-021-01168-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-021-01168-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bechtel, Michael & Hainmueller, Jens & Hangartner, Dominik & Helbling, Marc, 2015. "Reality Bites: The Limits of Framing Effects for Salient and Contested Policy Issues," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 3(3), pages 683-695.
    2. Bullock, John G., 2011. "Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(3), pages 496-515, August.
    3. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    4. Cheryl Boudreau & Scott A. MacKenzie, 2014. "Informing the Electorate? How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion about Initiatives," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 48-62, January.
    5. James N. Druckman & Kjersten R. Nelson, 2003. "Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(4), pages 729-745, October.
    6. Druckman, James N. & Peterson, Erik & Slothuus, Rune, 2013. "How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 57-79, February.
    7. Thomas J. Rudolph, 2011. "The Dynamics of Ambivalence," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 561-573, July.
    8. Lilliana Mason, 2015. "“I Disrespectfully Agree”: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(1), pages 128-145, January.
    9. Heath, Anthony & Evans, Geoffrey & Martin, Jean, 1994. "The Measurement of Core Beliefs and Values: The Development of Balanced Socialist/Laissez Faire and Libertarian/Authoritarian Scales," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(1), pages 115-132, January.
    10. Shanto Iyengar & Sean J. Westwood, 2015. "Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 59(3), pages 690-707, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    2. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    3. Nikoleta Yordanova & Mariyana Angelova & Roni Lehrer & Moritz Osnabrügge & Sander Renes, 2020. "Swaying citizen support for EU membership: Evidence from a survey experiment of German voters," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 429-450, September.
    4. Hassan Afrouzi & Carolina Arteaga & Emily Weisburst, 2022. "Can Leaders Persuade? Examining Movement in Immigration Beliefs," CESifo Working Paper Series 9593, CESifo.
    5. Kemal Kıvanç Aköz & Alexei Zakharov, 2023. "Electoral turnout with divided opposition," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 60(3), pages 439-475, April.
    6. Dino P. Christenson & Douglas L. Kriner, 2017. "Constitutional Qualms or Politics as Usual? The Factors Shaping Public Support for Unilateral Action," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 335-349, April.
    7. Stefan Linde, 2020. "The Politicization of Risk: Party Cues, Polarization, and Public Perceptions of Climate Change Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2002-2018, October.
    8. Jonathan D. Caverley & Yanna Krupnikov, 2017. "Aiming at Doves," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(7), pages 1482-1509, August.
    9. Chonnakan Rittinon & Boontida Sa-ngimnet & Suparit Suwanik & Tanisa Tawichsri & Thiti Tosborvorn, 2022. "(I Think) I Don't Think Like You and I Don't Like You: Perception of Polarization and Out-Group Animosity," PIER Discussion Papers 194, Puey Ungphakorn Institute for Economic Research.
    10. Bloemraad, Irene & Voss, Kim & Silva, Fabiana, 2014. "Framing the Immigrant Movement as about Rights, Family, or Economics: Which Appeals Resonate and for Whom?," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt3b32w33p, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    11. Helbling, Marc & Jungkunz, Sebastian, 2020. "Social divides in the age of globalization," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(6), pages 1187-1210.
    12. Vicky Chuqiao Yang & Tamara van der Does & Henrik Olsson, 2021. "Falling through the cracks: Modeling the formation of social category boundaries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, March.
    13. Briguglio, Marie & Delaney, Liam & Wood, Alex, 2018. "Partisanship, priming and participation in public-good schemes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 136-150.
    14. Monika Pompeo & Nina Serdarevic, 2021. "Is information enough? The case of Republicans and climate change," Discussion Papers 2021-08, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    15. Ahlquist, John S. & Ichino, Nahomi & Wittenberg, Jason & Ziblatt, Daniel, 2018. "How do voters perceive changes to the rules of the game? Evidence from the 2014 Hungarian elections," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 906-919.
    16. Eugen Dimant, 2020. "Hate Trumps Love: The Impact of Political Polarization on Social Preferences," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 029, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    17. Rogers, Todd & Nickerson, David W., 2013. "Can Inaccurate Beliefs about Incumbents be Changed? And Can Reframing Change Votes?," Working Paper Series rwp13-018, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Jacob B. Rode & Peter H. Ditto, 2020. "Comparing the effects of a news article’s message and source on fracking attitudes in an experimental study," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(3), pages 255-269, September.
    19. Soojong Kim, 2019. "Directionality of information flow and echoes without chambers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    20. Stone, Daniel F., 2019. "“Unmotivated bias” and partisan hostility: Empirical evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 12-26.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:56:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11135-021-01168-w. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.