Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-42qgm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-04T08:25:44.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Loss-Framed Arguments Can Stifle Political Activism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2019

Adam Seth Levine  and
Reuben Kline
Adam Seth Levine*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853
Reuben Kline
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392
*
*Corresponding author. Email: ASL22@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research commonly finds that citizens are loss averse: they dislike losses far more than similarly sized gains. One implication is that arguments for policy change framed in terms of losses to be avoided often have a larger impact on public opinion than arguments framed in terms of gains to be enjoyed. Although several scholars have observed this pattern with respect to public opinion, we know far less about the effect of loss- and gain-framed arguments on political activism. This is a critical omission given the disproportionate impact of political activists on the policymaking process. Using field and survey experiments, we investigate the impact of gain- and loss-framed arguments on climate change activism. We find that loss-framed arguments can be less mobilizing, even when they are otherwise more persuasive, than gain-framed arguments. Our results deepen our theoretical understanding of what motivates political activism, especially in an era of professionalized politics.

Keywords

Civic engagementpolitical participationframingloss aversion

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , Winter 2019 , pp. 171 - 179
Copyright
© The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arceneaux, Kevin. 2012. Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments. American Journal of Political Science 56(2): 271–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam, Huber, Gregory and Lenz, Gabriel. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20(3): 351–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernauer, Thomas and McGrath, Liam F. 2016. Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change 6(7): 680–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., Schlozman, Kay Lehman and Verba, Sidney. 1999. Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review 93(1): 153–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Andrea Louise. 2003. Participatory reactions to policy threats: Senior citizens and the defense of social security and medicare. Political Behavior 25(1): 29–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, Citrin, Jack and Conley, Patricia. 2001. When self-interest matters. Political Psychology 22(3): 541–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis and Druckman, James N.. 2007. Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, Michael D. and Kuklinski, James H.. 1997. Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science 41(1): 88–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, Patrick J. and Mullin, Megan. 2012. Turning personal experience into political attitudes: The effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. Journal of Politics 74(3): 796–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2012. Affluence and Influence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollust, Sarah E. and Rahn, Wendy M.. 2015. The bodies politic: Chronic health conditions and voter turnout in the 2008 election. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law 40(6): 1115–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, Donald Philip and Cowden, Jonathan A.. 1992. Who protests: Self-interest and white opposition to busing. The Journal of Politics 54(2): 471–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Hahrie. 2009. Moved to Action. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Han, Hahrie. 2016. The organizational roots of political activism: Field experiments on creating a relational context. American Political Science Review 110(2): 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jerit, Jennifer. 2009. How predictive appeals affect policy opinions. American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 411–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel and Tversky, Amos. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39(4): 341–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpf, David. 2012. The MoveOn Effect. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, Adam Seth and Kline, Reuben. 2018. Replication data for: Loss-framed arguments can stifle political activism. Harvard Dataverse, doi: 10.7910/DVN/8UNDWJ.Google Scholar
Levine, Adam Seth. 2015. American Insecurity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Maibach, Edward W., Nisbet, Matthew, Baldwin, Paula, Akerlof, Karen and Diao, Guoqing. 2010. Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10(1): 299–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mann, Christopher B., Arceneaux, Kevin and Nickerson, David W.. 2017. Do negatively framed messages motivate political participation? Evidence from four field experiments. Paper presented at Conference on Rethinking Ways to Increase Voter Turnout, Princeton University, April 2017.Google Scholar
McClendon, Gwyneth H. 2013. Social esteem and participation in contentious politics: A field experiment at an LGBT pride rally. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 279–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Joanne M. and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2004. Threat as a motivator of political activism. Political Psychology 25(4), 507–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Joanne M. and Peterson, David A.M.. 2004. Theoretical and empirical implications of attitude strength. Journal of Politics 66(3), 847–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pacheco, Julianna and Fletcher, Jason. 2015. Incorporating health into studies of political behavior: Evidence for turnout and partisanship. Political Research Quarterly 68(1): 104–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quattrone, George A. and Tversky, Amos. 1988. Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review 82(3): 719–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shah, Anuj K., Mullainathan, Sendhil and Shafir, Eldar. 2012. Some consequences of having too little. Science 338(6107), 682–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, Leah C. and Warshaw, Christopher. 2017. Renewable energy policy design and framing influence public support in the United States. Nature Energy 2, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, Richard H. 1999. Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 12(3): 183–206.3.0.CO;2-F>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Key Lehman and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Levine et al. supplementary material

Levine et al. supplementary material 1

Download Levine et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 147.6 KB