Suchergebnisse

Although scholars have established that voters have unstable preferences (e.g., Converse, 1964; Zaller, 1992) and that they are not accurate when recalling past preferences (e.g., Markus, 1986; Niemi, Katz, & Newman, 1980; Smith, 1984), existing research has not systematically explored whether voters can accurately predict the changing nature of their own opinions. The question of whether whether people recognize the instability of their political preferences was explored in a random sample of Pennsylvania registered voters who were surveyed in August and October 1996, during the presidential election campaign. The first survey elicited respondents' positions on two political issues (welfare reform and the environment) and on the two major candidates, and also asked them to estimate the likelihood that each of these positions would change during the next 2 months. The second survey elicited positions at that time and also asked voters to recall their prior positions. Measured both by expectations and recall, respondents tended to underestimate the degree to which their own positions would change or had changed over time. This research has implications for the use of public opinion polling and more broadly for the practice of democratic politics.

ObjectiveThis article compares the effects of various climate change issue frames (deontological‐moral, empirical‐scientific, and economic) on support for climate change mitigation policies.MethodsUsing an issue‐framing survey experiment conducted on Amazon Mechanical Turk, we assess framing effects on climate change policy support using ordinary least squares regression.ResultsWe find mixed evidence regarding frame effectiveness. Religious moral frames and economic efficiency frames are ineffective, whereas scientific frames, secular moral frames, and economic equity frames are effective at increasing overall policy support. Additionally, the positive science frame and economic equity frame reduce the ideological divide in climate policy support.ConclusionThe effects of issue framing on climate policy support are mixed. Frames that we expected conservatives to be responsive to (religious morality; economic efficiency) fail to change support for climate policy. Frames that emphasize science, secular morality, and economy equity have the potential to increase public support for climate change policies.