Abstract
ABSTRACT Using an original vignette survey experiment, we explore how white Americans’ evaluations of policy arguments in the local context change depending on the rhetoric used to criticize the policy. We compare the effects of three rhetorical frames used by critics of a policy: inefficiency, unfairness, and racism. We find that respondents use political rhetoric as a strong ideological cue: criticisms that invoke both unfairness and racism make respondents perceive policy critics as more liberal and policy supporters as more conservative. The effects of rhetoric on criticism evaluations are moderated by partisanship: Democrats find criticism about unfairness and racism more persuasive, while for Republicans the effect is opposite. We are unable to establish reliable effects of rhetorical framing on the respondents’ support for the policy itself or their readiness to engage in local political action.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
