Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Costly Values: The Limited Benefits and Potential Costs of Targeted Policy Justifications

  • Erik Peterson (a1) and Gabor Simonovits (a2)
Abstract

Can politicians use targeted messages to offset position taking that would otherwise reduce their public support? We examine the effect of a politician’s justification for their tax policy stance on public opinion and identify limits on the ability of justifications to generate leeway for incongruent position taking on this issue. We draw on political communication research to establish expectations about the heterogeneous effects of justifications that employ either evidence or values based on whether or not constituents agree with the position a politician takes. In two survey experiments, we find small changes in support in response to these types of messages among targeted groups, but rule out large benefits for politicians to selectively target policy justifications toward subsets of the public. We also highlight a potential cost to selective messaging by showing that when these targeted messages reach unintended audiences they can backfire and reduce a candidate’s support.

Copyright
References
Hide All
Basinger, Scott J., and Lavine, Howard. 2005. “Ambivalence, Information, Electoral Choice.” American Political Science Review 99 (2): 169184.
Bechtel, Michael M., Hainmueller, Jens, Hangartner, Dominik, and Helbling, Marc. 2015. “Reality Bites: The Limits of Framing Effects for Salient and Contested Policy Issues.” Political Science Research and Methods 3 (3): 683695.
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2012. “Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research.” Political Analysis 20 (3): 351368.
Binning, Kevin R., Brick, Cameron, Cohen, Geoffrey L., and Sherman, David K.. 2015. “Going Along Versus Getting It Right: The Role of Self-Integrity in Political Conformity.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 56: 7388.
Brewer, Paul R. 2001. “Value Words and Lizard Brains: Do Citizens Deliberate About Appeals to Their Core Values? Political Psychology , 22 (1): 4564.
Broockman, David E. and Butler, Daniel M.. 2017The Causal Effects of Elite Position-Taking on Voter Attitudes: Field Experiments with Elite Communication.” American Journal of Political Science 61 (1): 208221.
Carmines, Edward G., and Stimson, James A.. 1980. “The Two Faces of Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 74 (1): 7891.
Cobb, Michael D., and Kuklinski, James H.. 1997. “Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 88121.
Druckman, James N., Peterson, Erik, and Slothuus, Rune. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 5779.
Druckman, James N., and Bolsen, Toby. 2011. “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies.” Journal of Communication 61 (4): 659688.
Fenno, Richard F. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Franco, Annie, Malhotra, Neil, Simonovits, Gabor, and Zigerell, L. J.. Forthcoming. “Developing Standards for Post-Hoc Weighting in Population-Based Survey Experiments.” Journal of Experimental Political Science .
Franz, Michael M. 2013. “Targeting Campaign Messages: Food for Campaigns but Bad for America?” in New Directions in Media And Politics , ed. Ridout, Travis N.. New York: Routledge.
Gale, William G., and Slemrod, Joel. 2001. “Rhetoric and Economics in the Estate Tax Debate.” National Tax Journal 54 (3): 613627.
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, and Dowling, Connor M.. 2011. “Citizens’ Policy Confidence and Electoral Punishment: A Neglected Dimension of Electoral Accountability.” Journal of Politics , 73 (4): 12061224.
Goren, Paul. 2012. On Voter Competence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, Anne, and Miller, Jerry L.. 2004. “Values and Persuasion During the First Bush-Gore Presidential Debate.” Political Communication 21: 7192.
Grose, Christian R., Malhotra, Neil, and Van Houweling, Robert P.. 2015. “Explaining Explanations: How Legislators Explain their Policy Positions and How Citizens React.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 724743.
Hersh, Eitan D. 2015. Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hersh, Eitan D., and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2013. “Targeted Campaign Appeals and the Value of Ambiguity.” Journal of Politics 75 (2): 520534.
Hillygus, D. Sunshine, and Shields, Todd G.. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jerit, Jennifer. 2009. “How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opinions.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 411426.
Kingdon, John W. 1973. Congressmen’s Voting Decisions. New York: Harper & Row.
Lau, Richard R., Smith, Richard A., and Fiske, Susan T.. 1991. “Political Beliefs, Policy Interpretations, and Political Persuasion.” Journal of Politics 53 (3): 644675.
Marietta, Morgan. 2008. “From My Cold, Dead Hands: Democratic Consequences of Sacred Rhetoric.” Journal of Politics 70 (3): 767779.
Marietta, Morgan. 2009. “The Absolutist Advantage: Sacred Rhetoric in Contemporary Presidential Debate.” Political Communication 26 (4): 388411.
Marietta, Morgan. 2012. The Politics of Sacred Rhetoric: Absolutist Appeals and Political Persuasion. Waco: Baylor University Press.
McGraw, Kathleen M. 1998. “Manipulating Public Opinion with Moral Justification.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 560: 129142.
McGraw, Kathleen M., Timpone, Richard, and Bruck, Gabor. 1993. “Justifying Controversial Political Decisions: Home Style in the Laboratory.” Political Behavior 15 (3): 289 308.
Minson, Julia A., and Monin, Benoit. 2012. “Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally Motivated Minorities to Defuse Anticipated Reproach.” Social Psychology and Personality Science 3 (2): 200207.
Nelson, Thomas E., and Garst, Jennifer. 2005. “Values-based Political Messages and Persuasion.” Political Psychology 26 (4): 489515.
Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91 (3): 567583.
Nicholson, Stephen. 2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 5266.
Pew, Research Center. 2012. Deep Divisions over Debt Reduction Proposals. (http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/12/deep-divisions-over-debt-reduction-proposals/), accessed October 12, 2012.
Sherman, David K., and Cohen, Geoffrey L.. 2006. “The Psychology of Self-Defense: Self-Affirmation Theory.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38: 183 242.
Sniderman, Paul M., and Stiglitz, Edward H.. 2012. The Reputational Premium: A Theory of Party Identification and Policy Reasoning. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Steele, Claude M. 1988. “The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 21: 261302.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Experimental Political Science
  • ISSN: 2052-2630
  • EISSN: 2052-2649
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-experimental-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary materials

Peterson and Simonovits supplementary material
Peterson and Simonovits supplementary material 1

 PDF (150 KB)
150 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed