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
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.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Costly Values: The Limited Benefits and Potential Costs of Targeted Policy Justifications
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Costly Values: The Limited Benefits and Potential Costs of Targeted Policy Justifications
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Costly Values: The Limited Benefits and Potential Costs of Targeted Policy Justifications
      Available formats
      ×
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: 16
Total number of PDF views: 88 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 359 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 8th September 2017 - 14th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.