Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence
Abstract
Public opinion research demonstrates that citizens' opinions depend on elite rhetoric and interpersonal conversations. Yet, we continue to have little idea about how these two forces interact with one another. In this article, we address this issue by experimentally examining how interpersonal conversations affect (prior) elite framing effects. We find that conversations that include only common perspectives have no effect on elite framing, but conversations that include conflicting perspectives eliminate elite framing effects. We also introduce a new individual level moderator of framing effects—called “need to evaluate”—and we show that framing effects, in general, tend to be short-lived phenomena. In the end, we clarify when elites can and cannot use framing to influence public opinion and how interpersonal conversations affect this process.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Possessing ideologically homogeneous networks exacerbates issue and affective polarization, whereas having a heterogeneous network facilitates the correction of stereotypical misconceptions and decreases polarization.
“possessing ideologically homogeneous networks exacerbates issue and affective polarization, whereas having a heterogeneous network facilitates the correction of stereotypical misconceptions and decreases polarization223–227.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [223]
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785 · see citing works
The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
(2006) · Habermas · doi:10.4324/9780203020166-5 · Cited by 4,779 · see citing works
The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266350 · Cited by 3,543 · see citing works
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1985) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467 · Cited by 1,850 · see citing works
The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation
Mutz, D. C. (2002) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/3088437 · Cited by 1,265 · see citing works
Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1141 · Cited by 1,044 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054 · Cited by 3,071 · see citing works
Self-citationPrejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice
Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607 · Cited by 1,376 · see citing works
A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x · Cited by 1,159 · see citing works
Self-citationReducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda.
Paluck, E. L. (2009) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0011989 · Cited by 902 · see citing works
The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion
Bolsen, T., Druckman, J. N., & Cook, F. L. (2014) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-013-9238-0 · Cited by 891 · see citing works
Self-citationNo Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions
Druckman, J. N., Levendusky, M. S., & McLain, A. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12325 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Self-citationCognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence
Baumgartner, F. R., De Boef, S. L., & Boydstun, A. E. (2001) · Cambridge University Press · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790638 · Cited by 242 · see citing works
Santoro, E., & Broockman, D. E. (2022) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abn5515 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
A Framework for the Study of Persuasion
Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110428 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Self-citationToward human-centered algorithm design
Baumer, E. P. (2017) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951717718854 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Political Chameleons: An Exploration of Conformity in Political Discussions
Carlson, T. N., & Settle, J. E. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-016-9335-y · Cited by 74 · see citing works
The Role of Personality in Trust in Public Policy Automation
Waggoner, P., & Kennedy, R. (2022) · Journal of Behavioral Data Science · doi:10.35566/v2n1/p4/ · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-09-09
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 729-745
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W2006621514
- Cited by
- 841
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 75 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 44 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 47 · 2012: 55
- FWCI
- 72.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- interpersonal conversation, public opinion, deliberation, conflicting perspectives, need to evaluate, elite influence, citizen deliberation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
