The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Dirty Word or a Dirty World?: Attribute Framing, Political Affiliation, and Query Theory
Open accessAbstract
We explored the effect of attribute framing on choice, labeling charges for environmental costs as either an earmarked tax or an offset. Eight hundred ninety-eight Americans chose between otherwise identical products or services, where one option included a surcharge for emitted carbon dioxide. The cost framing changed preferences for self-identified Republicans and Independents, but did not affect Democrats’ preferences. We explain this interaction by means of query theory and show that attribute framing can change the order in which internal queries supporting one or another option are posed. The effect of attribute labeling on query order is shown to depend on the representations of either taxes or offsets held by people with different political affiliations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.4.422 · Cited by 11,335
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176 · Cited by 5,678
All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 · Cited by 2,592
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/209174 · Cited by 1,172
Cited by
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework
White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019) · Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1177/0022242919825649 · Cited by 2,386
Self-citationWhy do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x10000968 · Cited by 2,254
What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies
Drews, S., & van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. (2016) · Climate Policy · doi:10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240 · Cited by 965
Public understanding of climate change in the United States.
Weber, E. U., & Stern, P. C. (2011) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0023253 · Cited by 841
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2009-12-10
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 86-92
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2145309624
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 8.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Dirty Word or a Dirty World?: Attribute Framing, Political Affiliation, and Query Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0956797609355572
- The paper
- Hardisty, D. J., Johnson, E. J., & Weber, E. U. (2010). A Dirty Word or a Dirty World?: Attribute Framing, Political Affiliation, and Query Theory. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609355572
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
