Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence

TLDR

Public opinion research shows that citizens’ views are shaped by elite rhetoric and interpersonal conversations, yet little is known about how these forces interact. The study experimentally examines how interpersonal conversations influence elite framing effects, introduces the moderator “need to evaluate,” and clarifies when elites can or cannot shape public opinion through framing. The authors conducted an experiment to test how interpersonal conversations modify elite framing effects. Conversations with only common perspectives do not alter elite framing, whereas those with conflicting perspectives eliminate it; the study also identifies “need to evaluate” as a moderator and shows that framing effects are generally short‑lived, clarifying when elites can or cannot influence public opinion.

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 .