Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects

TLDR

Framing effects demonstrate widespread irrationality, challenging core social‑science assumptions about coherent preferences and prompting alternative theories such as prospect theory. The study aims to identify the political conditions that enable framing effects. The authors develop a theory and test it experimentally to fill this gap. Results show that elite competition, deliberation, and expertise influence framing success, revealing when rationality assumptions hold and offering implications for political psychology and experimental methods.

Abstract

One of the most contested questions in the social sciences is whether people behave rationally. A large body of work assumes that individuals do in fact make rational economic, political, and social decisions. Yet hundreds of experiments suggest that this is not the case. Framing effects constitute one of the most stunning and influential demonstrations of irrationality. The effects not only challenge the foundational assumptions of much of the social sciences (e.g., the existence of coherent preferences or stable attitudes), but also lead many scholars to adopt alternative approaches (e.g., prospect theory). Surprisingly, virtually no work has sought to specify the political conditions under which framing effects occur. I fill this gap by offering a theory and experimental test. I show how contextual forces (e.g., elite competition, deliberation) and individual attributes (e.g., expertise) affect the success of framing. The results provide insight into when rationality assumptions apply and, also, have broad implications for political psychology and experimental methods.