Framing equivalent policy goals as loss-removal boosts support over gain-framing

Evidence

Not surprisingly, a large majority of our sample of Stanford undergraduates indicated support for the ERA (74%). However, this support was greater when the problem was framed in terms of eliminating discrimination (78%) than in terms of improving women’s rights (69%). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2456 (#expands, via linked claim)

I then sought to replicate the finding, as I almost always do, using 370 students in September 1993. This time 84% of the Lows in both conditions said, “Enforce the standards.” The Highs showed more sensitivity to losing their jobs (78% versus 67%, but z > .30). I tried again, and again, and again, with samples of 245 and 269 students in November 1993 and 468 parents in October 1994. I never found another statistically significant difference for Lows, or for Highs. — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 1562 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Prospect theory shows risk attitudes shift with gain or loss framing — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 1199; Framing an issue as ending loss gains more support than as gaining benefit. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2454; Framing the same policy goal differently shifts public support by nine points — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2456 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Framing the same policy goal differently shifts public support by nine points #expands (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2456
• The initial job-loss framing effect on authoritarian attitudes failed to replicate #complicates (0.78) — Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarian Specter, 1562