Gains-framed arguments persuade less than loss-framed ones.

Evidence

The objective of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) can be framed in two essentially equivalent ways. On the one hand, the ERA can be presented as an attempt to eliminate discrimination against women. In this formulation, attention is drawn to the argument that equal rights for women are not currently guaranteed by the constitution, a negative state that the ERA is designed to undo. On the other hand, the ERA can be framed as legislation designed to improve women’s status in society. This frame emphasizes what is to be gained from the amendment, namely, better status and equal rights for women. If losses loom larger than gains, then support for the ERA should be greater among those who are exposed to the frame that emphasizes the elimination of discrimination than the improvement of women’s rights. To test Alda’s hypothesis, we presented two groups of respondents with the following question. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2454

Categorization

• SEED: An essay angle: that ‘restoring’ something taken away is a far stronger political appeal than ‘improving’ or ‘adding’ — and how modern political campaigns instinctively frame policies as restoration versus expansion.
• XREF: Mirrors the ‘Complaints About Immodesty’ essay’s insight that political appeals work through threat perception, and connects to how the loss-frame standard from Kahneman’s work generalizes across domains. — connects to: Framing an issue as ending loss gains more support than as gaining benefit. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2454