Poster #22 - Mitigating or Exacerbating Polarization? The Conditional Effects of Framing on Social Policy Preferences during Crisis

• In Event: Saturday Poster Luncheon

Abstract

Unprecedented massive crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, demand timely and decisive government action. To mitigate the severe economic shocks of such emergencies, governments worldwide deploy expanded social safety nets to shield the most vulnerable populations. Whether the public supports or opposes these policy responses plays a critical role in either fostering or undermining social solidarity in times of crisis. However, support for such policies heavily depends on how the crisis is framed. In times of emergency, the public's attention is clouded by uncertainty and anxiety, leaving them highly susceptible to policy messaging. Furthermore, the public's susceptibility to the framing effect is not universal; instead, it is largely shaped by their underlying welfare values and self-interested motives. Therefore, understanding whether framing alters public preferences or merely reinforces pre-existing values and economic interests is crucial for political communication.

Using a hypothetical pandemic crisis scenario, this pre-registered 2 × 2 randomized survey experiment examines how crisis framing affects public’s social policy preferences, and how these effects are moderated by welfare values and self-interest motives. Specifically, we test the impact of two framing dimensions: an emphasis frame highlighting the social groups adversely affected by the crisis (all citizens versus vulnerable populations), and a valence frame presenting macroeconomic prospects in either an optimistic or pessimistic light. We also examine a comprehensive set of social policy preferences, encompassing support for expanding an existing poverty alleviation program, specifically by increasing benefit levels or relaxing eligibility rules, as well as support for establishing a new unemployment benefit program, and the willingness to pay taxes to fund these initiatives. Data were collected from a representative sample of Hong Kong SAR residents (N = 1,500) utilizing a two-stage stratified random sampling design.While we find no significant main effects of emphasis or valence framing on social policy preferences during a crisis, our results reveal interaction effects. First, emphasis framing interacts with welfare value: framing the crisis around vulnerable populations, rather than all citizens, significantly increases policy support among those with lenient deservingness criteria. Second, valence framing interacts with self-interested motives, producing a divergent effect based on economic status. Compared to a pessimistic frame, an optimistic macroeconomic outlook increases policy support among individuals with lower economic status, whereas it substantially reduces support among those with higher economic status.

Even in times of crisis, framing reinforces pre-existing welfare values and economic self-interests rather than persuading people to change their worldviews. Emphasizing the vulnerability of specific groups is only useful for mobilizing people who are already sympathetic. Framing macroeconomic prospect in an optimistic way inadvertently erodes support for safety nets among higher-income taxpayers. As a result, poorly designed political communication during a crisis could widen social divides. Therefore, securing public consensus for crisis-driven redistribution necessitates targeted messaging that carefully accounts for pre-existing ideological and economic divides.

Author

• Peng Chenhong, The University of Hong Kong
  Presenting Author