Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

For Whose Sake?: How Different Framing Strategies Influence Support for Universal Childcare

Tue, August 12, 8:00 to 9:00am, West Tower, Hyatt Regency Chicago, Floor: Ballroom Level/Gold, Regency B

Abstract

Unlike many other developed countries, public childcare in the U.S. primarily serves only a small fraction of low-income families, and there is no universal public childcare model. One widely cited reason is public resistance to universal childcare, deeply rooted in moral and cultural beliefs, including concerns over the quality of childcare programs and lingering stigma against mothers who rely on external childcare. Research has demonstrated the benefits of public childcare programs for both children and parents, and policymakers have employed various framings based on these findings to advocate for implementation of the programs. However, it is unclear which, if any, of these framings can best build support for universal childcare or address the underlying concerns. Using a survey experiment, this study examines how different frames about public childcare influences public support for universal programs. Specifically, we test two frames: (1) a child-focused framing, which emphasizes the benefits for children, and (2) a parent-focused framing, which highlights the advantages for parents. We hypothesize that both treatments will increase support compared to a control condition that presents the program without mention of its potential benefits, but that preferences for child- and parent-focused frames will vary across demographic characteristics such as gender, parenthood status, and political affiliation. By exploring potential heterogeneity, we aim to understand which framing strategies resonate most with different groups. This study contributes to the literature on policy framing and public opinion while offering empirical insights on how framing shapes support for childcare policy and the need for targeted messaging.

Authors