Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| Issue Framing Experiment× | Candidate Evaluation Model× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field | Political Psychology | Political Psychology |
| Family≠ | Process / pipeline | Latent structure |
| Year of origin≠ | 1997 | 1995 |
| Originator≠ | Thomas Nelson; Dennis Chong & James Druckman | Milton Lodge, Marco Steenbergen & Donald Kinder |
| Type≠ | Survey/lab experiment | Latent evaluation model |
| Seminal source≠ | Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567-583. DOI ↗ | Lodge, M., Steenbergen, M. R., & Brau, S. (1995). The responsive voter: Campaign information and the dynamics of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 309-326. DOI ↗ |
| Aliases | Framing Effects Experiment, Emphasis Framing Study, Equivalence Framing Experiment | Impression-Driven Evaluation Model, Online Processing Model, Candidate Trait Evaluation Model |
| Related | 4 | 4 |
| Summary≠ | An issue framing experiment manipulates how a political issue is described, emphasizing different considerations, to test how framing shifts opinion. Nelson, Clawson and Oxley's (1997) classic study showed that framing a Klan rally as a free-speech issue versus a public-order issue changed tolerance judgments, and Chong and Druckman (2007) systematized framing theory and the experimental methods used to estimate framing effects. | A candidate evaluation model represents how voters form overall assessments of political candidates as a latent function of perceived traits (competence, leadership, integrity, empathy), partisanship, issue proximity, and affect. It spans the trait-based factor models of Kinder et al. (1980) and the online-processing tally model of Lodge, Steenbergen and Brau (1995), which describes evaluation as a running summary updated as information arrives. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|