Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| Motivated Reasoning Experiment× | Issue Framing Experiment× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field | Political Psychology | Political Psychology |
| Family | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Year of origin≠ | 2006 | 1997 |
| Originator≠ | Charles Taber & Milton Lodge | Thomas Nelson; Dennis Chong & James Druckman |
| Type | Survey/lab experiment | Survey/lab experiment |
| Seminal source≠ | Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. DOI ↗ | 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 ↗ |
| Aliases | Directional Motivated Reasoning Study, Biased Assimilation Experiment, Disconfirmation Bias Paradigm | Framing Effects Experiment, Emphasis Framing Study, Equivalence Framing Experiment |
| Related | 4 | 4 |
| Summary≠ | A motivated reasoning experiment tests whether people process political information to reach conclusions they are directionally motivated to hold rather than the most accurate ones. Building on Kunda's (1990) theory and crystallized by Taber and Lodge (2006), these designs expose partisans to attitude-congruent and incongruent arguments and measure biased assimilation, disconfirmation bias, attitude polarization, and selective exposure. | 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. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|