Content area
Full Text
Social Cognition, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1990, pp. 73-103
MIMICKING POLITICAL DEBATE WITH
SURVEY QUESTIONS: THE CASE OF WHITE OPINION ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
FOR BLACKS
DONALD R. KINDER AND LYNN M. SANDERS The University of Michigan
By examining the alterations in opinion induced by alterations in question wording
that mimic the ongoing debate among elites, it becomes possible to learn how
changes in public opinion can be induced by changes taking place outside the survey, in the ordinary, everyday process of democratic discussion. We present
evidence in support of this broad claim from a recent national survey in which white Americans were invited to think about affirmative action either as unfair
advantage or as reverse discrimination. Framing the issue as unfair advantage as
opposed to reverse discrimination produced opinions on affirmative action among whites that were (1) more coherent with their views on other race policies; (2)
associated more closely with their opinions on policies plausibly, but not explicitly, implicating race (such as welfare); (3) linked more tightly to negative emotions
provoked by preferential treatment; (4) more consistent with their general political
views; (5) more evocative of prejudice and misgivings over equal opportunity; and (6) less evocative of the tangible threats that affirmative action might pose to their family and group and of the political principles that affirmative action
might violate. These differences suggest that by promoting rival frames, elites may alter how issues are understood and, as a consequence, affect what opinion turns out to be.
The language of politics is never completely still. Through history,
the terms used in public discourse over such controversial issues as slavery, suffrage for women, civil rights for blacks, cooperation with
the Soviets, and more have changed dramatically. Even at particular
moments and within particular debates, the
same issue may be discussed in very different ways. In current debates about abortion, for example,
each side insists on its own vocabulary; each side rejects the other's
language (Luker, 1984). As
a more
general matter, the entrenchment of some terms and the disappearance of others are often signals of political triumph and defeat. We believe,
as political operators do,
73
74 KINDER AND SANDERS that language makes a difference, that how a policy is described affects
its reception and success...