| Abstract: | According to Moral Politics Theory (Lakoff, 1996, 2004, 2006, 2008), a portion of the U.S. population is biconceptual. These citizens subscribe to both the strict-father and nurturant-parent model in their reasoning about ideal families and therefore possess more flexible political attitudes that can shift depending on what family model is brought to the fore of their reasoning through the language used in public discourse. The present study examined whether visual issue framings in terms of a strict-father and nurturant-parent model result in short-term framing effects. Participants were exposed to strict-father and nurturant-parent framings of the issue of bailouts. The results showed that strict-father and nurturant-parent framings led to framing effects and that biconceptuals were susceptible to framings in terms of both models. Furthermore, the author demonstrated that presenting strict fathers with an antibailout argument framed in terms of strict-father values pushed them toward even stronger stances in line with their preheld beliefs (although see Chong & Druckman, 2007; Converse, 1974; Judd & Krosnick, 1982; Payne, 1951; Wehling, 2013; Wehling, Feinberg, Saslow, Melvaer, & Lakoff, 2014). In addition, the results confirmed that subtle changes in visual metaphoric constructions can exert an influence over people's political attitudes. |
