Chapter 24 Exercises: Framing, Priming, and Persuasion

These exercises develop skills in framing analysis, frame detection, and the application of priming and persuasion research to practical political communication problems. They progress from concept application to original analysis.

Exercise 24.1: Equivalence vs. Emphasis Framing

Estimated time: 30 minutes | Difficulty: Introductory

Part A: Classification Exercise

For each of the following political communication examples, identify whether it illustrates equivalence framing or emphasis framing, and explain the specific cognitive mechanism through which the frame operates.

  1. "95% of our streets are safe" versus "1 in 20 streets in our city are dangerous"

  2. "Our opponent wants to cut seniors' Social Security benefits" versus "Our opponent wants to restructure Social Security for long-term sustainability"

  3. "This bill will create 50,000 new jobs" versus "This bill will cost taxpayers $2 billion"

  4. "Undocumented immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than native-born Americans" versus "Criminal aliens are flooding our border communities"

  5. "Our troops are still deployed in this region" versus "We have not ended the endless wars"

Part B: Construct Your Own

Develop an original pair of frames for each of the following policy issues—one frame that would activate support for the policy and one that would activate opposition. For each pair, identify which type of framing you are using and explain the psychological mechanism you are exploiting.

  1. A proposed city ordinance requiring landlords to accept housing vouchers as payment
  2. A state ballot initiative requiring photo ID for in-person voting
  3. A federal tax on large tech companies based on their advertising revenue

Exercise 24.2: Applying Iyengar's Framework

Estimated time: 45 minutes | Difficulty: Intermediate

Background

Iyengar's episodic vs. thematic framing distinction has specific predictions about how framing affects causal attribution and political accountability.

Part A: Frame Identification

For each of the following news story descriptions, identify whether it is primarily episodic, thematic, or a mixture. For mixtures, describe which elements are episodic and which are thematic.

  1. A story about housing affordability featuring an interview with a young teacher who cannot afford rent in the city where she works, along with one data point about average rents.

  2. A story about veteran homelessness featuring national statistics on veteran homelessness rates, VA funding levels over 10 years, and quotes from a VA policy researcher and a housing advocate.

  3. A story about drug addiction featuring a profile of a specific person who became addicted following a prescription for post-surgery pain management, with one paragraph of national opioid statistics.

  4. A story about child poverty featuring census data, a policy analyst's comments on the child tax credit, and a brief interview with a pediatrician about the health effects of poverty.

Part B: Predicting Framing Effects

Based on Iyengar's research findings, predict the direction of causal attribution effects for each story above. Specifically: after reading each story, would audiences be more likely to attribute the described problem to individual behavior/circumstances or to systemic/policy factors? Explain your prediction.

Part C: Reframing Exercise

Take the most episodic story from Part A and rewrite its lede (first two paragraphs) to convert it to thematic framing without changing any factual content. Then write a brief analysis of what political accountability implications would change with the reframing.

Exercise 24.3: Framing Analysis Codebook Development

Estimated time: 60 minutes | Difficulty: Intermediate-Advanced

Background

This exercise asks you to develop a basic framing codebook for analyzing coverage of a specific political issue, following ODA's methodology described in the chapter.

Issue: Climate Policy Coverage

You are analyzing news coverage of a state-level carbon pricing proposal (a "cap-and-trade" system) across different types of outlets.

Tasks

Part A: Draw on the framing literature to identify six candidate frames that might appear in coverage of this issue. For each frame, provide: - Frame name and definition (2-3 sentences) - The "problem definition" the frame implies - The "causal attribution" the frame implies - The "treatment recommendation" the frame implies - Two example phrases or headlines that would indicate this frame

Part B: Develop a decision rule for the two frames you expect to be most difficult to distinguish from each other. What specific textual features would resolve the ambiguity?

Part C: Identify two frame categories from your codebook that would test the chapter's claim about episodic vs. thematic framing. How would you adapt Iyengar's distinction to this specific policy domain?

Part D: What inter-rater reliability target would you set for your codebook, and why? What would you do if pilot testing revealed reliability below your target?

Exercise 24.4: Priming Effect Analysis

Estimated time: 30 minutes | Difficulty: Intermediate

Part A: Conceptual Application

The chapter distinguishes between the accessibility and applicability components of priming effects. For each of the following scenarios, identify which component is operating (or whether both are operating) and explain how:

  1. A voter who has been seeing crime coverage for two weeks is deciding how to vote in a school board election. Does priming predict crime will influence her school board vote? Why or why not?

  2. A voter who considers himself a fiscal conservative has been seeing extensive coverage of federal deficit spending. He is evaluating both a Senate candidate who has a strong fiscal record but supports abortion rights, and one with a weaker fiscal record who opposes abortion. How does the priming literature predict the deficit coverage will affect his evaluation?

  3. An undecided voter has been seeing extensive human interest coverage of individual families affected by healthcare costs. She is evaluating a gubernatorial candidate. Predict the direction of the priming effect and explain your prediction.

Part B: Designing Against Priming

You are advising a candidate whose strongest issue (policy competence on environmental protection) is being primed out by a media environment dominated by economic anxiety coverage. Propose three specific campaign communication strategies that would counter the unfavorable priming environment without directly attacking the opponent's economic messaging.

Exercise 24.5: Persuasion Research Application

Estimated time: 30 minutes | Difficulty: Intermediate

Scenario

You are advising a campaign in the final three weeks of a competitive Senate race. The race is approximately tied. The candidate's internal polling identifies three voter segments among persuadable undecideds:

  • Segment A (n≈45,000): Low political knowledge, primarily watching local TV news, issue positions are loosely organized around general partisan leans
  • Segment B (n≈22,000): High political knowledge, consuming diverse media, strong prior evaluations of both candidates but not firmly decided
  • Segment C (n≈18,000): Moderate political knowledge, primarily social media news consumers, motivated by candidate character rather than policy positions

Tasks

Part A: Based on the chapter's discussion of persuasion research (Elaboration Likelihood Model, partisan resistance effects, effect heterogeneity), predict which segment is most persuadable through standard campaign advertising and explain the mechanism.

Part B: For Segment B (high-knowledge, uncertain voters), standard advertising may be ineffective. What communication approaches does the research suggest might be more effective for this segment?

Part C: The chapter cites Kalla and Broockman's near-zero average persuasion effect for general election advertising. A campaign strategist dismisses this research: "These lab studies don't capture what's happening in a real competitive race." Write a 150-word response evaluating this objection—being genuinely fair to both the research findings and the strategist's practical objection.

Exercise 24.6: Two-Step Flow in the Digital Age

Estimated time: 30 minutes | Difficulty: Introductory-Intermediate

Tasks

Part A: Identify three specific "digital opinion leaders" in a political domain you follow—people who mediate political information for large audiences through social media, podcasts, newsletters, or YouTube. For each, describe: their platform and approximate audience size, the political information niche they occupy, and how their role resembles and differs from Lazarsfeld's original concept of opinion leaders.

Part B: The chapter argues that digital opinion leaders differ from traditional opinion leaders in scale, speed, and the absence of reciprocal relationships. For each of these differences, explain one political consequence—a specific way the difference changes how political information flows and how political opinion forms.

Part C: A campaign wants to use opinion leaders to extend the reach of its core message. Describe a specific strategy for doing so, and identify three risks or ethical considerations the campaign should be aware of.