Print

INTRODUCTION 3 occupation and rebuilding of Iraq. Based on the evidence, the argument that pres- idential framing affects public support for war is highly credible. Overall, this study reveals six general fi ndings regarding framing effects: Framing attempts that result in fi rst impressions for the audience matter and can with- 1. stand contradictory evidence. While exogenous events are signifi cant factors in gaining support for war, especially 2. punitive war against terrorists, how an actor frames those exogenous events matters. Framing effects have added value because of the long-term salience they can create with the audience. An effective thematic frame can be used over the long term on issues that may not be 3. directly linked to the original exogenous event. Thematic frames can be associated with an evaluation of gain or loss. 4. Loss framing is more prevalent prior to foreign policy execution while gain framing 5. appears during the post policy timeframe, thereby supporting prospect theory tenets and having better explanatory value than expected utility theory. The results question public opinion as a signifi cant domestic source of foreign policy. 6. Throughout this study, we will see how framing and rhetoric infl uence changes in public opinion. The goal is to support the argument that framing creates descrip- tive invariance of a situation and thereby infl uences the audience to make a less than fully rational decision. For instance, by focusing on the threat of Iraq’s poten- tial weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) development and its possible support for terrorism, President Bush was able to link these themes together, evaluate them as potential losses, and contribute to an already existing post–September 11 rally effect. By linking Iraq with potential threats and exogenous events, President Bush successfully organized the policy debate around avoiding future losses.