Print

10 WINNING THE WAR OF WORDS This area of research has been the least fruitful in its pursuit of producing a generalizable theory of framing. Scholars have taken three approaches to explain- ing framing in prospect theory: looking at an actor’s overall domain, the hedonic tone of the problem, and semantic manipulations of outcome descriptors. 28 Exam- inations of the actor’s overall domain have been popular within the prospect theory research program. 29 This approach attempts to situate the actor within the domains of loss or gain, and within prospect theory principles, thereby violating expected utility theory. Although this approach is tenuous because it requires the researcher to psychoanalyze the actor’s mental state during an already passed event, it does provide for historical insight into the actor’s decision-making process. The second approach looks at the hedonic tone of a decision problem and tries to fi nd a natural frame for a certain problem type. Research suggests that people will react naturally to certain types of problems as a result of shifts from the status quo. This shift is expected to produce a natural frame indicative of gain or loss without the need to identify a subjective frame. 30 This allows researchers to predict future decision making by identifying how specifi c conditions within a decision-making event affect actors. Scholars argue that this type of approach does not aid the development of a theory of framing and it counters the subjective nature of prospect theory, which stipulates different reactions for how information is presented, not how most actors will react to an objective situation. Furthermore, research has shown that hedonic tone does not have continued effect in life-and- death situations, when the actor may become more risk-acceptant as a result of the situation, regardless of the hedonic tone of the available options. 31 In those situa- tions, hedonic tone loses explanatory value. Nevertheless, it may be possible to build meaning of loss or gain and create a hedonic tone for certain issues within the large capacity for decisions between issues of life and death. The most diffi cult approach to identifying framing effects revolves around the analysis of semantic manipulations of outcome descriptors. 32 Boettcher points to a set of three criteria stipulated by Taliaferro in order to test the prospect theory hypothesis. 33 The criteria include identifying the decision maker’s evaluated out- comes vis-à-vis the reference point, whether or not the decision makers perceive themselves to be facing gains or losses, and whether or not the decisions are made as predicted by prospect theory tenets. These criteria present a tall order for the researcher and as a result have had a limited following, especially outside of experimental methods in areas such as historical case studies. Within the laboratory environment, it is possible to control for these variables by providing the test subject with a specifi c reference point or assessing the sub- ject’s reference point through interviews during the experiment. However, this type of clinical environment approach to testing prospect theory has been the tar- get of numerous criticisms since it does little to apply the research program to real-world cases. In an effort to take prospect theory out of the laboratory and into the real world, it is justifi able to adjust Taliaferro’s rigid criteria when looking at how presidential framing affects public opinion.