Framing Debate to Lift Children Out of the Political Divide

Abstract

Many cost-effective, evidence-based developmental programs (EBPs) remain inaccessible to children in need. To improve access to care, this dissertation theoretically and then empirically examines different approaches to advocating for dissemination funding in a polarized political context. Section 1 describes recent advances in the use of morally framed messaging to change attitudes. Section 2 reviews research on political polarization with an emphasis on how polarization affects online message processing. Section 3 describes a theoretically informed EBP advocacy strategy that seeks to tailor and target advocacy messages to promote bipartisan support for EBP dissemination. Sections 4, 5, and 6 describe three studies designed to test whether motivated social cognition (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003) or moral foundations theory (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009) may be used to tailor message frames to speak to the distinct needs of Liberals and Conservatives. In Section 7, results and limitations are discussed. Although the three studies provide limited support for the hypothesis that theory can be used to design persuasive, tailored messages, message frames were consistently overwhelmed by competition from partisan cues and ideological arguments. The dissertation concludes by arguing that, in order to generate bipartisan support for EBP dissemination, implementation funding and structures that are already highly prioritized by Liberals need to be designed to appeal to Conservatives’ substantive policy preferences.