Values, Political Knowledge, and Public Opinion about Gay Rights a Framing-based Account

This study examines how political knowledge has shaped the effects of two values—egalitarianism and traditional morality—on American public opinion about gay rights and whether media framing accounts for the role that knowledge has played. An analysis of mass media coverage during the peak years of the debate over gay rights (1990–97) showed that the implications of moral traditionalism were virtually undisputed in this debate, whereas both sides laid claim to egalitarianism. Analysis of American National Election Studies survey data demonstrated that in 1992 and 1996 the impact of moral traditionalism on public opinion grew stronger as political knowledge increased, whereas the impact of egalitarianism did not vary across levels of knowledge. Thus, the results suggest that the extent to which political knowledge moderates a value’s effect on opinion can depend on whether public debate provides an undisputed frame or competing frames for that value. One could, in turn, frame the implications of this finding for democratic politics in more than one way. A growing consensus has emerged among public opinion scholars that Americans use their core values to decide where they stand on political issues (Feldman 1988; McClosky and Zaller 1984; Rokeach 1973). Researchers have typically portrayed such value-based reasoning about policy matters as an important component of healthy democratic deliberation (Hurwitz and Peffley 1987; Kinder and Sanders 1996). If that is so, then political knowledge may contribute to the success of public deliberation about politics by encouraging this form of reasoning (Delli Carpini and Keeter 1996). In particular, knowledge obtained from exposure to mass media coverage of political debates may help citizens draw connections between values and issues. paul r. brewer is an assistant professor of political science at George Washington University. The author wishes to thank Linda Brewer for research assistance. He is also grateful for helpful comments from Marco Steenbergen, Pam Conover, John Brehm, George Rabinowitz, Stuart Macdonald, Lee Sigelman, Peter Miller, the anonymous reviewers, and numerous other colleagues. Address correspondence to the author at the Department of Political Science, George Washington University, 2201 G Street, NW, Suite 507, Washington, DC 20052; e-mail: [email protected].