Conflict and Candidate Selection: Game Framing Voter Choice

• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17715258
• Author: Lori Cox Han,Brian Robert Calfano
• Date: 01 January 2018
• Published date: 01 January 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17715258

American Politics Research

2018, Vol. 46(1) 169 –186

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17715258

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Conflict and Candidate

Selection: Game

Framing Voter Choice

Lori Cox Han1 and Brian Robert Calfano2

Abstract

Political campaigns are often likened to a game typified by conflict. We

consider whether using a conflict frame visually emphasizing the contested

aspect of partisanship affects candidate support in the 2016 presidential

election. Using a nationwide survey experiment (N = 975) that randomly

assigns participants to different visual frames depicting politics as conflictual

or process-based, we find that participants exposed to the conflict frame

show significantly higher odds of supporting Donald Trump and Bernie

Sanders, while rejecting Hillary Clinton. The conflicting frame also increases

self-reported participant anger, which decomposition analysis shows

increases support for Trump and Sanders while decreasing it for Clinton

(and that we offer as a preliminary finding). Avenues for future research are

then considered.

Keywords

framing, conflict, vote choice, 2016 election

Media coverage of presidential campaigns can resemble television sports: the

graphics, countdown clocks, and expert analyses look a lot like “big game”

reports on programs such as ESPN’s SportsCenter. The overlap between

1Chapman University, Orange, CA, USA

2University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Brian Robert Calfano, University of Cincinnati, 1201 Crosley Tower, Cincinnati, OH 45221,

USA.

Email: brian.calfano@uc.edu

715258APRXXX10.1177/1532673X17715258American Politics ResearchCox Han and Calfano

research-article2017

170 American Politics Research 46(1)

conflict and certain political campaigns is seen in the stoking of conflict,

group blame, and intolerance (Berry & Sobieraj, 2013; Coe et al., 2008;

McCombs & Shaw, 1972; Mutz, 2006). Television media can encourage

these outcomes by advancing the conflict frame through sports terminology,

referencing win-or-lose, zero-sum competition (although, to our knowledge,

no study has quantified how often this frame features in political stories;

Patterson, 2013). In 2016, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders embraced a

conflictual campaign style more than their opponents, including Hillary

Clinton (Petri, 2016). But does this mean that Trump and Sanders benefited

from a conflictual framing of American politics while Clinton did not? We

address this puzzle below.

There seems to be allure in framing politics as a conflictual game, but

scholars have yet to fully explore this frame’s impact, at least in terms of

presidential elections. We theorize that much of the conflict frame’s power

comes from partisanship’s influence on voters. Therefore, a conflict frame

should not necessarily disadvantage Clinton, although running as the first

female presidential nominee of a major political party may have neutralized

campaign options such as the “gender ownership” strategy (see Herrnson,

Lay, & Stokes, 2003). There may also be an affective dimension to the frame’s

influence. Redlawsk’s (2002) distinction between “hot and cold cognition,”

where the former regards reflexive behavior and decision-making and the

latter rational cognitive processes, is a helpful framework to consider. Yet,

while hot cognition focuses generally on affect, Affective Intelligence Theory

(AIT; see Marcus, MacKuen, Wolak, & Keele, 2006) emphasizes specific

emotions (including enthusiasm, anxiety, and anger) as potential responses to

political information. As such, we utilize AIT to guide expectations about

specific emotion-based effects on public support of candidates. We also

explore countering the conflict frame with reference to a highly procedural

political process (lawmaking) in an attempt to encourage “cold” cognition to

examine how it affects vote choice.

Using a national online survey experiment of 975 adults conducted during

the 2016 primary season, we evaluate the conflictual and process-based

frames on vote choice for Trump, Sanders, or Clinton. Based on Brader,

Valentino, and Suhay’s (2008) approach, we also include a modified emotion

battery focusing on participant enthusiasm, anxiety, and anger. Treatment-

only models show that the conflict frame decidedly disadvantaged Clinton

while benefiting Trump and Sanders. This suggests the conflict frame stoked

a partisan reaction different from what Democratic Party elites preferred in

2016, and perhaps signals a gender-based advantage for males using the con-

flict frame (although more attention to this possibility is needed). Trump’s

advantage encourages a similar conclusion about Republican voters bucking