Andrea Martinez
Major and Classification
Political Science/ Chicano Studies/ Psychology, May 2010
Faculty Mentors
- Ricardo Ramirez, Ph.D.
Department
- Political Science and American Studies & Ethnicity
McNair Project
Politicians recognize the value of emotional appeals when attempting to influence opinion and garner public support. However, research concerning the impact of rhetorical framing on emotions often considers emotion to be an individual level-phenomenon. Using Intergroup Emotions Theory (IET), this study investigates the effect of framing upon emotional responses and political perspectives regarding the issue of illegal immigration. In an online survey, participants read a simulated excerpt from a presidential campaign speech that argued for an increase in border security to curb illegal immigration and its negative impact on Americans. The excerpt employed either a thematic frame, which focused on statistics related to immigration, or an episodic frame, which focused on the plight of an individual. Further, the ethnicity of a "victimized" group or person varied within the frame. Contrary to findings from prior framing studies, results of this study showed that episodic frames were not significantly more emotionally engaging than thematic frames. Also, both frames elicited similar levels of change in policy opinion, but in a direction opposite from that of the excerpt's argument. As predicted from the racialized nature of illegal immigration, emotional reaction and policy opinion differed according to participant race and featured race. This study helps reveal the complexities of responses among different racial groups to immigration rhetoric. Results suggest that groups' reactions to rhetorical strategies are particular to the policy issue at hand and that not all members of the electorate are interchangeable.