Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
The Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this survey was to examine whether individuals’ attitudes toward a political issue are influenced by the political party associated with it. In other words: are opinions about policy proposals affected by who presents the proposal, when the content of the proposal is otherwise identical? To answer this research question, we conducted a survey experiment. Since we wanted to determine whether the party promoting a proposal influences respondents’ attitudes toward it, we needed to select an issue where both parties’ actual positions are aligned. It was also crucial that a considerable political distance existed between the two chosen parties. This provides a better basis for assessing whether the results are actually due to the proposal’s association with the party cue.
Case Selection: Inheritance Tax and Party Cues
The political issue chosen was inheritance tax, with the Labour Party (Ap) and the Progress Party (Frp) as the two stimulus parties. Inheritance tax has proven to be a latent political issue, including among our target group of young people. We considered these choices well-suited because: a) The topic is engaging enough to motivate participation. b) It is an issue where Ap and Frp are not necessarily perceived as being in agreement by the public. In reality, both parties currently support the removal or absence of the tax, thus satisfying the requirement for identical policy content.
Experimental Design and Method
To test our hypotheses, we conducted a survey experiment where respondents were randomly assigned to one of two versions of a statement regarding inheritance tax. The only difference between the groups was the party cue: one group received a statement attributed to the Labour Party (Ap), while the other saw the same statement attributed to the Progress Party (Frp). A detailed description of the experimental setup, randomization, and variables is provided in the survey design section.
Theoretical Framework
Framing Theory
Our main theoretical framework throughout the project is framing theory as formulated by Chong & Druckman (2007). The theory concerns “frames”, understood as the lenses through which individuals view different issues. It shows how different presentations of an issue can be interpreted differently by individuals, and how this can lead to variation in attitudes.
This process is influenced by two components: the information made accessible in memory and what is perceived as relevant and applicable by the individual (Chong & Druckman, 2007, pp. 8–9). The frames through which individuals evaluate issues highlight which aspects are emphasised, indicating that people’s attitudes are often not fixed, but rather context-dependent.
Elite Influence
Within a political context, elites play an important role in shaping how issues are interpreted. The literature discusses elites and their influence on frames and attitudes (Chong & Druckman, 2007), and shows that this influence is often bidirectional. Nevertheless, elites - such as political parties - exert persuasive power over individuals through their presentation of issues. These presentations are adopted by voters, effectively making the source of the information part of the frame itself.
Motivated Reasoning
Another important aspect is motivated reasoning. This theory is particularly relevant in ideological areas such as politics, as the process largely involves belonging, favouritism, and identity. People with strong political affiliations often tend to form conclusions based on the information they consume. Therefore, conclusions are often based on personal goals and identity, and not necessarily on facts alone (Bai, 2023).
In a political context, motivated reasoning may occur when parties are mentioned across different issues. In this study, the main topic is inheritance tax in Norway. According to the theory, respondents are likely to choose their answers based on the party mentioned in the survey. In other words, people often tend to support a policy proposal only if their party supports it, even though it might be identical to a proposal they usually would disagree on.
Party Cues and Predispositions
Political parties function as important interpretive frames in society, as politics largely involves taking positions on issues based on ideologies and attitudes. Political parties are associated with key policy areas and often have loyal voters.
Research shows that predispositions can act as filters for individuals, thereby influencing which information they accept or reject (Zaller, 1992). A relevant example of a predisposition is party loyalty. This leads voters to be more inclined to evaluate information from the party they identify with positively, while approaching information from opposing parties more critically. The interaction between these perspectives occurs when the effect of a frame depends on party identification. In other words, a frame may have varying effects depending on political identity.
A Psychological Perspective
From a psychological perspective, people often rely on their existing thoughts and views when forming opinions. In some cases, this happens automatically, while in others, individuals consciously consider which arguments are relevant. Framing influences which thoughts are available, considered relevant, and easy to recall.
In the survey, respondents encounter a statement about inheritance tax attributed to either the Labour Party or the Progress Party: “[The Labour Party / The Progress Party] believes that there should be no fee or tax on inheriting large assets. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. In this scenario, respondents might base their answers on the party that is mentioned. This highlights how individuals often rely on thoughts that are readily available. Sometimes this happens automatically, but in both cases framing influences which considerations appear most relevant.
Hypotheses
Based on these theoretical perspectives and prior empirical findings, we formulated four concrete hypotheses:
H1: Voters who identify the Labour Party as the party they feel most closely affiliated with will be more favourable toward the proposal when the Labour Party is named as its advocate.
H2: Voters who identify the Progress Party as the party they feel most closely affiliated with will be more favourable toward the proposal when the Progress Party is named as its advocate.
H3: Voters who place themselves on the right side of the left-right political scale express lower agreement toward the proposal when the Labour Party is named as its advocate.
H4: Voters who place themselves on the left side of the left-right political scale express lower agreement toward the proposal when the Progress Party is named as its advocate.
Furthermore, we expected overall support for inheritance tax to be lower among respondents who feel closest to parties on the right (indicating disagreement with the statement), while those who feel closest to parties on the left are expected to show greater support. Accordingly, respondents who identify most closely with the Labour Party (Ap) are expected to be less favourable toward the proposal than those who identify most closely with the Progress Party (Frp), in line with their ideological positions.