Page 112 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

Persuasion in the Political Context 105

showed that the power of the argumentation of the persuasive message is
dependent on the traits betrayed by the particular voters—in other words,
the external context in which such arguments are perceived. Voters repre-
sent diverse political orientations, display different attitudes toward the
particular issues, and are driven by diverse axiologies when assessing and
solving the issues presented to them. In the exemplary case of city center
construction development, the subjects would have to be divided into two
groups: those for whom environmental protection means more than eco-
nomic growth, and those who value economic growth even at the cost of
environmental degradation. This division constitutes the internal context
for the preferred systems of values, which is responsible for the power of
argumentation applied in a given issue.
Chong and Druckman (2007a) noted that framing in argumentation
offers the chance of forming an option that departs minimally from the
preferred axiology and approaches the middle position for competing
messages. The “economists”—that is, those subjects who favor economic
values over the environment—become less radical in their stance on the
discussed issue. Similarly, the “environmentalists”—those for whom the
environment is always superior to the economy—start displaying a less
radical attitude to the issue at hand. We witness a depolarization of their
primary stances.
Even though framing in argumentation can offer some persuasive ap-
peal for changing opinions that depart only slightly from the adopted axi-
ologies, it cannot change these axiologies as such if they are well-grounded
and fostered. These axiologies function as reference points used to assess
arguments that are framed in a particular way. Nelson (2004) has stressed
clearly that effective framing must take into account the values of the ad-
dressees, but it cannot impose any new values on them. Analogically,
Sniderman and Theriault (2004) have maintained that when voters en-
counter opposing frames during a political debate, they will choose the
alternative that best matches their own system of beliefs. These analyses
allow us to draw conclusions about the very nature of democracy, the main
principle of which is the struggle between opposing views. Motivation and
competition prevent a single framing effect, instead providing a chance to
evaluate various arguments and opt for one of them. This direct form of
competition is clearly visible during political debates, where different con-
ceptions are presented. Voters are allowed to critically evaluate and reject
those proposals that they find impossible to accept.
This is why, in constructing a political marketing message, one should
try to match the voter’s system of preferred values rather than trying to
change it. Barker (2005) researched how this type of internal context