Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42732101›Full record

ReviewOpen research Europe2025

Framing social policy preferences: A scoping review and research agenda.

Tijs Laenen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Open research Europe, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Tijs LaenenCentre for Social Policy and Media, Movements & Politics, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Social Sciences, Antwerp, Flanders, 2000, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article reviews over 160 studies that use survey experiments to analyze how framing affects citizens' social policy preferences. In doing so, it evaluates three theoretical perspectives: one suggesting that such preferences are extremely malleable, another emphasizing their stability due to deeply rooted predispositions, and a third arguing that framing effects are contingent on multiple factors. Overall, the scoping review finds strong support for the contingency view, showing that framing effects depend on characteristics of the frames, receivers, senders, and context. However, because existing research has predominantly focused on the characteristics of frame receivers, significant gaps remain in our understanding of how framing effects are shaped by other contingency factors. Most importantly, few studies have examined how these factors

Indexed as

framingpersuasionpolitical behaviorpolitical communicationprimingpublic opinionsocial policysurvey experiment

Identifiers

PMID42732101
PMCPMC13562995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.