Frame Backfire: The Trouble with Civil Rights Appeals in the Contemporary United States
通过两项大规模调查实验，发现将当代问题（如不平等对待）表述为民权侵犯反而会降低公众对政府干预的支持，原因在于民权诉求会引发与历史民权运动的对比，使当代困境显得不那么重要。
Many scholars and activists consider civil rights to be a powerful, effective way to frame diverse causes, but do civil rights claims actually resonate? Building on social movements, collective memory, and public opinion scholarship, we conceptualize civil rights claims in three non-mutually-exclusive ways: as a highly resonant “master frame” grounded in core American ideals of equal rights, as an appeal to the idealized memory of the Civil Rights Movement, and as racialized messaging that is likely to provoke backlash. Using these conceptualizations, we derive expectations about the effectiveness of civil rights claims across diverse issues, beneficiaries, and audiences, which we test using two large-scale survey experiments. Respondents viewed “civil rights” very positively in the abstract and broadly agreed about the meaning in both closed and open-ended survey responses: civil rights are about ensuring equal rights and treatment, rather than addressing material needs. Yet, surprisingly, framing contemporary problems—even unequal treatment—as civil rights violations reduced support for government intervention. Indeed, we find widespread frame backfire : civil rights framing was counterproductive across issues (material deprivation, unequal treatment), beneficiaries (African Americans, Mexican Americans, White Americans, undocumented Mexican immigrants), and audiences (liberals, conservatives, Whites, African Americans, Latinos). Given the consistently negative effects across respondents, these findings cannot be adequately explained as racialized backlash. Instead, we propose that civil rights claims evoke comparisons to the historic Civil Rights Movement, making contemporary hardships appear less significant and prompting unfavorable contrasts with idealized claims-making of the past. Our findings challenge assumptions that frames resonate when they align with audiences’ values or appeal to positive collective memories; indeed, invoking idealized memories risks undermining support for contemporary causes.