This study investigates how Taiwan’s government gained support for lifting the ban on US pork imports despite widespread health-risk opposition. We ask whether strategic framing can elevate collective national interests over individual concerns in a precarious geopolitical context. Using a vignette experiment that randomly assigns respondents to national-benefit versus personal-interest frames, we find that emphasizing Taiwan’s international space significantly increases support for trade liberalization, whereas appeals to health risks and losses for pig farmers do not yield statistically significant effects. The results suggest that linking unpopular economic reforms to concrete diplomatic gains can suppress personal-welfare concerns in threatened democracies.
ChenIT-y (2024) Trading for survival: trade policy as a credible signal, alliance strategy, and public preferences in Taiwan. Review of International Political Economy31(1): 253–276.
2.
ChenVYLiuAKC (2023) In the name of the pandemic: exploring COVID-19 online discourse (In Chinese). Mass Communication Research156: 47–104.
3.
ChengM (2016) The power of persuasion: modality and issue framing in the 2012 Taiwan presidential debates. Discourse & Society27(2): 172–194.
4.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science10(1): 103–126.
5.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2013) Counterframing effects. The Journal of Politics75(1): 1–16.
6.
DomkeDShahDVWackmanDB (1998) Media priming effects: accessibility, association, and activation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research10: 51–74.
7.
DotyRMPetersonBEWinterDG (1991) Threat and authoritarianism in the United States, 1978–1987. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology61: 629–640.
8.
DruckmanJN (2004) Political preference formation: competition, deliberation, and the (ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review98(4): 671–686.
9.
GevaNAstorino-CourtoisAMintzA (1996) Marketing the peace process in the Middle East: the effectiveness of thematic and evaluative framing in Jordan and Israel. In: ChatterjiM (ed.) Arms Spending, Development & Security. New Delhi, India: APH Publishing Corporation, pp.359–377.
10.
GravelleTB (2020) Framing middle Fower foreign policy: trade, security, and human rights frames in Canadian and Australian foreign policy attitudes. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific22(1): 101–130.
11.
GuisingerASaundersEN (2017) Mapping the boundaries of elite cues: how elites shape mass opinion across international issues. International Studies Quarterly61(2): 425–441.
12.
HainmuellerJHiscoxMJ (2006) Learning to love globalization: education and individual attitudes toward international trade. International Organization60(2): 469–498.
13.
HuddyLFeldmanSCapelosT, et al. (2002) The consequences of terrorism: disentangling the effects of personal and national threat. Political Psychology23(3): 485–509.
14.
JacobsonDBar-TalD (1995) Structure of security beliefs among Israeli students. Political Psychology16(3): 567–590.
15.
JacobyWG (2000) Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science44(4): 750–767.
16.
JoslynMRHaider-MarkelDP (2007) Sociotropic concerns and support for counterterrorism policies. Social Science Quarterly88(2): 306–319.
17.
LabontéRGagnonML (2010) Framing health and foreign policy: lessons for global health diplomacy. Globalization and Health6: 14.
18.
LamsL (2018) Issues salience and framing in the Taiwanese 2016 Presidential election campaign: an analysis of the KMT and DPP campaign discourses. International Journal of Taiwan Studies1: 301–330.
19.
LeshemOAHalperinE (2023) Threatened by the worst but hoping for the best: Unraveling the relationship between threat, hope, and public opinion during conflict. Political Behavior45(2): 761–780.
20.
LiuAKCOphirYTsaiS-A, et al. (2024) Hashtag activism in a politicized pandemic: framing the campaign to include Taiwan in the World Health Organization’s efforts to combat COVID-19. New Media & Society26(6): 3213–3234.
21.
MaozIMcCauleyC (2009) Threat perceptions and feelings as predictors of Jewish-Israeli support for compromise with Palestinians. Journal of Peace Research46(4): 525–539.
22.
MargalitY (2012) Lost in globalization: international economic integration and the sources of popular discontent. International Studies Quarterly56(3): 484–500.
23.
MaydaAMRodrikD (2005) Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others?European Economic Review49(6): 1393–1430.
24.
MintzAReddSB (2003) Framing effects in international relations. Synthese135(2): 193–213.
25.
MutzDC (1992) Mass media and the depoliticization of personal experience. American Journal of Political Science483–508.
26.
MyrickR (2021) Do external threats unite or divide? Security crises, rivalries, and polarization in American foreign policy. International Organization75(4): 921–958.
27.
NaoiMKumeI (2011) Explaining mass support for agricultural protectionism: evidence from a survey experiment during the global recession. International Organization65(4): 771–795.
28.
ScheveKFSlaughterMJ (2001) What determines individual trade-policy preferences?Journal of International Economics54(2): 267–292.
29.
SnidermanPMTheriaultSM (2004) The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In: WillemESPaulMS (eds) Studies in Public Opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp.133–165.
30.
StevensDVaughan-WilliamsN (2016) Citizens and security threats: issues, perceptions and consequences beyond the national frame. British Journal of Political Science46(1): 149–175.
31.
TobinJLSchneiderCJLeblangD (2022) Framing unpopular foreign policies. American Journal of Political Science66(4): 947–960.
32.
WallanderL (2009) 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: a review. Social Science Research38(3): 505–520.
33.
WangTY (2022) Taiwan in 2021: the looming China threat. Asian Survey62(1): 62–72.
34.
WangY-T (2025) Framing China in legislative speeches: an analysis of Taiwan’s main parties (In Chinese). Journal of Social Sciences and Philosophy37(4): 881–927.
35.
WolfeRMendelsohnM (2005) Values and interests in attitudes toward trade and globalization: the continuing compromise of embedded liberalism. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue canadienne de science politique38(1): 45–68.
36.
YenW-TKayKChenF-Y (2021) Is trading with China different? Self-interest, national pride, and trade preferences. Journal of East Asian Studies21(1): 97–115.
