Facts Speak Louder? Comparing the attention effects of moral and factual framing of political issues

The media and political actors play a crucial role in shaping public attention, not only by selecting which issues to highlight but also by framing them in ways that influence public perception and engagement. Given the increasing prominence of moralized discourse in political communication, we examine whether moral framing is more effective in capturing public attention compared to factual framing, which relies on empirical evidence and rational argumentation. To examine this question, we conducted two preregistered experimental studies using different methods to measure attention: an eye-tracking experiment (N = 99) and a large-scale online survey (N = 1563). Participants were exposed to political issues that are not predominantly associated with either type of framing and were randomly assigned to conditions where the issues were framed either morally or factually. Our findings indicate that moral framing does not consistently attract more attention than factual framing. In fact, in some situations, factual frames were associated with slightly higher levels of audience attention. Understanding these dynamics is crucial in an age of information overload, when competition for public attention is intense and public debate is often dominated by emotional or value-driven messages. Additionally, our research contributes to ongoing debates about the implications of moral framing, particularly its potential to polarize audiences or divert attention from evidence-based decision-making.