Seoungin Choi
My Research
My broader research agenda is motivated by questions of how frames and psychological factors, such as emotions influence political behaviors, especially around issues of race, gender, and immigrant rights social movements.
Effects of Broadness and Scope of Frames on Mobilization: Different Framing Effects on the #MeToo Movement
This study tests the effect of different frames─equality, women, and feminist frames─on attitudes and behaviors toward the #MeToo movement by using a survey experiment. The result demonstrates that frames’ broadness and scope impact different levels of participation in the #MeToo movement. Based on the result, I argue that narrow and specific identity frames encourage high-cost participation among out-group members while they do not harm the prior supporters’ engagement.
Effect of the Gain and Loss Frame on Emotions and Participation in Immigrant Social Movements
This research investigates how gain and loss frames about immigrant rights movements impact emotions, information processing, and movement participation. I argue that the emotional outcomes from gain or loss are dependent on their self-interest. A high stake of self-interest promotes loss aversion, while a low stake of self-interest makes the loss aversion disappear or reversed. The enthusiasm from gain will be higher than or similar to the anxiety from the loss of the same amount when individuals have a low stake of self-interest. When self-interest is high, people are more sensitive to loss than gain, which triggers a higher level of anxiety than enthusiasm. The emotional status determines the information process and action tendencies.
Effects of Competing Frame on Supporters’ Emotions and Participation in Black Lives Matter
Politics is competitive, and debates are framed with contesting arguments between parties or ideological fractions. People are exposed to many different contestable frames in real life. Under this condition, what factors decide people to choose one side of opinion over the other? Why do people decide to act to support one side of a controversy over the other?
This study tests the effect of a single and a competing frame on emotions and movement participation. I argue that previous attitudes moderate the canceling effect of a competing frame. This research explores how anger, enthusiasm, and anxiety mediate the effect of frames on participation in Black Lives Matter.
Issue Dependence of Emotional Outcomes
This study tests whether emotional outcomes vary depending on issues and whether different types of emotions from various issues promote different social movement behaviors. Based on the result of my previous study, I found that positive emotion was more powerful in encouraging movement actions concerning the issue of immigration, which goes against other previous studies that argue negative emotion is more effective in political behavior, such as voting behavior. To fill the research gap, I will investigate the issue dependence of emotions in relation to political behavior, around issues of race and ethnicity, gender, economic policies, and environmental policies.
Effects of Personality and Emotions on Political Attitudes and Behaviors
This project investigates how emotions interact with personality and influence attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. I expect that the effect of emotions on attitudes toward immigrants would be weakened or strengthened depending on personality traits, such as extraversion, agreeableness, and openness to experience.
Can We Tell the Difference between Ambivalence and Ignorance? Positive or/and Negative Attitudes toward Immigrants
This research explores whether people can tell the difference between ambivalence and ignorance about immigration issues and policies. When people feel uncertain about an issue because they know both advantages and disadvantages, they are reluctant to say they “know” about the topic even when they actually know about it. I will test whether people can distinguish between this uncertainty based on ambivalent attitudes and ignorance from lack of knowledge and how these psychological statuses influence their attitudes toward immigration policies.
