Framing Fear: Loss Aversion and Availability in Trump’s Immigration Rhetoric
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the role of the cognitive biases of the availability heuristic and loss aversion in shaping voter preferences and public support for Donald Trump’s immigration rhetoric and policies. The study, grounded in behavioral economics, examines how loss-framed narratives, such as those of economic and cultural threats posed by immigration, mobilize voter support by leveraging fears of perceived losses. Simultaneously, Trump’s reliance on emotive anecdotes amplifies the salience of isolated events, distorting public perception of immigrants as disproportionately linked to crime and economic strain. Despite empirical evidence highlighting the economic contributions and lower crime rates among immigrant populations, these biases, namely the availability heuristic and loss aversion, drive support for stringent immigration measures, including travel bans and deportations for particular immigrant groups. This paper argues for corrective measures such as embedding anecdotal narratives within public campaigns, policy-making forums, and educational curricula alongside enhancing public data literacy to mitigate these biases in political discourse and voter choices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it