🔎 What This Paper Asks: Why do many citizens favor protection even though economists emphasize the consumer gains from free trade? The argument is twofold: many people lack the training to recognize consumption benefits and live in a context of relatively stable prices, so those benefits go unnoticed. Even when consumers are aware of gains, media attention to job losses and psychological loss aversion lead individuals to downweight price benefits relative to employment costs.

🧪 Survey Evidence From a U.S. Sample: The article uses survey data from an American sample to link beliefs about trade’s consequences to policy preferences. It also reports a priming experiment that tests whether providing positive information can move attitudes in a pro-trade direction.

📊 Key Findings:

• Belief that trade causes job losses is more strongly associated with protectionist preferences than belief that trade leads to lower prices.
• Media emphasis on employment costs and loss aversion help explain why price benefits are discounted.
• A priming experiment shows that factual information about consumer benefits (lower prices) has no measurable effect on attitudes.
• By contrast, information highlighting employment effects shifts attitudes in a more favorable direction toward trade.
• Overall, appeals that emphasize jobs are more effective at generating pro-trade attitudes than appeals that emphasize prices in the current political and informational environment.

⚖️ Why It Matters: The findings identify why economic arguments about consumer gains fail to sway the mass public and point to more effective messaging levers. For scholars and communicators, emphasizing employment impacts rather than price savings is a better strategy for increasing public support for free trade.