It is well know that social problems are defined as such in policy processes. Simultaneously, there is ample evidence for the construction of problem perception at an individual level. In the article, I shall report on a study on the relation between the two: how policy discourses affect problem perception. The research focuses on aircraft noise annoyance.

How do people become annoyed by aircraft sound? Existing research shows that sound levels alone cannot explain annoyance. In this article, I shall present a novel approach to noise policy. This is combined with the concept of 'resonance' from framing studies and discursive psychology to assess citizens' everyday perception of aircraft sound. The question is raised as to whether the dominant noise policy discourse resonates in citizens' perception. If this is the case, aircraft sound would be perceives differently in different policy settings. Therefore I conducted qualitative research in two cases: Amsterdam Shiphol (The Netherlands) and Zurich Kloten (Switzerland). In both cases I collected policy documents, interviewed policy makers and experts, and attended protests. I analysed interviewers(89), complaints (250), letters (148) and public enquiry statements (29). The analysis suggests that the dominant policy discourse does indeed resonate in peoples' perception. Therefore, citizens perceives aircraft sound as a different problem in the Netherlands as compared to Switzerland. Noise complaints and protest closely follow the openings presented in policy processes. Either people adopt the policy discourse (a relation I term 'consonance') or they partly adopt it and partly go against is (a relation I term 'dissonance'). I can show that the dominat noise policy discourse triggers compliance and certain forms of opposition or conflict. Only rarely did I find people not relating to the dominant policy discourse (a relation I term 'autonomy'). Dominant policy discourses shape our experience.