and behavioral consequences.
A great deal of data supports the notion responsibility judgments give rise to blame, which in turn affects social reactions to the individual responsible (Fincham & Shultz, 1981; Shultz, Schleifer, & Altman, 1981; Shultz & Wright, 1985). As Weiner (1995) suggests, there are convincing reasons to discern responsibility from blame. Responsibility can be considered as positive or negative. For example, one can be responsible for the success of something, while blame carries with it clear negative connotations. It is also possible a person could be considered responsible for a negative event or condition but not perceived responsible for the outcome. Independent of context, responsibility is affectively neutral, but blame communicates emotional negativity. In terms of attribution of responsibility, other emotional responses must be considered. While some researchers argue blame mediates responsibility attribution and social responses, Weiner (1995) argues anger and sympathy mediate between responsibility perceptions and social action. Weiner refers to this as the attribution - emotion - action model (1980). While some research has been conducted on this model and framing (Palazzolo & Roberto, 2011), it has not been linked to thematic and episodic frames to determine its effectiveness.
The Key Outcome: Support for Public Policy
For years, public health practitioners and health communication scholars have argued many injuries and deaths are preventable instead of unavoidable (Coleman & Thorson, 2002). To design and evaluate methods to prevent public health problems that endanger the public, practitioners and scholars work continuously to make the connection among the victims, the cause, and the environment in order to pinpoint risk factors (Coleman & Thorson, 2002). The overall mission of public health is to improve public health by altering the underlying conditions in society that cause and prolong problems. (Mercy, Rosenberg, Powell, Broone, & Roper, ←18 | 19→1993). Here is where we run into problems between the news media and public health experts. The relationship between the two has not been harmonious. Some public health experts have long argued when reporters focus on individual stories or their compelling anecdotes about personal successes or failures, the primary take-away for audience members is to blame the individuals in the stories for their health problems. As we have discussed already, in terms of cognitive effort and internal locus of control, it is much easier to blame the individual for a problem than to spend the extra mental energy developing a broader view and consider society, government, or other institutions responsible when appropriate (Dorfman, Wallack, & Woodruff, 2005; Dorfman & Wallack, 1998; Iyengar, 1991; Lawrence, 2004; McManus & Dorfman, 2005).
Many health and social problems are hard to define, much less resolve. The more complex the problem the greater the disagreement in how it should be defined (Wallack et al., 1993). People try to simplify health problems by breaking them down into basic elements that are easier to manage. In most cases, health problems are identified as either a biological unit with a medical solution, or an information unit, meaning the solution lies in education (Wallack et al., 1993). As Blum (1980) reports, “There is little doubt that how a society views major problems … will be critical in how it acts on the problem” (p. 49). Research shows if the news media help reframe problem definitions, the public response may be altered (Lawrence, 2004; Powles, 1979; Watzlavick, Weakland, & Fisch, 1974). Gaining control of primary ownership of the solution to the problem is prized outcome (Wallack et al., 1993). Journalists can play a critical role in this process based on how they frame news stories about health issues. Reframing news coverage is certainly not the only key to policy change. Successful policy adoption requires uniting a supportive political coalition, as well as, taking advantage of the political environment when opportunities arise (Lawrence, 2004). Yet, public opinion must be open to policy change and that occurs by reframing health risks and responsibilities (Lawrence, 2004).
In 1999, Nathanson conducted key research on the development of public policy connected to smoking and gun control. She developed critical factors associated with framing that influence whether and when public policy solutions for health issues will be sought. The frames include the following: (a) if individuals who suffer from the health problem do so involuntarily or bear some accountability for their own problem, (b) if only the individual is at risk due to the health problems or the larger public is at risk, (c) if the risk is associated solely with afflicted individuals or inherent in the larger environment, and (d) if the risk was created knowingly by some external agency. Nathanson (1999) argued when people are at risk due to no fault of their own, when the larger social group is placed at risk, when the risks are ←19 | 20→prevalent in the environment, and when it can be shown the risk was knowingly created by an external agency, then pressure grows for a public policy response to the public health threat.
For example, in the 1960s public health experts made significant recommendations to increase automobile safety including adding safety features to the cars, drivers and passengers wearing seat belts, and drivers not drinking and driving to decrease the number of deaths and injuries (Coleman & Thorson, 2002). Before that time, society blamed “the nut behind the wheel” for car accidents (Stevens, 1997, p.11). Pleading with people to drive more safely was the only strategy to increase public safety. As researchers began to identify the societal and environmental risk factors and their roles in auto crashes, things began to change.
Public health practitioners explained what they found to reporters in an effort to change their news stories about car accidents and car safety. Journalists began including the type of cars involved in accidents, and information about hazardous road and weather conditions. Audiences started to understand accidents as multifaceted problems rather than just the “nut behind the wheel.” The way news coverage contextualized the issue changed the way the public viewed the reasons for auto deaths and injuries. The problem was reframed, and the public supported and passed policies to prevent drunk driving, build safer roads, and pushed auto manufacturers to design safety features into cars. All of these changes lead to a decrease in the rate of car deaths and injuries (Stevens, 1997).
In the 1990s, public health experts argued crime and violence should be reframed as a public health threat and approached in the same way as other deadly social diseases (Dorfman, Woodruff, Chavez, & Wallack, 1997). Violent behavior can be linked to a variety of factors including poverty, racial segregation and discrimination, unemployment, alcohol, firearms, the portrayal of violence in the media, lack of education, child abuse, childhood exposure to violence and the belief in male dominance (Stevens, 1997, p. 1). In an effort to help the public understand the range of issues associated with crime and violence, public health experts encouraged reporters to include information in their news stories identifying and discussing the societal factors associated with the problem (Coleman & Thorson, 2002). They were trying to reframe the public’s view of who is responsibile for crime and violence from the individual to society. If successful, then the public might consider societal solutions to address the issue including policy changes. Public health experts are now focusing that same attention on other public health problems and conditions, including obesity-related illnesses and lung cancer risks associated with secondhand smoke.
Obesity, for example, rather than being lack of self-control or ignorance, can be viewed as a function of a corporate enterprise actively promoting unhealthy ←20 | 21→products. The public might recognize the connection between eating unhealthy foods and corporate production, marketing and widespread promotion, as opposed to just individual behavior choices (Friedman Friedman, Cheyne, Givelber, Gottlieb, & Daynard, 2015; Lawrence, 2004). Eating unhealthy, in this larger context, is viewed as part of a larger system in which the person is one part, rather than simply as a result of individual decisions. This type of analysis moves problem definition upstream. Upstream factors include laws, regulations, policies and institutional practices, prices, and product standards that impact the personal health choices of millions of people and the environments in which they work and live (Chapman, 2001). News media can play a pivotal role in the process of reframing health issues as upstream problems.
One of the most successful cases of reframing problem definition is that of the anti-tobacco movement. Over time, documented
