reforms as possible solutions for the issue (Cacciatore, Scheufele, & Iyengar, 2016).
Media scholars commonly use the label ‘‘frame’’ in two ways (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Druckman, 2001; Scheufele, 1999). A media frame refers to the words, images, and phrases the communicator (e.g., a politician, journalist) chooses when communicating information about an issue or event to an audience (Gamson & Modigliani, 1987, 1989). The frame contains the details, evidence, arguments, etc. the speaker sees as significant about an issue or event and uses when presenting the story about the issue or event (Chong & Druckman, 2007). The individual frame refers to a person’s cognitive understanding of a specific situation or issue (e.g., Goffman, 1974). Unlike frames in communication, which reflect a speaker’s emphasis, frames in thought refer to what an audience member believes to be the most salient aspect of an issue (Chong & Druckman, 2007). Both frames are critical as we move to a discussion of thematic and episodic frames, news, and attribution of responsibility.
Framing in news describes the deliberate and active journalistic process of including or excluding information to create a story. A primary function of journalism is defining problems, identifying who or what is to blame and the harmful actions that have occurred, as well as diagnosing and making assessments about causes and potential solutions (Entman, 1993). Journalists use frames to communicate all of these. The news media do not discuss issues (causes and solutions) and events in isolation. Journalists reflect and influence both the public’s and policymakers’ attitudes and beliefs about health and other social issues (Rogers & Dearing, 1996; Chapman & Lupton, 1994; Chong & Druckman, 2007; MacKenzie, Johnson, & Chapman, 2009).
How discussions and assertions about causality unfold in public discourse is key in the placement of issues onto the policy agenda, while also influencing political partnerships and determining potential plans of action (Stone, 1989, 2002). This complex and key process is known as attribution of responsibility—a discussion of who or what is to blame a problem and who or what is responsible for resolving a problem. Arguments and claims concerning responsibility attribution may be determined by whether actions are deemed purposeful and consequences ←15 | 16→intentional (Stone, 2002) or whether issues are depicted without any link to a specific cause (Kensicki, 2004).
Media effect studies show journalists frame an issue in news coverage can shape “what the public thinks it is becoming informed about, which in turn often determines how people take sides on political issues” (Zaller, 1992, p. 8). As detailed earlier, Iyengar (1991) identified news frames as either episodic or thematic. Episodic frames simplify complex issues to the level of anecdotal evidence, leading readers or viewers to blame individuals for health and social issues. Audience members receive little context in episodic coverage, which can lead them to blame individuals for the problem and accountable for the solution.
Thematic frames can have the opposite effect on audience members by emphasizing broader trends and social conditions, increasing the perception that society and government can play a part in solving social problems. News stories using thematic frames foster a sense of shared public responsibility. When the public holds a view of societal responsibility it encourages collective action and garners support for policies. Because framing plays such an important role in both public opinion formation about who or what is to blame and who or what is responsible for solving the issue/problem, it is easy to understand why health communication scholars and public health scholars are attracted to studying thematic and episodic frames in health news.
Thematic and Episodic Frames in Health News
Wallack, Dorfman, Jernigan and Themba (1993) introduced media advocacy as a strategy in the public health community in 1994. The researchers define media advocacy as the strategic use of mass media to advance public policy initiatives. They differentiate their strategy from other types of mass media strategies in several key ways. Like thematic frames, media advocacy encourages a shift in focus to the societal from individual, to the political from individual, and to advocating for policy and the environment away from personal behavior. The public health scholars advocate that improvements in health status come about primarily from gaining more power over the policy environment rather than simply encouraging the public to learn more about health behaviors. The thematic news frames work well with this strategy of public health communication.
Similar to social issues and political issues, most health issues in news coverage can be boiled down to questions of responsibility—who is to blame for the problem and who can solve the problem. The thematic frame is consistent with the social determinants of health model approach, which recognizes factors outside ←16 | 17→of individual control influence health outcomes (Dorfman, Woodruff, Chavez, & Wallack, 1997), while the episodic frame is similar to the individualized notion of responsibility for one’s health commonly promoted in the medical community. Human beings are prone to look for responsibility.
The main tenet of attribution theories (Heider, 1958; Weiner, 1995, 2006) is individuals seek causal explanations for the events they encounter (Jeong, Yum, & Hwang, 2018). Central to these explanations is the locus of control dimension (i.e., internal vs. external). Internal attribution focuses on the dispositional factors of the individual (e.g., lack of self-control), whereas external attribution blames situational factors related to the environment (e.g., the industry or government).
Weiner (1980a) posits people make attributions based on locus of causality, controllability vs. uncontrollability, causal controllability vs. responsibility, responsibility vs. blame, and blame vs. anger. Responsibility attribution begins with a distinction between individual responsibility or situational responsibility (Weiner, 1995). Research shows causal location is one of the primary dimensions of causal thinking. People have a tendency to search for a human agent first because this allows us to put causes within our future control (see Gilbert, Pelham, & Krull, 1988). The propensity to perceive dispositional causality is considered one of the fundamental tenets of attribution theory (Ross and Nisbett, 1991). In terms of controllability vs. uncontrollability, personal causality may occur but is not a sufficient forerunner for responsibility attribution. For example, if obesity is caused by a thyroid problem, then the cause is located within the person but cannot be controlled. Accountability requires the causes of conditions that can be willfully changed (Weiner, 1995). Responsibility entails internal and controllable causality (Graham et al, 1997; Ickes, 1996; Weiner, 1980a, 1995). So, causal controllability similar to locus is established to be a fundamental property of phenomenal causality (Weiner, 1986).
Weiner (1995) does not equate causal controllability with responsibility. Controllability is defined as the characteristics of a cause—such as absence of effort or lack of aptitude, while responsibility refers to judgment made about a person—he or she “should” or “ought to have” done otherwise. Initially, the responsibility inference process focused on causal understanding and then moved to a consideration of the person. Instead, Weiner (1995) argued responsibility is not an attribution. Attribution is reserved for linkage to causality.
Mitigating circumstances are another reason to distinguish causal controllability from responsibility (Weiner, 1995). It is possible the cause of a negative event may be located within an individual and deemed controllable, but a judgment of responsibility is not pronounced. This is due to mitigating circumstances negating moral responsibility. A mitigating circumstance softens or totally eliminates ←17 | 18→judgments of responsibility about a person, such as an illness or disease that is caused by circumstances beyond an individual’s control. For example, while the cause of obesity can be assessed as controllable through diet and exercise, a mitigating factor might be a person’s location within a food desert without a range of nutrition available.
In a quick review, we have covered the following—judgments of responsibility presuppose causality, the cause must be controllable if the person is to be held responsible. Responsibility attributed to an individual may be lessened or completely removed if mitigating circumstances exist. Now we move from antecedents of responsibility
