ANNALS, AAPSS, 546, July 1996 Framing Responsibility for Political Issues By SHANTO IYENGAR ABSTRACT. This article examines the influence of television news ‘on viewers’ attributions of responsibility for political issues. Televi- ‘sion’s systematic reliance on episodic as opposed to thematic depic- tions of political life elicits individualistic attributions of responsibil- ity for national problems such as poverty and terrorism. These attributions emphasize the actions of private rather than governmen- tal actors, By obscuring the conncetions between political problems and the actions or inactions of political leaders, television news trivielizes political discourse and weakens the accountability of olocted officials, ‘Shanto Iyengar is professor of political science and communication studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. His principal publications include News That Matters (coauthored with D. R. Kinder); Is Anyone Responsible? How ‘Television Frames Political Ieaues; Explorations in Political Psychology (coedited with William J. McGuire), and the forthcoming Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate (coauthored with Stephen Ansolabehere) 59HE concept of responsibility is an essential building block of all social knowledge. From the de- ‘meanor of one's next-door neighbors to the behavior of elected officials in tthe nation’s eapital, people spontane- ously attribute responsibility for the behaviors they observe. Attributions of responsibility are known to exert powerful influence over a broad spectrum of interpersonal and so: al attitudes.’ ‘The two principal types of attri- butions correspond to causal and treatment responsibility.’ Causal re- sponsibility eocerns the origin of a problem, while treatment responsi- bility focuses on who or what has the ability to alleviate the problem. Both types of attributions aro especially relevant for understanding political life. Why political problems occur and recur and how they might be appro- priately remedied are perennial 1. The paychological evidence is reviewed in David J. Schneider Albert H. Hastor, and Phoebe C: Elleworth, Person Perception Reai- ing, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979); Phillip Brickman ot al, Models of Helping and Cop. ing.” American Psychologist, vol. 37 (1982); ames R. Betiman ad Burien A, Weite,“At- tuibutions in the Board Room: Causa! Reason ingin Corporate Annual Reports," Administra. tive Science Quarterly, vol. 28 (1983), James Lemicau, FB. Bryant, and Phillip Brickman, “Client Commitment in the Helping Relation Basie Processes ix Helping Helation- ships. od. A. Mis (New York: Aldine, 1982); Valerie 8, Folkes, “Consumer Reactions to Product Failure: An Attributional Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, vo 10 (1984). 2. Alan I Abramowitz, David Lanoue, and Subba Ramesh, “Beonomic Conditions, Causal Aatribations, and Political Evaluations in the 1984 Presidentia: Bletion,” Journal of Polt- ties, vol. 80 (1988), Shanto Iyengar, fe Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political seues (Caieago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), ‘THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY themes in political campaigns, Dothe poor prefer to remain wards of the state rather than to work for a living, or are they victims of circumstances and forces beyond their control? ‘What course of action is likely to re- duce poverty, and who are the per- sons orinstitutions with the ability to carry it out? ‘The importance of people's causal and treatment attributions for po- litical issues has not been lost on those who seek public office. Since voters tend to punish or reward poli- ticians depending upon the state of national—especially economic— conditions, incumbent officials from the president on down are quick to claim responsibility for outcomes deemed favorable and disclaim re- sponsibility for events or decisions with negative implications.* The in- creasingly partisan and vitriolie do- bates over “who really did it” have, by ‘some accounts, contributed to consid- erable public disillusionment with political leaders.* How do people decide questions of responsibility? The dominant para- digm treats attributions as residues of political socialization and accul- 3, Morrie P Fiorina, Retronpective Voting in American Notional Biections (New Haves, Cr Yale University Pros, 1961); Douglas A Hibbs, The American Politial Economy (Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), Stephan Ansolahahere, Shanta Iyenger, and ‘Adam Simon, “Good News, Bad News, and Economie Voting” (Paper delivered atthe an ‘nual meeting ofthe American Political Science Asscciation, San Francisco, 1990) Donald R Kinder and Roderick Kiewiet, “Economie Dis- content and Political Behavior” American Journal of Plitical Science, el. 23 (1970). ‘4 Stephen Ansblabehere and Shanto Iyengar, Going Negative: How Political Adver tisements Shrink ond Polarize the Electorate (vew York: Free Pres, 1995).FRAMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLITICAL ISSUES, turation. In this view, an individual's political ideology or worldview pro- vides the dominant influence over at- tributions of responsibility. Newt Gingrich holds the poor responsible for poverty; Bill Clinton attributes responsibility to societal forces and institutions. In short, how individu- als assign responsibility is consid- ‘ered part and parcel of long-standing political predispositions. ‘While the influence of culture or ideology on attribution of responsibil ity cannot be denied, there is consid- erable evidence that short-term fac- tors are just as important. Beliefs about who or what is responsible are likely to shift depending upon the information environment in which political issues and events are pre- sented. Today, the most important of these contextual influences is televi- sion news. FRAMING EFFECTS (OF NEWS COVERAGE ‘The concept of framing refers to the effects of presentation on judz- ‘ment and choice. In the psychological literature, itis well known that indi- viduals'choices vary dramatically de- pending upon whether the options are presented as potential gains or losses. When faced with prospects that are presented as relative gains (such as winning $1), experimental participants exhibit risk aversion— they prefer a sure gain to a gamble. When faced with a prospective loss, however, they become risk secking and prefer to gamble than to accept a certain loss.° Analogous framing ef- 5. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky, “Choices, Valves, and Frames,” American Pey- 61 fects have been obtained by public opinion researchers who elicit diverg- ing responses by varying the form and wording of survey questions. For example, the stimulus “people on welfare” typically elicits more disap- proving and less charitable responses than the stimulus “poor people.“* Given the widespread presence of framing effects associated with word- ing shifts in the presentation of choice problems or opinion questions, similar effects might be expected with media news presentations. Most people encounter the world of public affairs through the language of tele- vision, and television news coverage of political issues embodies two dis- tinct frames or modes of presenta- tion: the episodic news frame and the thematic news frame. The research that is summarized here was de- signed to investigate the effects of these alternative frames on viewers’ chologist, vol. 39 (1984), Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions,” in Rational Choice: The Contras! Between Economics and Prychology, fd. Hillel Bintorn and Robin Hogarth (Chi- ‘cago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); Gearge A. Quattrone and Amos Tversky,*Con- ‘rasting Rational and Peychological Analyses ‘of Politial Choice," American Political Science Retiew, vol. 82 (1988); Richard Thaler, “The Psychology and Economies Conference Hand- book,” in Ratinal Choice: The Contrast Bs- ‘tween Economics and Paychelogy, ed. Binhorn and Hogarth 6. Tom Smith, “That Which We Call Wel- fareby Any Other Name Would Smell Sweeter: ‘An Analysis ofthe Impact of Question Wording ‘ca Response Patterns,” Public Opinion Quar- terly, vol. 51 (1987); Howard Schuman and Stanley Presser, Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, end Context (New York: Aea- ddemaie Press, 1982).