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 judgments to their affective 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