Page 100 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

Persuasion in the Political Context 93

variety of political topics. Each issue can be presented from the point of
view of gains, losses, norms, and values accepted by the media.
Within the category of generic frames, further divisions are possible to
distinguish the role of a frame as “conflict,” “human interest,” “attribution
of responsibility,” “morality,” or “economic consequences” when discussing
diverse political issues (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). In contrast,
Hallahan’s (1999) framing typology is dependent on what is framed. Frames
are never neutral and they may provide different ways of presenting situa-
tions, attributes, choices, actions, issues, responsibility, news, and so on.
One of the most crucial frames is that which defines the “locus of re-
sponsibility” in presenting particular societal issues, and which assigns the
desired causal relation to that presentation (Iyengar, 1989, 1991). One can
look at the problem of responsibility for racial inequality or poverty from
the perspective of the roots of these social phenomena, which automatically
refers to the causal responsibility for these phenomena. These roots may be
sought in individuals (individual responsibility), in their personality traits,
and in their inadequate education. However, the roots may also be societal
in nature, which leads to the postulation of social responsibility concerning
economic, institutional, and cultural barriers as well as inadequate or failed
governmental efforts. However, a different perspective is also possible:
treatment responsibility. The point here is not to determine the roots of a
given societal phenomenon but to develop means of handling it. This can
be done, for instance, by improving people’s financial status, overcoming
cultural barriers, or by strengthening governmental efforts.
The issue of responsibility framing was undertaken by Iyengar (1989)
in his research on the attitudes adopted by people toward governmental
institutions. When a given institution is perceived as an agent of causation,
it is evaluated negatively, but when the institution is perceived as an agent
of treatment, the evaluation becomes positive. Generally, citizens fail to
make an effort to identify the roots of societal problems. Neither do they
ponder the means to deal with these problems. However, it is possible to
create public interest in some issues—especially during election periods—
and express one’s attitude about the way in which they are presented. In
other words, individuals can decide whether to adopt a causal or treat-
ment responsibility frame.
Research on this way of handling framing is important because it per-
tains to the core of an individual’s cognitive activity, and people interpret
the societal reality they perceive by using causal categories (Rehder &
Hastie, 2001). As Tobin and Raymundo (2009) suggest, when trying to
change people’s attitudes and beliefs, it is sometimes more important to
explain why particular outcomes would occur than it is to provide