Page 101 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

94 The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

evidence that suggests the outcomes would, in fact, occur. Once someone
has explained why a relationship exists, that person will continue to be-
lieve the relationship exists even if the evidence that prompted the expla-
nation is discredited. According to Iyengar (1991), the activation of a
particular causal relation takes places both in causal and treatment respon-
sibility. The only difference is in the direction of the postulated causal rela-
tion. In causal responsibility it is the institutions under analysis that are at
the root of the problem, whereas in treatment responsibility the institu-
tions must adapt to situations in which they recognize a certain problem
and the need to solve it. Both causal relations help understand the identi-
fied social issue, but they lead to divergent evaluations of the governmen-
tal institution involved.
Institutions can use their persuasive appeal to impose the desired, “ap-
propriate” causal relation on the public. This relation can be framed in
terms of both causal responsibility and treatment responsibility, but it can
also be framed in terms of gains and losses—a negative or positive frame.
This was demonstrated by Cobb and Kuklinski (1997) in their research on
the persuasive power of messages that highlight advantages or risks as a
consequence of adopting one or another societal policy (e.g., public health
care). They explicitly stated the causal relation involved in all the frames
used: “If X is adopted, Y will be the consequence” (p. 93).
Contemporary literature on creating various frames in the process of
persuasion discloses yet another fundamental element that determines the
power of that process. The actions undertaken by people as a result of
their diverse experiences regarding the issue at hand are closely related to
the problem of motivation. The process of differentiating the value as-
signed to particular attributes in the process of framing boils down to the
act of referring to or evoking the desired motivation of the person to whom
the message is addressed. The simple fact is that we choose what we deem
advantageous, and we reject what we interpret as dangerous. This motiva-
tional aspect of framing is not clearly represented in any of the frame ty-
pologies, but it is a key factor influencing the power of persuasion.
Generally speaking, setting reference frames provides the basis for the
creation of the tendencies and preferences needed to shape desired behav-
iors regarding issues that are strategic for the state in the areas of social and
political action. Constructing the information offer with the use of a frame
is crucial in evoking or suppressing public sensitivity to certain societal
phenomena and can help control public preferences in parliamentary and
presidential elections, which are closely related to the issue of motivation.
The following section presents an approach to framing that proposes a
merger of the cognitive aspect of the problem (i.e., creating the desired