The Effect of Thematic Frames on Attribution of Responsibility in the European Multi-level Government:The Moderating Role of the Scale Frame and Political Sophistication
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Supervisor: Dr. Bert N. Bakker
Master’s Thesis
Date of submission: January 29th, 2016 Student name: Noa Lorber Student number: 10602321
Abstract
The question of responsibility carries great weight in the political sphere, but much is still unknown in regards to role the media play in attribution of responsibility to different levels of government. Thematically framed news were shown to affect attribution of responsibility to the national government. However, we have remarkably limited knowledge of their capacity to influence attribution of responsibility in a multilevel system like the EU. This study examines how the thematic frame affects citizens’ attribution of responsibility to the Dutch government and the EU, and to what extent this effect is moderated by both scale framing and citizens’ political sophistication. Scale frames present issues in particular hierarchical levels. The current understanding of the thematic frame can be advanced through incorporation of scale frames, since they may direct citizens’ attribution of responsibility at specific gubernatorial levels. Moreover, individuals with moderate levels of political sophistication are able to understand and accept framed information but not sophisticated enough to counter-argue it, making them the most susceptible to the thematic frame. An experiment was conducted to test these effects (N = 346), assessing attribution of responsibility to the Dutch government and the EU in regards to handling the refugee crisis. My results suggest that thematically framed news increase attribution of responsibility to both the government and the EU. In addition, when the national scale frame is used, the thematic frame leads to greater attribution of responsibility to the EU compared with the government. This study broadens our understanding of the thematic frame to include its function in the EU’s multilevel context and suggests new avenues for research of the “uncharted territory” of the scale frame.
Keywords: Attribution of Responsibility, Thematic Framing, Scale Framing, Political Sophistication
The Effect of Thematic Frames on Attribution of Responsibility in the European Multi-level Government: The Moderating Role of the Scale Frame and Political Sophistication Whenever Europe encounters societal predicaments, the question of responsibility arises. These days, Europe is facing a challenge in the form of a refugee crisis. As masses of people escaping civil war and persecution reach Europe, both citizens and politicians are wary of the economic and social consequences. The main challenge in building a unified European policy is in dividing the responsibilities between the EU and the member states (Carrera, Blockmans, Gros, & Guild, 2015). While elected officials debate policy making, European citizens are led by the media to make their own responsibility judgments. The formation of political attitudes requires relevant information, which is framed by the media (Gitlin, 1980; Strömbäck, 2008) and shapes public perception of issues' causes and solutions (Iyengar, 1991).
Thematic frames present issues in their societal context (Gross, 2008; Hart, 2011) and enhance attribution of responsibility to governments (Springer & Harwood, 2015) as they encourage the perception of issues as societal rather than isolated incidents (Meijer, 2003). However, the influence of the thematic frame was only tested in the national context. As attributions of responsibility are difficult to make in any democratic system (León, 2011), they do not become easier in multilevel systems (Johns, 2011) such as the EU. As policymaking on the transnational level gains prominence (Jessop, 2004), citizens are puzzled as to who exactly is responsible (Arceneaux, 2005). How then, do thematic frames function in the context of the EU?
The effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility to the government requires linking a problem to this specific administrative level (Iyengar, 1991). Multilevel gubernatorial systems, however, hinders this linkage (Hobolt, Tilley, & Banducci, 2013). Scale frames present issues as relevant to particular administrative levels (Brenner, 2001, p.547), and
may thus focus the effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility to specific governmental levels. Furthermore, citizens with low levels of political sophistication might not be properly equipped to process thematic messages, while highly sophisticates might treat them very critically (Nadeau et al., 2002). Thus, mildly sophisticated might be the most susceptible to the influence of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility
This study will answer the following question: how do thematically framed news articles affect citizens’ attribution of responsibility to the Dutch government and the EU and to what extent is this effect moderated by the articles’ scale frame and citizens’ political sophistication? In answering that question, I intend to contribute to framing theory by investigating the role the thematic frame plays in responsibility judgments in the EU multilevel context and by testing its interaction with the relatively untested scale frame. This study focuses on the refugee crisis in Europe as it presents an issue which incorporates national and supranational policymaking. Attribution of Responsibility in Multilevel Gubernatorial Systems
Attribution of responsibility, the act of determining who should account for outcomes, is vital to the political arena as people seek to identify the culprits of events (Shaver, 1975, 1985).
Attribution of responsibility is a precondition of accountability, through which citizens exercise control over their elected officials (Rudolph, 2006). In elections, officials are held accountable, while voters act as a “rational god of vengeance and reward” (Key, 1966, p.568).
Assigning responsibility to the government is a daunting task (León, 2011) as it may become encumbered by citizens’ personal characteristics (Gomez & Wilson, 2001) or difficulties in obtaining information about representatives’ activities (Hobolt, Tilley, & Banducci, 2013). In this study, I focus upon attribution of responsibility in a multilevel gubernatorial system, which constitutes a hierarchy with the individual at the bottom and the transnational government at the
top (Jessop, 2004). Assigning responsibility for political outcomes is even more complex in multilevel systems (Anderson, 2000; Nadeau, Niemi & Yoshinaka, 2002). Since power is shared among different levels of government (Maestas, Atkeson, Croom, & Bryant, 2008), one struggles to identify their individual roles (Hobolt, Tilley, & Wittrock, 2013). The individual context of social issues is relatively easy for citizens to comprehend. In contrast, the societal context becomes more complex as one looks higher at the administrative ladder towards national and transnational governments (Follesdal & Hix, 2006). Due to their multiple layers of bureaucracy, multilevel gubernatorial systems make it difficult for citizens to identify the political actors responsible for societal issues (Hobolt & Tilley, 2014). The media could play an important role in providing citizens with the information necessary to determine who is responsible.
Thematic Frames and Attribution of Responsibility
In order to form political attitudes people must receive relevant information from politicians and the media (Strömbäck, 2008), which frame it in different ways (Gitlin, 1980). Frames “shape opinions concerning an issue by stressing specific features of the broader controversy” (Nelson, Clawson, & Oxley, 1997, p.568). Frames, at least to some extent, influence citizens’ attitudes (Chong & Druckman, 2007; Sniderman & Theriault, 2004) and can shape responsibility judgments (Boukes, Boomgaarden, Moorman, & de Vreese, 2014; Iyengar, 1989).
A prominent frame used by the media is the thematic frame (Iyengar, 1991). By portraying issues using broad and abstract information (Iyengar & McGrady, 2007), The thematic frame depicts issues in their societal context (Gross, 2008; Meijer, 2003). People are less likely to consider individuals suffering from a problem responsible for it, if they are confronted with a broad social context of the problem. Thus, citizens perceive the issue as a society-wide phenomenon (Meijer, 2003) and consider governmental actors responsible
(Iyengar, 1991). Despite the EU’s movement towards transnational policymaking on the subject of asylum seekers and refugees (Kaunert & Léonard, 2012), the national governments are still perceived as more responsible to the immigration policy area than the EU (van Egmond, Sapir, van der Brug, Hobolt, & Franklin, 2010). The difficulty in understanding the role of the EU in societal issues (de Vries, van der Brug, van Egmond, & van der Eijk, 2011; Follesdal & Hix, 2006) could explain the gap between the EU’s growing relevance and the limited perception of its responsibility. Multi-level systems are comprised of nested jurisdictions, ranging from the individual authority, to the local, national and international authorities (Marks & Hooghe, 2004). The national government is placed higher than the individual in the vertical European hierarchy (Koopmans & Erbe, 2004) and even higher in this hierarchy stands the EU (Sifft, Bruggemann, Konigslow, Peters, & Wimmel, 2007). Since the thematic frame allows attribution of responsibility to shift up the ladder (e.g. from the individual to the government) (Hart, 2011; Iyengar, 1991), it is logical that this directionality would be maintained for a higher level, such as the EU, as well. In other words, I expect that when exposed to the thematic frame, its broad perspective might lead citizens to view issues not only as national but as transnational as well, thus attributing greater responsibility to the EU.
H1: Exposure to the thematic frame leads to greater attribution of responsibility to the government and the EU.
Scale Frames, Thematic Frames and Attribution of Responsibility
In multilevel systems, the ability of the thematic frame to give the wide context needed for attributing responsibility to any gubernatorial level is uncertain. In such systems, assignment of responsibility becomes harder as people are required to associate social issues with specific governmental levels (Arceneaux & Stein, 2006; Cutler, 2004). Scale frames present issues on
particular hierarchical levels (Brenner, 2001, p.547). Societal issues are covered on different administrative levels, ranging from local to national to transnational (Mansfield & Haas, 2006; Olausson, 2009), affecting the way they are perceived (van Lieshout, Dewulf, Aarts, & Termeer, 2011). By stressing the level at which a problem is handled, scale frames result in linkages between the scale at which an issue is discussed and the one at which it could be addressed. On the administrative scale, the European and the national levels can be distinguished (Kurtz, 2003).
The EU is a multilevel gubernatorial system in which issues can be discussed on different levels of the administrative scale. Since responsibility for most policies is shared between
national and EU institutions, policy outcomes may legitimately be attributed to either level (Hobolt & Tilley, 2014). Therefore, in the EU’s case, the thematic frame alone might not be sufficient since issues can be thematically framed on different levels on the administrative scale, allowing attribution of responsibility to different actors.
The European debt crisis has increased the salience of the EU politics on national media (Grande & Kriesi, 2015). The EU’s growing prominence in coverage of societal issues (Schuck, Xezonakis, Elenbaas, Banducci, & de Vreese, 2011) allows transnational debate and solutions of issues (Beck, 2006; Olausson, 2009). I propose that this trend could also solve another problem, that of the effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility in multilevel systems.
I hypothesize that the scale frames might play a role in the effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility as they relate to a major part in its workings. This effect is rooted in viewing a problem in a wide context (Meijer, 2003), and linking it to society or the government (Gross, 2008). The multilevel gubernatorial system makes these linkages more difficult but scale frames remedy that problem by linking the thematic framed issue to specific administrative
levels. Therefore, the administrative level of the frame (i.e. national and European) is expected to ease attribution of responsibility to the relevant level in multi-level systems.
H2a: Exposure to the thematic frame, when combined with a national scale frame, leads to more attribution of responsibility to the government, while exposure to the thematic frame combined with a European scale frame leads to more attribution of responsibility towards the EU.
Rationally, citizens’ attributions of responsibility to multi-level governmental levels should be zero-summed (Cutler, 2004) implying that the more responsibility is attributed to one government, the less is attributed to the other. The EU bears a similarity to a federal system in the sense that the EU and the member states’ governments have shared responsibilities (Hobolt & Tilley, 2014). In a recent research, some citizens in the Canadian federal system were found to allocate responsibility to different levels of government in a relative way (Cutler, 2008). Since the national and European scale frames are expected to enhance the positive influence of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility to their respective levels of government, it is worth testing whether these interactions could imply a relative effect on attribution of responsibility to both the government and the EU.
H2b: Exposure to the thematic frame, when combined with a national scale frame leads to greater attribution of responsibility to the government compared with the EU, while exposure to the thematic frame combined with a European scale frame leads to greater attribution of responsibility to the EU compared with the government.
Thematic Frames, Political Sophistication and Attribution of Responsibility
The ability to utilize frames to form responsibility judgments depends not only on the way messages are framed, but also on the way people process new information (Elenbaas, de Vreese, Boomgaarden, & Schuck, 2012). In order to both understand and accept political messages,
citizens must possess minimal political sophistication (Neuman, Just, & Crigler, 1993). Political sophistication is the “tendency to pay close attention to politics, to have information about it and to link arguments for and against issue positions” (Sniderman, Brody, & Tetlock, 1991).
Citizens’ political sophistication shapes both their susceptibility to media messages (Ha, 2011) and their responsibility attributions for issues (Gomez & Wilson, 2008). As yet, there does not seem to be a consensus over the exact way in which the influence frames have on political attitudes varies according to citizens’ level of political sophistication (Elenbaas et al., 2012).
One strand of literature emphasizes that higher levels of political sophistication lead to higher susceptibility to media messages (Miller & Krosnick, 2000), such as the thematic frame. The attentiveness model predicts that more politically sophisticated individuals actively seek political information (MacKuen & Coombs, 1981), and thus become more vulnerable to media influence (Wanta, 1997). In addition, due to its abstract nature (Iyengar & McGrady, 2007) consumption of the thematic frame might demand intense consideration of facts. The ability to put societal problems in context is both contingent on political sophistication (Rhee & Capella, 1997) and a precondition of processing the thematic frame (i.e. viewing issues in a societal context) (Gross, 2008). Thus, it makes sense that sophisticates can more easily utilize the information provided by the thematic frame. In contradiction with that line of argument, other literature suggest that political sophistication might minimize the effect of frames on political attitudes (Dalton, 2000; Kinder & Iyengar, 1987). The resistance of political sophisticates to media frames is rooted in their ability to connect stores of relevant information when they come across new information. The abundance of information allows highly sophisticates to counter argue new evidences and to find inconsistencies in it (Bartels, 1993; Saris, 1997).
These arguments do not offer a simple explanation to the role of political sophistication in the influence of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility. In other words, political sophistication is a double-edges sword, as theory points out it may either increase or decrease this effect. These seemingly contradicting theories can both be true, should the role played by sophistication be non-linear (Zaller, 1992). In particular, political attitudes may be influenced most by thematic framing among mildly sophisticated (Ha, 2011; Kuhn, 2009). Highly
sophisticated are heavily exposed to political communication, but are able to scrutinize it in light of prior beliefs and may then reject them. The least aware, in contrast, pay so little attention to politics that they are likely to escape influence. Mildly sophisticated, however, pay enough attention to framed information but are not sophisticated enough to resist it (Nadeau et al., 2002). H3: Exposure to the thematic frame will lead to higher attribution of responsibility to both the government and the EU for moderately sophisticated respondents, compared to both low sophisticates and high sophisticates.
It is important to note that political sophistication is not expected to play a role in the interaction between the thematic frame and the scale frame due to the nature of the scale frame. This frame does not present citizens with new and challenging information that requires complex processing, nor does it invite particular scrutiny from politically sophisticates.
Method Experimental design
The hypotheses were tested using a 2 (thematic frame: non-thematic vs. thematic) x 3 (scale frame: no-scale vs. national vs. European) factorial between-subjects design. These variations resulted in six conditions: (1) a thematic frame with a scale frame (n = 57), (2) a non-thematic frame with a national scale frame (n = 51), (3) a non-non-thematic frame with a European
scale frame (n = 56), (4) a thematic frame with a non-scale frame (n = 59), (5) a thematic frame with a national scale frame (n = 59) and (6) a thematic frame with a European scale frame (n = 64).Data were collected through the Qualtrics online survey tool. An experimental design was chosen since it supports the current endeavour to examine effects of fundamental independent variables (Kinder & Palfrey, 1993). Moreover, by creating new stimuli material, this design guarantees that participants were not exposed to the framed article beforehand (de Vreese, 2004). Participants
The experiment was carried out between November 24 and December 5, 2015. Links to the survey were handed out face to face on a variety of University campuses in Amsterdam, but also online via Dutch Facebook groups. I restricted the sample to participants who are 18 years old or older, reside in the Netherlands and speak Dutch. Of those invited, 468 participants started to answer the online survey. Eventually, a total of 346 Dutch adults aged 18-62 (M = 24.05, SD = 8.23), 57.2 per cent females, successfully finished answering the questionnaire (completion rate: 73.9%). As for participants highest level of education completed, one third of the participants were university graduates (33.5%), 13.3% had achieved secondary education, and 51.1% of participants were high school graduates.
Stimulus materials
The stimulus material consisted of a mock newspaper article concerning the refugee crisis and its possible legal and economic consequences for host countries (either the Netherlands, Europe in general or unspecified). The article incorporated facts, statistics and opinions features in real Dutch news articles and presented them in the form of a genuine newspaper article embedded in the online survey. Non-thematic conditions included a short paragraph with variations according to the scale frame conditions, making them shorter than the thematic conditions (see also Aarøe,
2011) (See appendix B). The thematic frame was manipulated according to four criteria found in stimulus materials of prior research on the thematic frame. Specifically, the frame presented the legal and political consequences of the refugee crisis (Aarøe, 2011; Hart, 2011; Major, 2009); provided statistical information by pointing towards the number of refugees coming to the country/Europe (Aarøe, 2011; Gross, 2008; Springer & Harwood, 2015); presented legal information (Gross, 2008) by discussing asylum eligibility; and included information about relevant government spending (Gross, 2008) such as the annual cost of supporting one refugee.
The scale frame was manipulated by one criteria; reference to a spatial place
corresponding with an administrative level (van Lieshout, Dewulf, Aarts, & Termeer, 2012).1 Specifically, the national scale frame and European scale frame depicted the refugee crisis as a Dutch or a European issue, respectively.
A pre-test was conducted in order to test whether participants perceive the treatments as comparable in the strength of their arguments as well as in their believability and reliability. The perceived strength of arguments was measured using the question “How strong would you say the arguments in the news article are?” from 1 (not at all strong) to 7 (very strong) (Aarøe, 2011). The believability and credibility of the article were assessed by two statements used by Beltramini (1988); “I found the newspaper article” on two scales ranging from 1 (believable) to 10 (unbelievable) and from 1 (Credible) to 10 (not credible). A convenience sample of 32 Dutch adults (M = 24.05; SD = 8.23) were recruited for the pre-test. An analysis of variance revealed no significant difference between the different experimental conditions in their perceived strength of arguments, F (5, 26) = 0.58, p = .714, believability, F (5, 26) = 0.85, p = .523, and credibility, F
1 Van Lieshout et al. (2012) offer a second criterion, (b) mentioning governmental actors implied to be responsible for the problem. However, I chose not to use criterion (b), as explicitly mentioning the gubernatorial bodies responsible for a social problem might prime the level of government responsible in respondents’ minds.
(5, 26) = 1.44, p = .243. Thus, the pre-test results confirmed that the experimental conditions were comparable in these three criteria.
Procedure
Participants received a link to the experiment’s webpage and were notified that they have a 50% chance of winning a USB flash drive. After reading brief information regarding the study, participants were asked to state their informed consent to participate in the experiment.
Participants were instructed to read the article and were told that questions about it will follow. Subsequently, participants were randomly assigned to one of the six treatments. Next, they had to answer questions measuring attribution of responsibility, political sophistication, and finally the manipulation check and the covariates. Later, participants were informed about the goals of the study. Finally, 50% of the participants received a voucher announcing they have won the prize, while the rest were told that they did not win. In order to guarantee participants’
anonymity, each voucher included a serial number with which they could collect the prize in the time and place mentioned on the voucher (i.e. participants did not report any identifying details). Measures
Attribution of responsibility to the government. To measure attribution of
responsibility to the government, I drew on Hobolt et al.'s (2013) question “How responsible is the Dutch government to handle the refugee crisis?” from 0 (not at all responsible) to 10 (fully responsible) (M = 7.17, SD = 2.54).2 Higher scores represent greater attribution of responsibility.
Attribution of responsibility to the EU. To measure participants’ attribution of
responsibility to the EU, I drew on Hobolt et al.'s (2013) question “How responsible is the EU to
2
The questions measuring attribution of responsibility to the government and attribution of responsibility to the EU in Hobolt et al. (2013) were asked about responsibility for the economic conditions in Britain.
handle the refugee crisis?” from 0 (not at all responsible) to 10 (fully responsible) (M = 8.42, SD = 2.26). Higher scores represent higher attribution of responsibility.
Difference score of attribution of responsibility. The difference between participants’ attribution of responsibility to the government and the EU was calculated by subtracting the score of attribution of responsibility to the government from the score of attribution of responsibility to the EU (M = 1.25, SD = 2.45). This scale ranges from -10 to 10, while zero represents equal attribution to the EU and the government, a positive score represents more attribution to the EU compared to the government, and a negative score represents more attribution to the government compared to the EU.
Political sophistication. Political sophistication was measured using an additive scale of scores from five political knowledge questions which were taken from Maes (2013) and adapted in order to suit the Dutch context.3 An example question is “In which country there is a
dictatorship and virtually no freedom of the press?” with the following response options: 1 (The Netherlands) 2 (South Korea) 3 (North Korea) 4 (New Zealand) 5 (I don’t know).4 These five scores were summed to form a composite score (M = 3.88, SD = 1.24, KR-20 = 0.63) ranging from 0 (low knowledge) to 5 (high knowledge) (see questions 13-15, 21 and 22 in Appendix C).
The control variables included political ideology (hereinafter referred to as ideology) measured from 0 (left) to 10 (right) (M = 5.27, SD = 2.40), support for unification (hereinafter referred to as unification) measured on a scale ranging from 1 (European unification should go even further) to 7 (European unification has already gone too far) (M = 3.82, SD = 1.52), as well as education, age and gender (see item wordings in appendix C).
3 Political knowledge is said to be the best indicator for political sophistication (Nicholson, Pantoja, & Segura, 2006).
4
Results
A randomization test did not reveal any systematic differences across conditions in participants’ age, ideology, unification, gender, and education (see appendix D). Despite the results of the randomization test, theoretically meaningful covariates were included in the analyses when correlated with the dependent variables in order to decrease the standard errors (see Appendix E).5 Specifically, ideology, unification, gender, and education were significantly related to attribution of responsibility to the government and therefore included in the models. Ideology and unification were significantly related to attribution of responsibility to the EU and were consequently added to the models. Finally, gender was significantly related to the difference score of attribution of responsibility, and was therefore included in the models.
In order to verify whether the manipulation of the thematic frame had been successful, I examined whether the focus of the thematic conditions was perceived as more political and informative than the non-thematic conditions. 6 Participants were asked two questions; “Do you think that the focus of the article about the refugee crisis is more political or personal?” from 0 (very political) to 10 (very personal); “How informative did you find the newspaper article about the refugee crisis?” from 0 (not informative at all) to 10 (very informative). The regression model with the perception of the treatment’s focus as personal versus political as an outcome variable and the thematic frame as an independent variable is significant, F (1, 344) = 9.68, p = .002. The thematic frame, B = -0.86, t = -3.21, p = .002, 95% CI [-1.40, -0.31], has a significant effect on the perception of the treatment’s focus as personal versus political. On average, the thematic frame is perceived as 0.86 more political than the non-thematic frame. The regression model
5
Analyses which were carried without the discussed covariates have resulted in non-significant model fit.
6 The thematic frame is factual in style and does not focus on emotional expressions (Reinemann, Stanyer, Scherr, & Legnante, 2011). Thematically framed stories depict issues in terms of political and societal importance, rather than describing personal events (Iyengar, 1991).
with the perception of the treatment as informative versus uninformative as a dependent variable and the thematic frame as an independent variable is significant, F (1, 344) = 46.83, p < .001. The strength of the prediction is weak, 12 per cent. The thematic frame, B = 1.70, t = 6.84, p <.000, 95% CI [1.21, 2.20], has a significant effect on the perception of the treatment’s informative versus uninformative. On average, the thematic frame is perceived as 1.70 more informative than the non-thematic frame. Thus, the manipulation of the thematic frame was successful.
In order to check whether the manipulation of the scale frame had been successful, the next question was asked; “What is the setting of the article?” 1 (Europe), 2 (the Netherlands) and 3 (no particular setting). The scale frame conditions were coded as 0 (no scale frame),
1(national scale frame) and 2 (European scale frame). Cross-tabulations revealed that the perception of the treatments’ setting differed according to the scale frame, χ² = 42.80, df =4, p < 0.001. Out of the respondents who were assigned to the no-scale frame conditions, 40.51% (n = 47) recognized that neither the national nor the European scales were used. Out of the
respondents who were assigned to the national and European scale frames, 53.63% (n = 59) and 52.50% (n = 63) respectively, correctly recognized the scale frame. Thus, the manipulation of the scale frame was successful.
The hypotheses were tested in three steps. First, the main effects of the thematic frame on the dependent variables were examined (Hypothesis 1). Second, the moderation role of the scale frame was tested (Hypothesis 2). Third, the moderation role of political sophistication
(Hypothesis 3) was assessed.
The first hypothesis suggests that the thematic frame has a positive effect on attribution of responsibility to both the government and the EU. The thematic frame was dummy coded,
with the non-thematic conditions set as the reference category. The regression model with attribution to the government as a dependent variable, a thematic frame as an independent variable, and ideology, unification, gender and education as covariates is significant, F (7,336)= 10.54, p < .001 (see Table 1, model A). The strength of the prediction is weak: 18%. Exposure to the thematic frame, B = 0.54, t = 2.13, p =.033, 95% CI [0.04, 1.05] has a significant effect on attribution to the government. Keeping all the independent variables constant, the thematic frame leads to an increase of 0.54 points in attribution to the government. These results give empirical evidence to the first hypothesis, as exposure to the thematic framing leads to greater attribution to the government.
Next, I turn to the effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility to the EU (see Table 2, model A). Here attribution to the EU is the dependent variable, the thematic frame is the predictor, and ideology and unification are covariates. The model is significant, F (3,342) = 15.02, p <.001, but the strength of the prediction is weak: 11%. While all independent
variables are kept constant, exposure to the thematic frame, B = 0.42, t = 1.84, p = .066, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.88], has an effect on attribution to the EU in the expected direction, but the coefficient does not cross the threshold of statistical significance. This weak trend means that the thematic frame leads to an increase of 0.42 points in attribution to the EU, which supports the direction of first hypothesis.
The second hypothesis puts forward that the effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility is moderated by the scale frame. The regression model with attribution to the government as a dependent variable, a thematic frame as an independent variable, a national scale frame and a European scale frame as moderators, and ideology, unification, gender and education as covariates is significant, F (11,332) = 7.42, p <. 001 (see Table 1, model B).
Table 1.
Effects of Thematic Frame on Attribution of Responsibility to the Government
Attribution of responsibility to the government
Variable A B C Thematic frame .54* (.25) .75 (.43) 0.67 (1.88) European scale .00 (.44) National scale .03 (.45)
European scale X thematic .22
(.61)
National scale X thematic -.88
(.63) Sophistication .31 (.76) Sophistication X thematic .33 (1.18) Sophistication-squared .03 (.13) Sophistication-squared X thematic -.09 (.17) Covariates Unification -.43*** (.08) -.41*** (.08) -.38*** (.08) Ideology -.17** (.05) -.17** (.05) -.16** (.05) Gender .58* (.26) .60* (.26) .70** (.25) Education (Ref. = University)
Elementary school or lower -4.60***
(1.18)
-4.82*** (1.18)
-3.99** (1.21)
High school low level 2.92
(1.67)
2.92 (1.69)
3.36* (1.67)
High school higher level -.44
(.25) -.41 (.25) -.28 (.25) Constant 9.34*** (.47) 9.23*** (.54) 7.26*** (1.27) R2 .18 .19 .22 F 10.54*** 7.42*** 8.42***
Note. N = 346. Cells contain OLS unstandardized (B) regression coefficients with standard errors (SE) in
parentheses. Thematic frame = non thematic frame (0) vs. thematic frame; National scale = no scale frame (0) vs. national scale frame (1); European scale = no scale frame (0) vs. European scale frame (1); All education variables were dummy coded with university level as the reference category. OLS = Ordinary least squares.
*p <. 05, **p < .01, p< .001 (two tailed).
However, the strength of the prediction is weak: 19%. The interaction between the thematic frame and the national scale frame, B =-0.88, t = -1.40, p = .161, 95% CI [-2.12, 0.35], and the interaction between the thematic frame and the European scale frame, B = 0.22, t = 0.36, p = .715, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.44], do not have a significant effect on attribution of responsibility to the
government. These findings contradict hypothesis 2a, as the national scale frame does not increase the effect of the thematic frame on attribution to the government.
Table 2.
Effects of Thematic Frame on Attribution of Responsibility to the EU and the Difference Score Attribution of responsibility to the EU The difference
score of attribution of responsibility Variable A B C D Thematic frame .42 (.23) .25 (.40) 1.76 (1.70) -.50 (.45) European scale -.43 (.40) -.56 (.45) National scale -.54 (.41) -.63 (.46)
European scale X thematic .22
(.56)
.30 (.63)
National scale X thematic .33
(.57) 1.31* (.64) Sophistication .77 (.70) Sophistication X thematic -.56 (1.07) Sophistication-squared -.10 (.10) Sophistication-squared X thematic .05 (.15) Covariates Unification -.35*** (.08) -.35*** (.08) -.36*** (.08) Ideology -.16** (.05) -.17** (.05) -.16** (.05) Gender -.72** (.26) Constant 10.44*** (.37) 10.77*** (.45) 9.15*** (1.13) 2.04*** (.35) R2 .11 .12 .12 .04 F 15.02*** 6.74*** 6.80*** 2.53*
Note. N = 346. Cells contain OLS unstandardized (B) regression coefficients with standard errors (SE) in parentheses. Thematic frame = non thematic frame (0) vs. thematic frame; National scale frame= no scale (0) vs. national scale (1); European scale frame = no scale (0) vs. European scale (1); OLS = Ordinary least squares. *p < .05, ** p< .01, p < .001 (two tailed).
As part of the second hypothesis, the regression model with attribution of responsibility to the EU as a dependent variable, a thematic frame as an independent variable, a national scale
frame and a European scale frame as moderators, and ideology and unification as covariates is significant, F(7,338) = 6.74, p<.001 (see Table 2, model B). The strength of the prediction is weak: 12%. The interaction between thematic frame and the national scale frame, B = 0.33, t = 0.57, p = .565, 95% CI [-0.80, 1.46], and the interaction between the thematic frame and the European scale frame, B =0.22, t = 0.40, p = .695, 95% CI [-0.88, 1.32], do not have a significant effect on attribution of responsibility to the EU. These results disprove hypothesis 2a, as the European scale frame does not lead to an increased effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility to the EU.
An additional regression model was estimated to predict the difference score of
attribution of responsibility, using a thematic frame as an independent variable, the national scale frame (coded as 0 = control and 1 = national) and European scale frame (coded as 0 = control and 1 = European) as moderators, and gender as a covariate. This significant model, F(6,339) = 2.53, p =.021 (see Table 2, model D) can be used to predict the difference score, but the strength of the prediction is weak: four per cent. Keeping other independent variables constant, the interaction between the thematic frame and the European scale frame, B = 0.30, t = 0.48, p = .633, 95% CI [-.94, 1.54] does not have a significant effect on the difference score (See figure 1). This non-significant interaction effect (with the European scale frame, represented by a green line) is reflected by a gentle negative slope. However, the interaction between the thematic frame and the national scale frame, B = 1.31, t = 2.04, p = .042, 95% CI [0.04, 2.58] does have a
significant effect on the difference score. This significant interaction effect (with the national scale frame, represented by an orange line) is reflected by a steep positive slope. Thus, when the thematic frame is combined with the national scale frame, the difference score is 1.31 points higher than it is in the no-scale condition. According to the measurement of the difference score,
an increased difference means less attribution to the government and more attribution to the EU. These results obviously do not support hypothesis 2b, as I expected the national scale frame to moderate the effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility, leading to greater attribution of responsibility to the government than to the EU. The increased difference score can be caused by three changes; (a) an increased attribution to the EU, (b) a decreased attribution to the government or (c) their simultaneous occurrence. It is beyond the scope of this research to decide which of the three explanations is correct.
Figure 1. The indirect effect of the scale frame on the difference score of attribution of responsibility: Ordinary Least Squares regression model.
This study’s third hypothesis suggests that political sophistication non-linearly moderates the effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility to the EU and the government. Two multiple regression models were estimated to test the quadratic moderation role of sophistication in the effect of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility to the government and the EU. Testing a curvilinear function requires adding the linear and the quadratic forms of a moderator to a regression equation (Ha, 2011). The quadratic regression
model with attribution of responsibility to the government as a dependent variable, a thematic frame as an independent variable, sophistication-squared as a moderator, and ideology,
unification, gender, and education as covariates is significant, F (11,332) = 8.42, p < .001 (see Table 1, model C). The regression model can therefore be used to predict frequency of
attribution of responsibility to the government, but the strength of the prediction is weak: 22%. The interaction between the thematic frame and sophistication-squared, B=0.09, t = -0.52, p = .602, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.24], does not have a significant effect on attribution of responsibility to the government.
Likewise, the quadratic regression model with attribution of responsibility to the EU as a dependent variable, a thematic frame as an independent variable, sophistication-squared as a moderator, and ideology, and unification as covariates is significant, F (7,338) = 6.80, p < .001 (see Table 2, model C). The regression model can therefore be used to predict frequency of attribution of responsibility to the EU, but the strength of the prediction is weak: 12% of the variation in attribution of responsibility to the EU can be predicted on the basis of the model. The interaction between the thematic frame and sophistication-squared, B = 0.05, t = 0.33, p = .737, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.35], does not have a significant effect on attribution of responsibility to the EU. These results disprove the third hypothesis, as sophistication does not non-linearly moderate the effect of thematic framing on attribution of responsibility to the government and the EU.
Right-leaning individuals attribute less responsibility to both the government and the EU than left-leaning individuals. The more one supports EU unification the more he attributes responsibility to both the government and the EU. The more educated one is, the more he attributes responsibility to the government. Finally, women attribute more responsibility to the
government than men and the difference between their attribution of responsibility to the government and the EU is larger than it is for men.
Discussion
To conclude, this study holds two main findings. First, I establish that the thematic frame predicts citizens’ attribution of responsibility to both the government and the EU for handling societal problems. Second, I find that when a societal issue is framed on a national scale, the thematic frame influences citizens’ relative attribution of responsibility to the government and the EU, albeit in an unexpected direction. In this section I will discuss the direct and interaction effects of the thematic frame on responsibility judgments, as well as their implications.
I theorized that exposure to thematically framed news leads citizens to attribute more responsibility to both the national government and the EU. I corroborate that thematic frames increase individuals’ attribution of responsibility to the government and – at least to some extent - the EU. This empirically supports literature on the thematic frame which states that news stories showing the societal consequences of issues (Meijer, 2003) lead people to consider governmental actors more responsible for their treatment (Hart, 2011; Iyengar, 1990, 1991).
The current study not only reaffirms prior literature but also widens it to include the impact of the thematic frame on attribution of responsibility to the EU. Since multi-level systems include a set of nested jurisdictions, ranging from the individual to the transnational authorities (Koopmans & Erbe, 2004; Marks & Hooghe, 2004), these findings support the ability of the thematic frame to ease citizens’ attribution of responsibility up the vertical European hierarchy. Moreover, I discover that the thematic frame increases attribution of responsibility to the government more than it does to the EU. This implies that the thematic frame’s ability to
ladder, corresponding with the argument that the EU’s role the multilevel system is the most difficult for citizens to understand (Anderson, 2000; Follesdal & Hix, 2006).
In regards to the second hypothesis, I did not confirm that portraying an issue on either the national or the European scale increases the influence of the thematic frame on the absolute attribution of responsibility to their respective levels of government (H2a). Moreover, I found no evidence that the presentation of the refugee crisis on either the national or the European scale shifts the influence of the thematic frame on the relative attribution of responsibility towards the government and the EU, respectively (H2b). Instead, my study reveals an unexpected finding in the opposite direction. When the thematic frame is combined with the national scale frame, it influences the relative way people attribute responsibility, so that the EU is attributed greater responsibility compared with the government. This finding can be explained by the scapegoating theory.
Scapegoating is “the act of blaming a group for negative outcomes that are due, in large part, to other causes” (Rothschild, Landau, Sullivan, & Keefer, 2012, p.1148). Scapegoating allows an individual or a group to recover their sense of control in a time of insecurity (Bandura, 1977) and also to free themselves of any responsibility or guilt (Gollwitzer, 2004). People are most likely to search for a scapegoat when they are presented with economic and societal
challenges (Monaghan, O’Flynn, & Power, 2013). The refugee crisis presents such challenges to European countries and their citizens (Maric et al., 2015). The thematic frame elaborates on the economic and societal consequences of the refugee crisis and the national scale frame puts them in the context most relevant for Dutch respondents. This national-thematic presentation not only creates a sense of insecurity but also implies that the refugee crisis is the Dutch society’s
these consequences, they might be motivated to find someone else to handle the problem, thus letting themselves off the hook. As a means to achieve that, they might choose to channel the blame away from the Dutch government to the EU. This also corresponds with the fact that this interaction was found to influence only the relative measure of attribution of responsibility, as scapegoating is a relative rather than absolute act, following a zero-sum logic (Brewer, 1999).
I did not confirm that responsibility judgments are most influenced by the thematic frame among mildly sophisticated citizens. This does not support the theory which suggests that
moderately sophisticated pay enough attention to media messages to be persuaded by them but lack the sophistication needed to contest them (Ha, 2011; Kuhn, 2009; Zaller, 1992). It is possible that this lack of evidence is due to the composition of the sample, which is
unrepresentative of the Dutch population in terms of political sophistication. Most participants completed moderate to high levels of education, a key proxy of political sophistication (Gomez & Wilson, 2008). Consequently, the sample might have lacked the necessary variance in sophistication to test this non-linear effect.
While this study explored attribution of responsibility in the Dutch-European multilevel context, the division of responsibility (both in practice, and in citizens’ perception) differs across EU member states. Citizens’ perceptions of the EU may change according to the amount of power their country has transferred to the EU (Hobolt & Tilley, 2014). Moreover, many citizens of EU member states feel that they have a “double identity” – both national and European. While the national identity was found to be stronger for most, the balance of identity differs
considerably when core member states are compared with recent joiners or Euro-skeptical members (Citrin & Sides, 2004). The thematic frame allows citizens to view issues as more societal (Hart, 2011), but if their countries’ membership in the EU is relatively new or unstable,
the effect of the thematic frame might not apply for attribution of responsibility to the EU, as they do not necessarily consider it part of their administrative hierarchy. Furthermore, citizens with stronger European identities might consider their country more responsible for problems discussed on the European scale compared with citizens with weak European identities or none. Follow up studies will gain more conclusive results by examining the effects of both the thematic and scale frames among EU member states which differ in the stability and duration of their membership along with their position in EU politics.
Furthermore, future research could test the interaction of the thematic and scale frames more realistically. I suggest a research which incorporates a two-wave survey and a content analysis. Media consumption, along with attribution of responsibility to the government and the EU for handling a certain societal problem (relevant to both levels), will be assessed in the first wave. Subsequently, media outlets mentioned by participants will be content analyzed.
Specifically, the extent to which these media outlets use the thematic frame and both scale frames (national and European) to depict this issue, will be measured. In the second wave, participants will be asked to report the frequency in which they consumed media from the
analyzed sources. Moreover, their attribution of responsibility to the government and the EU will be measured again in order to assess the change in participants’ attitudes. Exposure to the
thematic and the scale frames will be assessed through multiplying participants’ media exposure to specific media outlets by the prominence of each individual frame in every single media outlet. This research will be able to test whether higher levels of exposure to the national and European scale frames enhance the influence of the thematic frame on attribution of
validity than the current one, as it measures the effect of media messages individuals receive according to their consumption habits rather than that of a single exposure to a fictitious article.
As intended, this study contributes to framing theory by expanding the role of the thematic frame in the formation of responsibility judgments from the national context, to the context of the multilevel gubernatorial system of the EU. The fact that thematic framing has a weaker effect on attribution of responsibility to the EU than to the national government sheds further light on the association between exposure to the frame and societal contextualization. Additionally, in a time when EU actors struggle to escape their responsibility for handling the refugee crisis, it is worth noting that since thematic framing increases attribution of responsibility to both the national government and the EU, it cannot serve to shift blame from one to the other. However, it could serve to incite a public demand for greater cooperation between national governments and the EU so that responsibility is assumed by all.
References
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Political Communication, 28(2), 207–226. doi:10.1080/10584609.2011.568041 Anderson, C. J. (2000). Economic voting and political context: A comparative perspective.
Electoral Studies, 19(2), 151–170. doi:10.1016/s0261-3794(99)00045-1
Arceneaux, K. (2005). Does federalism weaken democratic representation in the United States? Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 35(2), 297–311. doi:10.1093/publius/pji015
Arceneaux, K., & Stein, R. M. (2006). Who is held responsible when disaster strikes? The attribution of responsibility for a natural disaster in an urban election. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28(1), 43–53. doi:10.1111/j.0735-2166.2006.00258.x
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 8(2), 191–215. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bartels, L. M. (1993). Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. The American Political Science Review, 87(2), 267–285. doi:10.2307/2939040
Beck, U. (2006). Cosmopolitan vision. Blackwell: Polity.
Beltramini, R. E. (1988). Perceived believability of warning label information presented in cigarette advertising. Journal of Advertising, 17(1), 26–32.
doi:10.1080/00913367.1988.10673110
Boukes, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Moorman, M., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Political news with a personal touch: How human interest framing indirectly affects policy attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(1), 121–141. doi:10.1177/1077699014558554 Brenner, N. (2001). The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration. Progress in Human Geography, 25(4), 591–614. doi:10.1191/030913201682688959
Brewer, M. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429–444. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126
Carrera, S., Blockmans, S., Gros, D., & Guild, E. (2015). The EU’s response to the refugee crisis: Taking stock and setting policy priorities. CEPS Essay No. 20, 16 December 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ceps.eu/publications/eu?s-response-refugee-crisis-taking-stock-and-setting-policy-priorities
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054
Citrin, J., & Sides, J. (2004). More than nationals: How identity choice matters in the new Europe. In R. K. Hermann, T. Risse, & B. M. B (Eds.), Transnational identities: Becoming European in the EU (pp. 161–185). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Cutler, F. (2004). Government responsibility and electoral accountability in federations. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 34(2), 19–38. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3331205
Cutler, F. (2008). Whodunnit? Voters and responsibility in Canadian federalism. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 627–654. doi:10.1017/S0008423908080761 Dalton, R. J. (2000). Citizen attitudes and political behavior. Comparative Political Studies,
33(6-7), 912–940. doi:10.1177/001041400003300609
de Vreese, C. H. (2004). The effects of frames in political television news on issue interpretation and frame salience. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(1), 36–52.
doi:10.1177/107769900408100104
de Vries, C. E., van der Brug, W., van Egmond, M. H., & van der Eijk, C. (2011). Individual and contextual variation in EU issue voting: The role of political information. Electoral Studies,
30(1), 16–28. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.022
Elenbaas, M., de Vreese, C. H., Boomgaarden, H. G., & Schuck, A. R. T. (2012). The impact of information acquisition on EU performance judgements. European Journal of Political Research, 51(6), 728–755. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02055.x
Follesdal, A., & Hix, S. (2006). Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to majone and moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), 533–562.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2006.00650.x
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gollwitzer, M. (2004). Do normative transgressions affect punitive judgments? An empirical test of the psychoanalytic scapegoat hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology …rsonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1650–1660. doi:10.1177/0146167204271179 Gomez, B. T., & Wilson, J. M. (2001). Political sophistication and economic voting in the
American electorate: A theory of heterogeneous attribution. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 899–914. doi:10.2307/2669331
Gomez, B. T., & Wilson, J. M. (2008). Political sophistication and attributions of blame in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 38(4), 633–650.
doi:10.1093/publius/pjn016
Grande, E., & Kriesi, H. (2015). The restructuring of political conflict in Europe and the
politicization of European integration. In T. Risse (Ed.), European public spheres: Politics is back (pp. 190–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169–192.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00622.x
Ha, S. (2011). Attribute priming effects and presidential candidate evaluation: The conditionality of political sophistication. Mass Communication and Society, 14(3), 315–342.
doi:10.1080/15205436.2010.490894
Hart, P. S. (2011). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33(1), 28– 51. doi:10.1177/1075547010366400
Hobolt, S. B., Tilley, J., & Wittrock, J. (2013). Listening to the government: How information shapes responsibility attributions. Political Behavior, 35(1), 153–174. doi:10.1007/s11109-011-9183-8
Hobolt, S., & Tilley, J. (2014). Blaming Europe? Responsibility without accountability in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hobolt, S., Tilley, J., & Banducci, S. (2013). Clarity of responsibility: How government cohesion conditions performance voting. European Journal of Political Research, 52(2), 164–187. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2012.02072.x
Iyengar, S. (1989). How citizens think about national issues: A matter of responsibility. American Journal of Political Science, 33(4), 878–900. doi:10.2307/2111113
Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12(1), 19–40. doi:10.1007/BF00992330
Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, S., & McGrady, J. (2007). Media politics: A citizen’s guide. New York: WW Norton & Co.
Jessop, B. (2004). Multi-level governance and multi-level metagovernance. In I. Bache & M. Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance (pp. 49–74). New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199259259.001.0001
Johns, R. (2011). Credit where it’s due? Valence politics, attributions of responsibility, and multi-level elections. Political Behavior, 33(1), 53–77. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9116-y Kaunert, C., & Léonard, S. (2012). The European union asylum policy after the treaty of lisbon
and the stockholm programme: Towards supranational governance in a common area of protection? Refugee Survey Quarterly, 31(4), 1–20. doi:10.1093/rsq/hds018
Key, V, O. (1966). The responsible electorate: Rationality in presidential voting, 1936-1960. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kinder, D., & Palfrey, T. (1993). Experimental foundations of political science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kinder, D. R., & Iyengar, S. (1987). News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Koopmans, R., & Erbe, J. (2004). Towards a European public sphere? Vertical and horizontal dimensions of Europeanized political communication. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 17(2), 97–118. doi:10.1080/1351161042000238643
Kuhn, U. (2009). Stability and change in party preference. Swiss Political Science Review, 15(3), 463–494. doi:10.1002/j.1662-6370.2009.tb00142.x
Kurtz, H. E. (2003). Scale frames and counter-scale frames: Constructing the problem of environmental injustice. Political Geography, 22(8), 887–916.
doi:10.1016/j.polgeo.2003.09.001
case of Spain. European Journal of Political Research, 50(1), 80–109. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.2010.01921.x
MacKuen, M., & Coombs, S. (1981). Social communication and the mass policy agenda. In M. B. MacKuen and S. L. Coombs (Ed.), More than news: Media power in public affairs. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.
Maes, K. (2013). Een onderzoek naar de effectiviteit van de eindtermen beschreven onder de context “politiek-juridische samenleving,” 1–102.
Maestas, C. D., Atkeson, L. R., Croom, T., & Bryant, L. A. (2008). Shifting the blame:
Federalism, media, and public assignment of blame following Hurricane Katrina. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 38(4), 609–632. doi:10.1093/publius/pjn021
Major, L. H. (2009). Break it to me harshly: The effects of intersecting news frames in lung cancer and obesity coverage. Journal of Health Communication, 14(2), 174–188. doi:10.1080/10810730802659939
Mansfield, B., & Haas, J. (2006). Scale framing of scientific uncertainty in controversy over the endangered steller sea lion. Environmental Politics, 15(1), 78–94.
doi:10.1080/09644010500418795
Maric, D., Hercigonja, S., Abdil, M. A., Rahimic, A., Vartio, E., Manu, D., & Fernandez, J. (2015). Europe must act! The refugee crisis in the eyes of young people. EPC FutureLab, 12 October 2015. EPC FutureLab, 1–20. Retrieved from
http://aei.pitt.edu/68434/1/pub_6025_futurelabeurope_europe_must_act!.pdf
Marks, G., & Hooghe, L. (2004). Contrasting visions of multi-level governance. Multi-Level Governance, 15–30. Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?q=Contrasting+visions+of+multi-level+governance&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5#0
Meijer, I. C. (2003). What is quality television news? A plea for extending the professional repertoire of newsmakers. Journalism Studies, 4(1), 15–29. doi:10.1080/14616700306496 Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential
evaluations: Politically knowledgeable citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 295–309. doi:10.2307/2669312
Monaghan, L., O’Flynn, M., & Power, M. (2013). Scapegoating in post “Celtic Tiger”Ireland: framing blame in crisis times. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10344/3625
Nadeau, R., Niemi, R. G., & Yoshinaka, A. (2002). A cross-national analysis of economic voting: taking account of the political context across time and nations. Electoral Studies, 21(3), 403–423. doi:10.1016/S0261-3794(01)00002-6
Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583.
doi:10.2307/2952075
Neuman, W. R., Just, M. R., & Crigler, A. N. (1993). Common knowledge: News and the construction of political meaning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nicholson, S. P., Pantoja, A., & Segura, G. M. (2006). Political knowledge and issue voting among the Latino electorate. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 259–271.
doi:10.1177/106591290605900208
Olausson, U. (2009). Global warming — global responsibility ? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 421–436. doi:10.1177/0963662507081242
concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 221–239. doi:10.1177/1464884911427803
Rhee, J. W., & Capella, J. N. (1997). The role of political sophistication in learning from news: Measuring schema development. Communication Research, 24(3), 197–233.
doi:10.1177/009365097024003001
Rothschild, Z. K., Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Keefer, L. a. (2012). A dual-motive model of scapegoating: Displacing blame to reduce guilt or increase control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1148–1163. doi:10.1037/a0027413
Rudolph, T. J. (2006). Triangulating of responsibility formation judgments: The motivated political responsibility. Political Psychology, 27(1), 99–122. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00451.x
Saris, W. E. (1997). The public opinion about the EU can easily be swayed in different
directions. Acta Politica: International Journal of Political Science, 32, 406–436. Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?q=Public+opinion+about+the+EU+can+easily+be+swayed +in+different+directions&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5#0
Schuck, A. R. T., Xezonakis, G., Elenbaas, M., Banducci, S. A., & de Vreese, C. H. (2011). Party contestation and Europe on the news agenda: The 2009 European Parliamentary Elections. Electoral Studies, 30(1), 41–52. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2010.09.021 Shaver, K. G. (1975). An introduction to attribution processes. Oxford: Winthrop.
Shaver, K. G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Europeanization: Exploring the legitimacy of the European Union from a public discourse perspective. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(1), 127–155.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00706.x
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sniderman, P. M., & Theriault, S. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In W. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 133–165).
Springer, S. A., & Harwood, J. (2015). The influence of episodic and thematic frames on policy and group attitudes: Mediational analysis. Human Communication Research, 41(2), 226– 244. doi:10.1111/hcre.12045
Strömbäck, J. (2008). Four phases of mediatization: An analysis of the mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(3), 228–246.
doi:10.1177/1940161208319097
van Egmond, M., Sapir, E., van der Brug, W., Hobolt, S. B., & Franklin, M. N. (2010). EES 2009 voter study advance release notes. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
van Lieshout, M., Dewulf, A., Aarts, N., & Termeer, C. (2011). Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a “mega farm” in a small Dutch village. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 38. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10535/7586 van Lieshout, M., Dewulf, A., Aarts, N., & Termeer, C. (2012). Doing scalar politics: interactive
scale framing for managing accountability in complex policy processes. Critical Policy Studies, 6(2), 163–181. doi:10.1080/19460171.2012.689736
issues. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Appendix A Table E1.
Summary of Means and Standard Deviations of the Dependent Variables in the Experimental Conditions Attribution of responsibility Government EU Difference Conditions n M SD M SD M SD Non-thematic frame Control scale 57 6.82 2.65 8.50 2.41 1.66 2.16 National scale 51 7.20 2.50 8.14 2.35 .94 2.02 European scale 56 7.16 2.57 8.18 2.35 1.01 2.55 Thematic frame Control scale 59 7.66 2.57 8.81 2.07 1.15 2.52 National scale 59 6.53 2.56 8.36 2.34 1.83 2.72 European scale 64 7.60 2.35 8.52 2.10 .92 2.51
Note. Higher scores of attribution of responsibility to the government and to the EU indicate that more responsibility is attributed. Higher scores of the difference score of attribution of responsibility indicate a larger difference in attribution of responsibility.
Appendix B Stimuli material (translated from Dutch)
Appendix C The full survey (translated from Dutch)
1. What is your age (in years)?
2. Who is more responsible for the refugee crisis; the EU or the Dutch government? 0 (Full responsibility of the EU) – 10 (Full responsibility of the Dutch government)
3. How responsible is the Dutch government to handle the refugee crisis? Please answer on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is (no responsibility) and 10 is (full responsibility).
0 (No responsibility) – 10 (Full responsibility)
4. Now thinking about the European Union, how responsible is the EU to handle the refugee crisis? Please answer on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is ‘no responsibility’ and 10 is ‘full
responsibility’.
0 (No responsibility) – 10 (Full responsibility)
5. Do you think that the focus of the newspaper article about the refugee crisis is more political or personal?
0 (Very political); 5 (Both political and personal); 10 (Very personal)
6. How informative did you find the newspaper article about the refugee crisis? 0 (Not informative at all) 10 (very informative)
7. What is the setting of the article?
1 (Europe) 2 (The Netherlands) 3 (No particular setting)
8. In politics people sometimes talk about left and right. When you think of your own political beliefs, where would you place yourself on a line from 0 to 10?
10. Some people and parties think that European unification should go further. Others think that European unification has already gone too far. And of course there are people with an opinion somewhere in between. Where would you place yourself on a line from 1 to 7, where 1 means that European unification should go even further and 7 that the unification has already gone too far?
1 (European unification should go even further) – 7 (European unification has already gone too far).
11. How often do you talk about politics with your circle of friends? 1 (Often) 2 (Regularly) 3 (Occasionally) 4 (Rarely) 5 (Never)
12. What is the name of the current Minister of foreign affairs?
1 (Klaas Dijkhoff) 2 (Ard van der Steur) 3 (Bert Koenders) 4 (I don’t know) 13. What is the main objective of the NATO?
1 (The maintenance of peace and security for all countries) 2 (Ensure compliance with
agreements on trade between countries) 3 (The common defense of the member states) 4 (I don’t know)
14. What is the main objective of the World Trade Organization (WTO)?
1 (The maintenance of peace and security for all countries) 2 (Ensure compliance with
agreements on trade between countries) 3 (The common defense of the member states) 4 (I don’t know)
15. What is the main objective of the United Nations (UN)?
16. 1 (The maintenance of peace and security for all countries) 2 (Ensure compliance with agreements on trade between countries) 3 (The common defense of the member states) 4 (I don’t know)
