running head: effects of thematic frames on …

Running Head: EFFECTS OF THEMATIC FRAMES ON RESPONSIBILITY ATTRIBUTION

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

Word count: 6,950

EFFECTS OF THEMATIC FRAMES ON RESPONSIBILITY ATTRIBUTION 2

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 non-thematic frame with a non-scale frame (n = 57), (2) a non-

thematic frame with a national scale frame (n = 51), (3) a 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 Correct answers were coded as 1, while the rest were coded as 0.


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

increase citizens’ attribution of responsibility is diminished as it aims higher at the administrative


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

problem. Since the respondents are Dutch citizens who might expect to be directly affected by


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

responsibility to both the government and the EU. This design would have greater external


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

León, S. (2011). Who is responsible for what? Clarity of responsibilities in multilevel states: The


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

Reinemann, C., Stanyer, J., Scherr, S., & Legnante, G. (2011). Hard and soft news: A review of


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.

Sifft, S., Bruggemann, M., Konigslow, K. K. V, Peters, B., & Wimmel, A. (2007). Segmented


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

Wanta, W. (1997). The public and the national agenda: How people learn about important


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?

9. 0 (Left) - 10 (Right)


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


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


know)


17. In the EU citizens can travel freely without border controls within the Schengen area.

1 (True) 2 (False) 3 (I don’t know)

18. Your license is valid throughout the EU.


19. The Netherlands has a Quota Law. According to this law, no more than half of the

candidates on an election list can be from the same sex.


20. Children's rights apply to all children in the world. Nevertheless, the different countries

has different rules related to children, since each country has its own culture, its own religions,

and its own way of living


21. In which country there a dictatorship and virtually no freedom of the press?

1 (The Netherlands) 2 (South Korea) 3 (North Korea) 4 (New Zealand) 5 (I don’t know)

22. In which country is it illegal for women to drive?

1 (Belgium) 2 (Saudi Arabia) 3 (Brazil) 4 (China) 5 (I don’t know)

23. Of which room(s) is the federal parliament in the Netherlands comprised?

24. 1 (The Senate) 2 (The House of Representatives) 3 (The House of Representatives and

the Senate) 4 (I don’t know)

25. Are you a man or a woman?

1 (Man) 2 (Woman)

26. What is your highest level of education completed?


27. 1 (No training) 2 (Elementary school / primary school) 3 (LBO, VBO, LTS, LHNO,

VMBO) 4 (MAVO, VMBO- t, MBO short) 5 (MBO, MTS, MEAO) 6 (HAVO, VWO,

Gymnasium) 7 (HBO, HEAO, PABO, HTS) 8 (University) 9 (Other)


Appendix D

Randomization test

A Chi-square test of independence was calculated to compare the frequency of men and women

across the experimental conditions. The percentage of male and female participants did not differ

by the experimental condition, χ2

= 24.97, df =5, p = .051. A Chi-square test of independence

was calculated to compare the level of education across the experimental conditions. Education

did not differ across the experimental conditions, χ2

= 14.00, df = 15, p = .173. The regression

model with age as a dependent variable and the dummy variables for the conditions as

independent variables is not significant, F (5, 340) = 1.11, p = .354. The regression model cannot

be used to predict participants’ age. Therefore, there is no difference in the predicted age

between the control condition (condition 1) and the different treatment conditions. The

regression model with ideology as a dependent variable and the dummy variables for the

conditions as independent variables is not significant, F (5, 340) = .361, p = .875. The regression

model cannot be used to predict participants’ ideology. Therefore, there is no difference in the

predicted ideology between the control condition (condition 1) and the different treatment

conditions. The regression model with unification as a dependent variable and the dummy

variables for the conditions as independent variables is not significant, F (5, 340) = 2.13, p =

.061. The regression model cannot be used to predict participants’ support for unification.

Therefore, there is no difference in the predicted level of unification between the control

condition (condition 1) and the different treatment conditions.


Appendix E

Confound checks

Confound checks revealed that ideology, unification, gender, and education were

significantly related to attribution of responsibility to the government. There is a significant,

weak negative correlation between the ideology and attribution of responsibility to the

government: The more right-wing a person is, the less he attributes responsibility to the

government, r = -.24, p < .001. There is a significant, weak negative correlation between

unification and attribution of responsibility to the government: The more one supports

unification, the more he attribute responsibility to the government, r = -.27, p < .001. There is a

significant, weak positive correlation between gender and attribution of responsibility to the

government: women attribute more responsibility to the government than men, r = .16, p = .002.

There is a significant, weak positive correlation between level of education and attribution of

responsibility to the government: The more educated one is, the more he attributes responsibility

to the government, rs = .13, p = .013. Also, ideology and unification were significantly related to

attribution of responsibility to the EU. There is a significant, weak negative correlation between

ideology and attribution of responsibility to the EU: The more right-wing a person is, the less he

attributes responsibility to the EU, r = -.24, p < .001. There is a significant, weak negative

correlation between unification and attribution of responsibility to the EU: The more one

supports unification, the more he attribute responsibility to the EU, r = -.27, p < .001. Gender

was significantly related to the difference score of attribution of responsibility. There is a

significant, weak negative correlation between gender and the difference score of attribution of

responsibility: women have larger difference between attribution of responsibility to the EU and

the government than men, r = -.15, p = .005. Therefore, control variables which correlated with


the dependent variables were included in the analysis as covariates whenever these dependent

variables were at use.

running head: effects of thematic frames on …

Documents