Framing, Identity, And Responsibility: Do Episodic Vs. Thematic Framing Effects Vary By Target Population?

Extensive political communication research shows that people respond differently to the same policy problem depending on how it is portrayed, or "framed." Specifically, Iyengar [1991]. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press] finds that when news coverage about a policy issue is framed episodically, citizens tend to attribute responsibility to the individual, whereas when news is framed thematically, they attribute responsibility to government/society. But how might these framing effects be conditioned by the identity of the individual/group portrayed in the news? Here we examine whether episodic vs. thematic framing effects vary when the target population is "Muslim American," compared to "American." We do so both in the context of poverty (following Iyengar's original study) and also in a context where the difference between "Americans" and "Muslim Americans" might prove especially salient: religious radicalism. Using data from an online survey experiment (N = 1655), we find that participants treat both groups similarly and in line with episodic vs. thematic framing effects when the issue is poverty. But in the case of religious radicalism, framing effects disappear. Instead, participants consistently attribute responsibility to the people who radicalize rather than to government/society. Yet importantly, the substance of these individual-level explanations is significantly more likely to involve religion when the person portrayed is Muslim American.