Public policies that promote personal responsibility while minimizing government responsibility are a key feature of modern American political economy. They can decrease Americans’ political participation on a given issue, with detrimental consequences for the wellbeing of economically insecure families. Can this pattern be overcome? I argue that attribution frames highlighting government’s role in and responsibility for policies may increase people’s propensity for political action on an issue, but only if the frame can increase the salience of their preexisting beliefs about government intervention. Drawing on the case of consumer financial protection, I administer an experiment to determine the effect of attribution framing on people’s willingness to act in support of a popular banking reform. I find that helping people draw parallels between an issue they feel responsibility for and one they accept government responsibility for can boost political engagement on behalf of the original policy.
BolsenT.JamesD.CookF. L. (2014). Communication and collective actions: a survey experiment on motivating energy conservation in the U.S. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1(1), 24-38. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2014.2.
FeldmanS. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 416–440. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111130
15.
GamsonW. A.AndreM. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: a constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1086/229213
16.
HackerJ. S. (1998). The historical logic of national health insurance: structure and sequence in the development of British, Canadian, and US medical policy. Studies in American Political Development, 12(1), 57–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898588X98001308
17.
HackerJ. (2006). The great risk shift. New York: Oxford University Press.
18.
HackettU. (2019). Attenuated governance: how policymakers insulate private school choice from legal challenge. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 237-273. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12327.
19.
HallP. A. (1986). Governing the economy: The politics of state intervention in britain and France. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
HeiderF. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New York: Wiley.
21.
HowardC. (1997). The Hidden Welfare State: Tax Expenditures and Social Policy in the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
HymanL. (2011). Debtor nation: The history of America in red ink. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
IyengarS. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: the case of poverty. Political Behavior, 12, 19–40. https://www.jstor.org/stable/586283
KirschL.MayerR. N. (2013). Financial justice: The people's campaign to stop lender abuse. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
26.
KreuterF.PresserS.TourangeauR. (2008). Social desirability bias in CATI, IVR, and web surveys: the effects of mode and question sensitivity. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(5), 847-865. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn063.
27.
KrippnerG. R. (2011). Capitalizing on crisis: The political origins of the rise of finance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
KrosnickJ.PettyR. (1995). Attitude Strength: An Overview. In PettyRichardKrosnickJon (Eds.), Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences (pp. 1-24). New York: Psychology Press.
29.
LowiT. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/974990
30.
LupiaA.McCubbinsM. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.HowardR. (2013). Political bubbles: Financial crises and the failure of American democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
32.
MettlerS. (2011). The submerged state: how invisible government policies undermine American democracy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
33.
MettlerS. (2018). The government-citizen disconnect. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
34.
MettlerS.SoRelleM. (2017). Policy feedback theory. In SabatierP. A.WeibleC. (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (4th Ed). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
35.
MutzD. (1998). Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
NelsonT. E.ClawsonR. A.SeptemberZ. M. O. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. The American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952075
37.
PrasadM. (2012). The land of too much: American abundance and the paradox of poverty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
SaharG. (2014). On the Importance of Attribution Theory in Political Psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(5), 229-249. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12102.
39.
SkocpolT. (1992). Protecting soldiers and mothers: The political origins of social policy in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
40.
SnidermanP. M.TheriaultS. M. (2004). The structure of political argument and the logic of issue framing. In SarisW. E.SnidermanP. M. (Eds.). Studies in Public Opinion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 133–165.
41.
SossJ. (1999). Lessons of welfare: policy design, political learning, and political action. American Political Science Review, 93(2), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585401.
42.
SossJ.FordingR.SanfordS. (2011). Disciplining the poor. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
43.
SossJ.WeaverV. (2017). Police Are Our government: politics, political science, and the policing of race-class subjugated communities. Annual Review of Political Science, 20, 565–591. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060415-093825
44.
SoRelleM. E. (2020). Democracy Declined: The Failed Politics of Consumer Financial Protection. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
45.
SteinmoS.Ann ThelenK.FrankL. (1992). Structuring politics: Historical institutionalism in comparative analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
StoneD. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104(2), 281–300. https://doi.org/10.2307/2151585
47.
TourangeauR.RipsL.RasinskiK. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
VisserP.GeorgeB.KrosnickJ. (2006). Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 1–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38001-X
49.
VisserP.KrosnickJ.SimmonsJ. P. (2003). Distinguishing the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude importance and certainty: a new approach to testing the common factor hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00522-X
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52.
ZallerJ.FeldmanS. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579-616. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111583.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
