{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04052936311000827, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024813895781637717, 'mean_word_length': 5.612021857923497, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effects of Media Attributions on Responsibility Judgments and Policy Opinions

This study tests how the public’s responsibility judgments and their policy opinions could be affected by different types of attributions made by the media. Study 1 examined three types of attributions regarding smartphone addiction: (a) individualistic (e.g., lack of self-control), (b) societal (e.g., the media industry or government), and (c) none (i.e., control group). Results showed that individualistic attributions by the media did not affect perceived individual responsibility and support for smartphone-addicted children. On the other hand, societal attributions increased perceived industry responsibility, which subsequently increased punishment opinions for the smartphone industry. Study 2 examined three types of attributions regarding childhood obesity (child vs. parent vs. societal) by two types of exemplar formats (“interviews” vs. “user comments”). Consistent with Study 1, results showed that the societal attribution condition resulted in greater perceived industry responsibility and greater punishment opinions for the food industry. However, the effect was not moderated by the type of exemplar format.