HOW LINGUISTIC FRAMING AFFECTS BLAME ATTRIBUTION AND ATTITUDES TOWARDS LAW ENFORCEMENT

Language is a powerful tool for shaping how people think about complex social issues. This study investigates how certain framing techniques, such as the use of metaphor and grammar, can influence the way people reason about blame and punishment as it pertains to police officers who have harmed civilians. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of eight brief vignettes about a police officer fatally shooting a pedestrian. The language used to describe the incident differed along three dimensions: (1) grammar: the actions of the officer were described using agentive (e.g. “he fired the gun”) versus non-agentive language (e.g. “the gun fired”), (2) metaphor: the role of police officers was described using a protective (i.e. “guardian angel”) versus aggressive metaphor (i.e. “warrior soldier”), and (3) racial identity: the victim was given either a stereotypical black name (i.e. DeShawn) or a stereotypical white name (i.e. Jake). After reading the vignette, participants had to decide on a punishment for the officer and indicate how much he was to blame for the incident, and were then assessed on their overall attitudes towards police officers. Overall, the grammar and metaphor manipulations did little to shape judgments of blame and punishment. However, a series of exploratory analyses yielded interesting and surprising results. Participants’ political party affiliation significantly affected ratings of punishment severity, blame, and attitudes towards police. Liberal participants were more likely to mis-perceive the white victim as black, and the perceived victim race also affected ratings of punishment severity, blame, and attitudes.