IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v296y2022ics0277953622000296.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Mantzari, Eleni
  • Reynolds, James P.
  • Jebb, Susan A.
  • Hollands, Gareth J.
  • Pilling, Mark A.
  • Marteau, Theresa M.

Abstract

Effective interventions for reducing the consumption of products that harm population and planetary health often lack public support, impeding implementation. Communicating evidence of policies’ effectiveness can increase public support but there is uncertainty about the most effective ways of communicating this evidence. Some policies have multiple benefits such as both improving health and the environment. This study assesses whether communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits of a policy increases its support.

Suggested Citation

  • Mantzari, Eleni & Reynolds, James P. & Jebb, Susan A. & Hollands, Gareth J. & Pilling, Mark A. & Marteau, Theresa M., 2022. "Public support for policies to improve population and planetary health: A population-based online experiment assessing impact of communicating evidence of multiple versus single benefits," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:296:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622000296
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114726
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622000296
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114726?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cameron Brick & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Steven Wooding & William J. Skylark & Theresa M. Marteau & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2018. "Winners and losers: communicating the potential impacts of policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Gollust, S.E. & Niederdeppe, J. & Barry, C.L., 2013. "Framing the consequences of childhood obesity to increase public support for obesity prevention policy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(11), pages 96-102.
    3. Dragos C Petrescu & Gareth J Hollands & Dominique-Laurent Couturier & Yin-Lam Ng & Theresa M Marteau, 2016. "Public Acceptability in the UK and USA of Nudging to Reduce Obesity: The Example of Reducing Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Consumption," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    4. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Mazzocchi, Mario & Cagnone, Silvia & Bech-Larsen, Tino & Niedźwiedzka, Barbara & Saba, Anna & Shankar, Bhavani & Verbeke, Wim & Traill, W Bruce, 2015. "What is the public appetite for healthy eating policies? Evidence from a cross-European survey," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 267-292, July.
    7. Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch & Julius Rauber, 2018. "A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 3-22, March.
    8. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Sander L van der Linden & Anthony A Leiserowitz & Geoffrey D Feinberg & Edward W Maibach, 2015. "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-8, February.
    10. Wan, Calvin & Shen, Geoffrey Qiping & Yu, Ann, 2014. "The role of perceived effectiveness of policy measures in predicting recycling behaviour in Hong Kong," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 141-151.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reynolds, J.P. & Archer, S. & Pilling, M. & Kenny, M. & Hollands, G.J. & Marteau, T.M., 2019. "Public acceptability of nudging and taxing to reduce consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and food: A population-based survey experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Reynolds, J.P. & Pilling, M. & Marteau, T.M., 2018. "Communicating quantitative evidence of policy effectiveness and support for the policy: Three experimental studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 218(C), pages 1-12.
    3. James P. Reynolds & Milica Vasiljevic & Mark Pilling & Marissa G. Hall & Kurt M. Ribisl & Theresa M. Marteau, 2020. "Communicating Evidence about the Causes of Obesity and Support for Obesity Policies: Two Population-Based Survey Experiments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Laura M. König & Vera Araújo‐Soares, 2023. "Will the Farm to Fork strategy be effective in changing food consumption behavior? A health psychology perspective," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 785-802, June.
    5. Lan Nguyen & Hans De Steur, 2021. "Public Acceptability of Policy Interventions to Reduce Sugary Drink Consumption in Urban Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-18, December.
    6. Qiao Liu & Qianhui Xu & Xin Shen & Bowei Chen & Sonia Sadeghian Esfahani, 2022. "The Mechanism of Household Waste Sorting Behaviour—A Study of Jiaxing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-12, February.
    7. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Dael, Miet & Van Passel, Steven, 2017. "Battery pack recycling: Behaviour change interventions derived from an integrative theory of planned behaviour study," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 66-82.
    8. Fielding, Kelly S. & van Kasteren, Yasmin & Louis, Winnifred & McKenna, Bernard & Russell, Sally & Spinks, Anneliese, 2016. "Using individual householder survey responses to predict household environmental outcomes: The cases of recycling and water conservation," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 90-97.
    9. Ismaël Rafaï & Arthur Ribaillier & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The impact on nudge acceptability judgments of framing and consultation of the targeted population," Working Papers hal-03228638, HAL.
    10. Romain Espinosa & Anis Nassar, 2021. "The Acceptability of Food Policies," Post-Print halshs-03210654, HAL.
    11. Song, Jiawen & Cai, Lanhui & Yuen, Kum Fai & Wang, Xueqin, 2023. "Exploring consumers’ usage intention of reusable express packaging: An extended norm activation model," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    12. Jing Shen & Donghui Zheng & Xiaoning Zhang & Mei Qu, 2020. "Investigating Rural Domestic Waste Sorting Intentions Based on an Integrative Framework of Planned Behavior Theory and Normative Activation Models: Evidence from Guanzhong Basin, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Tino Bech-Larsen & Sara Capacci, 2016. "Do Target Groups Appreciate Being Targeted? An Exploration of Healthy Eating Policy Acceptance," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 285-306, September.
    14. Huilin Wang & Jiaxuan Li & Aweewan Mangmeechai & Jiafu Su, 2021. "Linking Perceived Policy Effectiveness and Proenvironmental Behavior: The Influence of Attitude, Implementation Intention, and Knowledge," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-17, March.
    15. Luca Congiu & Ivan Moscati, 2022. "A review of nudges: Definitions, justifications, effectiveness," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 188-213, February.
    16. Ossama Ahmed Labib & Latifah Manaf & Amir Hamzah Sharaai & Siti Sarah Mohamad Zaid, 2021. "Understanding the Effect of Internal and External Factors on Households’ Willingness to Sort Waste in Dammam City, Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-18, September.
    17. Dixit, Saumya & Badgaiyan, Anant Jyoti, 2016. "Towards improved understanding of reverse logistics – Examining mediating role of return intention," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 115-128.
    18. Arthur Ribaillier & Ismaël Rafaï & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The Impact on Acceptability Judgments about Nudges of Framing and Consultation with the Targeted Population," GREDEG Working Papers 2021-12, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    19. Muhammad Ahmad Al-Rashid & Hong Ching Goh & Yong Adilah Shamsul Harumain & Zulfiqar Ali & Tiziana Campisi & Tahir Mahmood, 2020. "Psychosocial Barriers of Public Transport Use and Social Exclusion among Older Adults: Empirical Evidence from Lahore, Pakistan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-23, December.
    20. Reisch, Lucia A. & Sunstein, Cass R. & Gwozdz, Wencke, 2017. "Viewpoint: Beyond carrots and sticks: Europeans support health nudges," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-10.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:296:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622000296. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.