IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i18p6539-d410559.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communicating Evidence about the Causes of Obesity and Support for Obesity Policies: Two Population-Based Survey Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • James P. Reynolds

    (Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK)

  • Milica Vasiljevic

    (Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK
    Department of Psychology, Durham University, Durham DH1 3LE, UK)

  • Mark Pilling

    (Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK)

  • Marissa G. Hall

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA
    Department of Health Behaviour, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 275599, USA)

  • Kurt M. Ribisl

    (Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, USA
    Department of Health Behaviour, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 275599, USA)

  • Theresa M. Marteau

    (Behaviour and Health Research Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 0SR, UK)

Abstract

Public support for numerous obesity policies is low, which is one barrier to their implementation. One reason for this low support is the tendency to ascribe obesity to failings of willpower as opposed to the environment. Correlational evidence supports this position. However, the experimental evidence is mixed. In two experimental studies, participants were randomised to receive no message, messages about the environment’s influence on obesity (Study 1 & 2), or messages about the environment’s influence on human behaviour (Study 1). We investigated whether communicating these messages changed support for obesity policies and beliefs about the causes of obesity. Participants were recruited from nationally representative samples in Great Britain (Study 1 & 2) and the USA (Study 2) (total n = 4391). Study 2 was designed to replicate existing research. Neither study found evidence that communicating the messages increased support for obesity policies or strengthened beliefs about the environment’s role in obesity. Study 2, therefore, did not replicate two earlier experimental studies. Instead, the studies reported here suggest that people’s beliefs about the causes of obesity are resistant to change in response to evidence and are, therefore, not a promising avenue to increase support for obesity policies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:18:p:6539-:d:410559
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6539/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6539/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joslyn, Mark R. & Haider-Markel, Donald P., 2019. "Perceived causes of obesity, emotions, and attitudes about Discrimination Policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 97-103.
    2. 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.
    3. Andrew L. Whitehead, 2014. "Politics, Religion, Attribution Theory, and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Unions," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(3), pages 701-718, September.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Ortiz, Selena E. & Zimmerman, Frederick J. & Adler, Gary J., 2016. "Increasing public support for food-industry related, obesity prevention policies: The role of a taste-engineering frame and contextualized values," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 142-153.
    7. Katrine T Ejlerskov & Stephen J Sharp & Martine Stead & Ashley J Adamson & Martin White & Jean Adams, 2018. "Supermarket policies on less-healthy food at checkouts: Natural experimental evaluation using interrupted time series analyses of purchases," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-20, December.
    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. 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).
    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. Ismaël Rafaï & Arthur Ribaillier & Dorian Jullien, 2021. "The impact on nudge acceptability judgments of framing and consultation of the targeted population," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-03228638, HAL.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Joslyn, Mark R. & Haider-Markel, Donald P., 2019. "Perceived causes of obesity, emotions, and attitudes about Discrimination Policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 223(C), pages 97-103.
    9. Prakash, Kushneel & Munyanyi, Musharavati Ephraim, 2021. "Energy poverty and obesity," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    10. Hagmann, Désirée & Siegrist, Michael & Hartmann, Christina, 2018. "Taxes, labels, or nudges? Public acceptance of various interventions designed to reduce sugar intake," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 156-165.
    11. Hagenaars, Luc Louis & Jeurissen, Patrick Paulus Theodoor & Klazinga, Niek Sieds, 2017. "The taxation of unhealthy energy-dense foods (EDFs) and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs): An overview of patterns observed in the policy content and policy context of 13 case studies," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(8), pages 887-894.
    12. Agnieszka Piekara, 2022. "Sugar Tax or What? The Perspective and Preferences of Consumers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-12, October.
    13. Arbeláez, María Angélica & Cadena, Ximena & Alejandro, Becerra & Benitez, Miguel & Mejía, María José, 2022. "Elementos para el diseño de un impuesto a alimentos y bebidas altos en sodio, grasas y/o azúcares en Colombia," Informes de Investigación 21027, Fedesarrollo.
    14. Vivica Kraak & Tessa Englund & Sarah Misyak & Elena Serrano, 2017. "Progress Evaluation for the Restaurant Industry Assessed by a Voluntary Marketing-Mix and Choice-Architecture Framework That Offers Strategies to Nudge American Customers toward Healthy Food Environme," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-31, July.
    15. Jordi Brandts & Isabel Busom & Cristina Lopez-Mayan & Judith Panadés, 2022. "“Pictures are worth many words: Effectiveness of visual communication in dispelling the rent–control misconception”," AQR Working Papers 202202, University of Barcelona, Regional Quantitative Analysis Group, revised Feb 2022.
    16. Romain Espinosa & Anis Nassar, 2021. "The Acceptability of Food Policies," Post-Print halshs-03210654, HAL.
    17. Mariusz Duplaga, 2020. "The Acceptance of Key Public Health Interventions by the Polish Population Is Related to Health Literacy, But Not eHealth Literacy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-19, July.
    18. Susan L. Prescott & Christopher R. D’Adamo & Kathleen F. Holton & Selena Ortiz & Nina Overby & Alan C. Logan, 2023. "Beyond Plants: The Ultra-Processing of Global Diets Is Harming the Health of People, Places, and Planet," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(15), pages 1-21, July.
    19. Alan C. Logan & Susan L. Prescott, 2017. "Astrofood, Priorities and Pandemics: Reflections of an Ultra-Processed Breakfast Program and Contemporary Dysbiotic Drift," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-24, September.
    20. Banerjee, Sanchayan & Picard, Julien, 2023. "Thinking through norms can make them more effective. Experimental evidence on reflective climate policies in the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120057, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:18:p:6539-:d:410559. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.