Partisan responses to public health messages: Motivated reasoning and sugary drink taxes

Sarah E. Gollust, Colleen L. Barry, Jeff Niederdeppe

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study examines the public's motivated reasoning of competitive messages about sugary drink taxes, a public health policy approach attempted with some recent success in the United States. In an experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey fielded in the fall of 2012, we randomized participants (N= 5,147) to receive one of four messages: control, a strong protax message, a two-sided message, or a message refuting arguments made in soda company antitax messages. The protax message showed no effects on tax support, while the two-sided message depressed Republicans' support. The refutation message boosted independents' support but produced backlash among Republicans. This motivated response was pronounced among Republicans who were plausibly previously exposed to the sugary drink tax debate. These findings reinforce the communication challenges in an increasingly politicized US health policy discourse.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1005-1037
Number of pages33
JournalJournal of health politics, policy and law
Volume42
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2017

Fingerprint

Taxes
Health Policy
Public Health
Public Policy
protax
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • Health communication
  • Health politics
  • Motivated reasoning
  • Public opinion
  • Sugar-sweetened-beverage tax

Cite this

Partisan responses to public health messages : Motivated reasoning and sugary drink taxes. / Gollust, Sarah E.; Barry, Colleen L.; Niederdeppe, Jeff.

In: Journal of health politics, policy and law, Vol. 42, No. 6, 01.12.2017, p. 1005-1037.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2afcdea7a4de41068552ba0399451108,
title = "Partisan responses to public health messages: Motivated reasoning and sugary drink taxes",
abstract = "This study examines the public's motivated reasoning of competitive messages about sugary drink taxes, a public health policy approach attempted with some recent success in the United States. In an experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey fielded in the fall of 2012, we randomized participants (N= 5,147) to receive one of four messages: control, a strong protax message, a two-sided message, or a message refuting arguments made in soda company antitax messages. The protax message showed no effects on tax support, while the two-sided message depressed Republicans' support. The refutation message boosted independents' support but produced backlash among Republicans. This motivated response was pronounced among Republicans who were plausibly previously exposed to the sugary drink tax debate. These findings reinforce the communication challenges in an increasingly politicized US health policy discourse.",
keywords = "Health communication, Health politics, Motivated reasoning, Public opinion, Sugar-sweetened-beverage tax",
author = "Gollust, {Sarah E.} and Barry, {Colleen L.} and Jeff Niederdeppe",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1215/03616878-4193606",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "42",
pages = "1005--1037",
journal = "Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law",
issn = "0361-6878",
publisher = "Duke University Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Partisan responses to public health messages

T2 - Motivated reasoning and sugary drink taxes

AU - Gollust, Sarah E.

AU - Barry, Colleen L.

AU - Niederdeppe, Jeff

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - This study examines the public's motivated reasoning of competitive messages about sugary drink taxes, a public health policy approach attempted with some recent success in the United States. In an experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey fielded in the fall of 2012, we randomized participants (N= 5,147) to receive one of four messages: control, a strong protax message, a two-sided message, or a message refuting arguments made in soda company antitax messages. The protax message showed no effects on tax support, while the two-sided message depressed Republicans' support. The refutation message boosted independents' support but produced backlash among Republicans. This motivated response was pronounced among Republicans who were plausibly previously exposed to the sugary drink tax debate. These findings reinforce the communication challenges in an increasingly politicized US health policy discourse.

AB - This study examines the public's motivated reasoning of competitive messages about sugary drink taxes, a public health policy approach attempted with some recent success in the United States. In an experiment embedded in a nationally representative survey fielded in the fall of 2012, we randomized participants (N= 5,147) to receive one of four messages: control, a strong protax message, a two-sided message, or a message refuting arguments made in soda company antitax messages. The protax message showed no effects on tax support, while the two-sided message depressed Republicans' support. The refutation message boosted independents' support but produced backlash among Republicans. This motivated response was pronounced among Republicans who were plausibly previously exposed to the sugary drink tax debate. These findings reinforce the communication challenges in an increasingly politicized US health policy discourse.

KW - Health communication

KW - Health politics

KW - Motivated reasoning

KW - Public opinion

KW - Sugar-sweetened-beverage tax

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032820440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032820440&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1215/03616878-4193606

DO - 10.1215/03616878-4193606

M3 - Article

C2 - 28801464

AN - SCOPUS:85032820440

VL - 42

SP - 1005

EP - 1037

JO - Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

JF - Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

SN - 0361-6878

IS - 6

ER -