Understanding Public Resistance to Messages About Health Disparities
Understanding Public Resistance to Messages About Health Disparities
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/10810730.2013.821561
复制
发表时间：
2014-04-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Cappella, Joseph N.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gollust, Sarah E.;Cappella, Joseph N.
倡导者和政策制定者经常通过强调影响这些差距的社会和经济因素，就健康差距进行战略性沟通，以提高公众认识。先前的研究表明，与自力更生和个人责任有关的倾向性政治取向和价值观可能会对这些信息产生抵制。在这项研究中，作者从公共话语中挑选了4条关于预期寿命差异原因的信息，并将其随机呈现给732名美国人的全国代表性样本。信息阻力的三个指标进行了测量：相信信息是弱，引发愤怒，生产的反驳。在信息抵制方面，人们发现了预期的政治差异，共和党人认为信息更弱，引起的愤怒更少，引发的反驳比民主党人更多。在3条描述健康差距的社会决定因素的信息中，一条确定个人选择作用的信息（明确承认个人责任）在共和党人中产生的愤怒和反驳最少。愤怒激发和反驳的政治差异可以部分解释为个人责任的倾向价值观。这些发现与寻求弥合围绕健康差距的公众分歧的政策倡导者以及推进对政策相关健康信息的抵制理论的学者有关。
Advocates and policymakers strategically communicate about health disparities in an effort to raise public awareness, often by emphasizing the social and economic factors that influence these disparities. Previous research suggests that predisposing political orientation and values related to self-reliance and personal responsibility may produce resistance to such messages. In this study, the authors culled 4 messages about the causes of disparities in life expectancy from public discourse and randomly presented them to a nationally representative sample of 732 Americans. Three indicators of message resistance were measured: belief that messages are weak, elicitation of anger, and production of counterarguments. Expected political differences in message resistance were identified, with Republicans perceiving messages to be weaker, arousing less anger, and eliciting more counterarguing than for Democrats. Among 3 messages that described the social determinants of health disparities, a message that identified the role of personal choices (explicitly acknowledging personal responsibility) produced the least anger and counterarguing among Republicans. Political differences in anger arousal and counterarguing can be explained, in part, by predisposing values toward personal responsibility. These findings have relevance for policy advocates seeking to bridge public divides surrounding health disparities and for scholars advancing theories of reactance to policy-relevant health messaging.