Search

Recognizing the need for more evidence-based interventions and the potential of well-crafted messages in communicating the opioid epidemic, this study investigates the effectiveness of two messaging strategies (i.e., victim vividness and external attribution) that have the potential to mitigate stigmatization and influence a wide range of public policies concerning the opioid epidemic. Building upon the attribution theory of interpersonal behavior, an experiment with a 2 (victim vividness: high vs. low) × 2 (external attribution: present vs. absent) between-subjects factorial design was conducted among a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 995). The findings show that the messages with greater victim vividness reduced support for victim-oriented punitive policies, whereas the messages that mentioned external attribution increased support for perpetrator-oriented punitive policies. In addition, the two messaging strategies also worked indirectly through various emotions to influence policy support. Discussions on this study's contributions to both theory and practice are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars have examined two types of emotions, namely, incidental and integral emotions, in health communication on the basis of the source of elicitation. Despite numerous studies on the independent effects of these two types of emotions, limited research exists on how emotions may interact to influence health communication outcomes, including support for health-improving policies. To augment current knowledge, this study conducted a 2 (incidental: compassion vs. anger) × 2 (integral: compassion vs. anger) between-subjects factorial experiment in the context of the human health effects of pollution. Results showed a main effect of the incidental compassion (vs. anger) condition on protective policy support, which was mediated by self-reported compassion. In addition, this main effect was moderated by political ideology such that it was found among moderates and conservatives, but not liberals. No interaction effects were observed. These findings contribute to the literature by exploring how incidental and integral emotions may or may not interact and by complementing existing research on the moderating effect of political ideology regarding environment-related messaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Considering effective messaging strategies as one important way of mobilizing the general public to join the fight in addressing some of the world's most critical environmental problems, this study compared the effectiveness of different consensus messages that varied in referent groups and content in communicating two global environmental issues. It proposed and tested a theoretical framework that includes two mediational pathways leading to changes in policy support. U.S. adults (N = 2296) were randomly assigned to 1 of 16 experimental conditions as part of a 4 (consensus message: control vs. seriousness vs. anger vs. hope) × 2 (referent group: scientists vs. public) × 2 (issue: plastic pollution vs. biodiversity loss) between-subjects factorial design. Overall, the proposed framework received solid support in both contexts. Scientific (vs. public) consensus was found to be more credible, which positively influenced policy support. Anger consensus (vs. control) worked through perceived anger consensus and then anger to increase policy support. In contrast, hope consensus and the feeling of hope were largely ineffective in improving policy support. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the potentials and limitations of consensus messaging in communicating global environmental issues. • Two pathways explaining consensus messaging are proposed and tested. • Biodiversity loss and plastic pollution are the research contexts. • Scientific (vs. public) consensus messages increase perceived credibility and informativeness. • Anger consensus and anger are more effective than hope consensus and hope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Genetic modification (GM) of crops and climate change are arguably two of today's most challenging science communication issues. Increasingly, these two issues are connected in messages proposing GM as a viable option for ensuring global food security threatened by climate change. This study examines the effects of messages promoting the benefits of GM in the context of climate change. Further, it examines whether explicit reference to "climate change," or "global warming" in a GM message results in different effects than each other, or an implicit climate reference. An online sample of U.S. participants (N = 1050) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: "climate change" cue, "global warming" cue, implicit cue, or control (no message). Generally speaking, framing GM crops as a way to help ensure global food security proved to be an effective messaging strategy in increasing positive attitudes toward GM. In addition, the implicit cue condition led to liberals having more positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward GM than the "climate change" cue condition, an effect mediated by message evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]