The Polarizing Effect of News Media Messages About the Social Determinants of Health

University of Pennsylvania, 3641 Locust Walk, Room 302, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6218, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.23). 12/2009; 99(12):2160-7. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.161414
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Framing health problems in terms of the social determinants of health aims to shift policy attention to nonmedical strategies to improve population health, yet little is known about how the public responds to these messages. We conducted an experiment to test the effect of a news article describing the social determinants of type 2 diabetes on the public's support for diabetes prevention strategies. We found that exposure to the social determinants message led to a divergence between Republicans' and Democrats' opinions, relative to their opinions after viewing an article with no message about the causes of diabetes. These results signify that increasing public awareness of the social determinants of health may not uniformly increase public support for policy action.

  • Source
    • "Complex social, economic and political causality of health inequities due to income inequity have inhibited the development of pro-equity policies Raise public awareness about effects of income inequality on health outcomes to increase political will. (Gollust et al., 2009) Public policy framework (Tarlov, 1999) (Public consensus) USA SDH (redistributive policies) Problem definition Lack of public support due to diversity in public perceptions Segmented communication approach to by media and politicians that frame SDH messages specifically for political affiliation and social position. (Gamble and Stone, 2006) Multiple streams (Problem definition, framing, public awareness) USA Race Policy formulation Racial inequities have been defined as a research problem not a policy problem. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite a dramatic growth in SDH/HE (social determinants of health/health equity) public policy research and demonstrated government interest in promoting equity in health policies, health inequities are actually growing among some populations and there is little evidence that "healthy public policies" are being adopted and implemented. Moreover, these issues are typically failing to even reach governments' policy agendas, which is a critical step towards serious debate and the identification of policy options. This systematic review pursues three main objectives. First, is to identify barriers to SDH/HE issues reaching the government policy agenda. Second, to evaluate the characteristics of peer-reviewed research articles that utilize common policy analysis theories. And third, to determine the extent to which the SDH/HE literature utilizes common policy analysis theories. Our systematic review, conducted in June 2012, identified 6200 SDH/HE related articles in the peer-reviewed literature; however, only seven articles explicitly used a commonly recognized policy analysis theory to inform their analysis. Our analysis revealed that the SDH/HE policy literature appears to be focused on advocacy rather than analysis and that the use of policy analysis theory is extremely limited. Our results also suggest that when such theories are incorporated into an analysis they are often not comprehensively employed. We propose explanations for this non-use and misuse of policy analysis theory, and conclude that researchers may have greater influence in helping to get SDH/HE issues onto government policy agendas if they gain a greater understanding of the policy process and the value of incorporating policy analysis theories into their research. Using a policy analysis lens to help identify why healthy public policies are typically not being adopted is an important step towards moving beyond advocacy to understanding and addressing some of the political barriers to reforms.
    Social Science [?] Medicine 03/2014; 108C:147-155. DOI:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.004 · 2.56 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The SDH do not include personal health behaviors (lifestyle choices such as diet and physical activity), individual capacity and coping skills, medical services (although some models do include this in SDH), genetics or biology (National Collaborating Centres for Public Health (NCCPH) 2008; Niederdeppe et al. 2008; Gollust et al. 2009; Raphael 2011). The population health framework can be seen as an overarching framework that includes both the broader social determinants, as well as the inter-and intrapersonal determinants of health (NCCPH 2008), as seen in Fig. 1. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: MACDONALD SE, NEWBURN-COOK CV, ALLEN M and REUTTER L. Nursing Inquiry 2012 [Epub ahead of print] Embracing the population health framework in nursing research Individuals' health outcomes are influenced not only by their knowledge and behavior, but also by complex social, political and economic forces. Attention to these multi-level factors is necessary to accurately and comprehensively understand and intervene to improve human health. The population health framework is a valuable conceptual framework to guide nurse researchers in identifying and targeting the broad range of determinants of health. However, attention to the intermediate processes linking multi-level factors and use of appropriate multi-level theory and research methodology is critical to utilizing the framework effectively. Nurse researchers are well equipped to undertake such investigations but need to consider a number of political, societal, professional and organizational barriers to do so. By fully embracing the population health framework, nurse researchers have the opportunity to explore the multi-level influences on health and to develop, implement and evaluate interventions that target immediate needs, more distal factors and the intermediate processes that connect them.
    Nursing Inquiry 12/2012; 20(1). DOI:10.1111/nin.12017 · 1.05 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Their results indicated that exposure to factual information failed to correct misperceptions among ideological partisans and in some cases resulted in boomerang effects on beliefs and attitudes and greater ideological polarization. Similarly, Gollust, Lantz, and Ubel (2009) found exposure to health messages about the social determinants of diabetes aimed at influencing public support for diabetes-prevention programs lead to a boomerang effect on attitudes about diabetes prevention and a greater ideological polarization between Republicans and Democrats. Likewise, social identity cues may activate the unintended construct that an issue or problem is not applicable to the group to which a message receiver belongs, and thus the message may be ineffective or result in a negative impact (from the sender's perspective) on audience attitudes. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The deficit-model of science communication assumes increased communication about science issues will move public opinion toward the scientific consensus. However, in the case of climate change, public polarization about the issue has increased in recent years, not diminished. In this study, we draw from theories of motivated reasoning, social identity, and persuasion to examine how science-based messages may increase public polarization on controversial science issues such as climate change. Exposing 240 adults to simulated news stories about possible climate change health impacts on different groups, we found the influence of identification with potential victims was contingent on participants’ political partisanship. This partisanship increased the degree of political polarization on support for climate mitigation policies and resulted in a boomerang effect among Republican participants. Implications for understanding the role of motivated reasoning within the context of science communication are discussed.
    Communication Research 12/2012; 39(6):701-723. DOI:10.1177/0093650211416646 · 2.01 Impact Factor
Show more


1 Download
Available from