Using Theory to Identify Beliefs Associated With Support for Policies to Raise the Price of High-Fat and High-Sugar Foods

Abstract

Public policies designed to dramatically raise the price of high-fat and high-sugar foods have received substantial attention from researchers and the media. Although econometric studies suggest that these policies could reduce obesity rates, they are likely to face substantial public opposition. This study used the theory of perceived responsibility and social motivation as a framework to analyze data from a politically diverse convenience sample of 500 adults in upstate New York. The authors examined associations between attribution beliefs and policy support to identify what types of scientific evidence and accompanying messages appear most likely to generate public support for price-raising policies. Results suggest that public health advocates and health communicators could benefit from an increased emphasis on advertising for unhealthy foods as a cause of obesity and the food industry's (manufacturers, advertisers, markets, and restaurants) responsibility for addressing the problem.

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the Cornell Institute for Social Sciences. The study was approved by the Cornell University Institutional Review Board. All participants provided informed consent before participating in the study.

The authors thank Jessica Kendra, Regine Mechulan, Isabel Sterne, Christie Batka, Theodore Lee, and Danielle Bartolo for their valuable assistance with survey programming, study material design and preparation, data collection, analysis, and/or manuscript formatting.

Notes

Note. The table reports means and standard deviation for interval-level variables and reports percentages without standard deviations for categorical variables. BMI = body mass index.

*Respondents reported their weight and height, from which we calculated their BMI: weight in pounds, multiplied by 703, divided by height (in inches) squared.

**Political ideology was measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (very liberal) to 7 (very conservative).

¹Political party affiliation and political ideology appear to play a significant role in shaping responses to messages related to the causes of and solutions for obesity (e.g., Barry et al., 2009; Gollust et al., 2009). In our study, conservatives had lower levels of support than did liberals for both policies and less agreement with statements about the importance of societal-level causes of obesity (e.g., neighborhood and socioeconomic factors) and societal-level solutions for the problem (e.g., government, employers). However, beliefs did not approach the floor or ceiling for either political group (indicating room to change for both), and the pattern of associations between beliefs and policy support were substantively equivalent regardless of political party or ideology. We thus include these variables as controls when calculating partial correlations between each belief and policy support, but we do not report results separately by these factors.

Note. *Policy beliefs were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly oppose) to 5 (strongly support). **Causal beliefs were measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). ***Beliefs about responsibility for addressing the problem were measured on a 4-point scale, whether they think each group bears 1 (hardly any), 2 (just some), 3 (a good amount), or 4 (a great deal of) responsibility for addressing the problem of obesity.

Note. Cells present partial correlations between specific beliefs and support for policy, controlling for randomized condition, age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, employment status, education, income, body mass index, political party, and political ideology.