No abstract

This research focuses on the topics of crisis construction, obesity policy within the United States, and the importance of policy narratives to both. A policy crisis is socially constructed by an underlying policy narrative. Using the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF), this research asserts that three elements and one political strategy of a policy narrative must be present for the social construction of a chronic crisis leading to substantial policy change. The three elements include attributing the causes of the problem to society, having societal solutions, and allowing policy entrepreneurs seeking a significant change in government's response to tell their stories as source cues. The political strategy for successful policy change is engaging in problem surfing or attaching obesity to more general and prominent societal problems. Using the NPF and applying it to the contemporary issue of obesity policy within the United States, we examine the policy narratives embedded in 164 newspaper articles spanning the year 2011. We find that while newspaper articles had more pro-regulatory source cues, overall they attribute obesity to individual causes, suggest individual solutions, and limit the use of problem surfing. We discuss the results both within the context of obesity policy and the larger context of the role policy narratives in policy change.

As witnessed by recent national policy battles over health care and climate change, the policy environment in the United States (U.S.) is increasingly politically polarized. U.S. public policy is progressively driven by divisive symbols and dominated by morality debates often articulated in the form of emotional narratives. One such issue that has gained attention in the U.S., partially due to efforts of First Lady Michelle Obama, is the increasing levels of obesity. Obesity policy advocates warn that the U.S. is facing a crisis that impacts not only our health, but our national competitiveness; not only our military preparedness, but our national security. Our goal is not to get involved in the scientific debate over obesity and its costs to society but rather to explore the role that policy narratives and causal attribution play in determining attitudes toward obesity and obesity policy. We contend that an individual's view of obesity is shaped by their view of individual rights and responsibilities and of individual morality; and determined more by stories (especially narratives that “fit” with those views) than by science. Our paper seeks to test whether science or other factors primarily shape one's view of government's appropriate role relative to the obesity issue and to examine which of two foundational moral narratives is more convincing in the obesity policy realm. Using a sample of 172 respondents at two institutions of higher education in the United States, we find that a “Strict Father Morality” narrative was more convincing than a science statement in influencing an individual's view of obesity. Respondents believed that obesity was a serious problem, but they were deeply divided over government's role in addressing the obesity issue. Female respondents were the most supportive of governmental efforts to address obesity. We explore the potential impact of our findings for public policy development and future research.