Informed by theory and research on attributions and narrative persuasion, we compared the effectiveness of narrative and nonnarrative messages in changing attributions of responsibility for causes and solutions related to obesity in the United States. We randomly assigned 500 adults to view one of three messages (narrative, evidence, and a hybrid of the two) emphasizing environmental causes of obesity, or a no-exposure control condition. The narrative condition increased the belief that societal actors (government, employers) are responsible for addressing obesity, but only among liberals. This pattern of results was partially explained by the success of the narrative condition in reducing reactive counterarguing, relative to the evidence condition, among liberals. We conclude with theoretical and practical implications.

Narrative messages have the potential to convey causal attribution information about complex social issues. This study examined attributions about obesity, an issue characterized by interrelated biological, behavioral, and environmental causes. Participants were randomly assigned to read one of three narratives emphasizing societal causes and solutions for obesity or an unrelated story that served as the control condition. The three narratives varied in the extent to which the character in the story acknowledged personal responsibility (high, moderate, and none) for controlling her weight. Stories that featured no acknowledgment and moderate acknowledgment of personal responsibility, while emphasizing environmental causes and solutions, were successful at increasing societal cause attributions about obesity and, among conservatives, increasing support for obesity-related policies relative to the control group. The extent to which respondents were able to make connections between individual and environmental causes of obesity (complex integration) mediated the relationship between the moderate acknowledgment condition and societal cause attributions. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of this work for narrative persuasion theory and health communication campaigns.

Compared to positive political ads, negative political ads presented on radio appear to be a two-edged sword that can sometimes cut the sponsor more than the target. In an experiment with college students, negative issue ads were perceived as relatively fair and resulted in a competitive advantage for the sponsor of the ad over the target of the ad. But negative image ads were seen as relatively unfair and resulted in a backlash against the sponsor. Negative ad arguments were remembered more than were arguments from positive ads.

No abstract

In patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis but at lower risk of perioperative death, how do minimally invasive techniques compare with open surgery? Prompted by a recent trial, an expert panel produced these recommendations based on three linked rapid systematic reviews