Seatbelts and raincoats, or banks and castles: Investigating the impact of vaccine metaphors

While metaphors are frequently used to address misconceptions and hesitancy about vaccines, it is unclear how effective they are in health messaging. Using a between-subject, pretest/posttest design, we investigated the impact of explanatory metaphors on people's attitudes toward vaccines. We recruited participants online in the US (N = 301) and asked them to provide feedback on a (fictional) health messaging campaign, which we organized around responses to five common questions about vaccines. All participants completed a 24-item measure of their attitudes towards vaccines before and after evaluating the responses to the five questions. We created three possible response passages for each vaccine question: two included extended explanatory metaphors, and one contained a literal response (i.e., no explanatory metaphors). Participants were randomly assigned to receive either all metaphors or all 'literal' responses. They rated each response on several dimensions and then described how they would answer the target question about vaccines if it were posed by a friend. Results showed participants in both conditions rated most messages as being similarly understandable, informative, and persuasive, with a few notable exceptions. Participants in both conditions also exhibited a similar small-but significant-increase in favorable attitudes towards vaccines from pre- to posttest. Notably, participants in the metaphor condition provided longer free-response answers to the question posed by a hypothetical friend, with different metaphors being reused to different extents and in different ways in their responses. Taken together, our findings suggest that: (a) Brief health messaging passages may have the potential to improve attitudes towards vaccines, (b) Metaphors neither enhance nor reduce this attitude effect, (c) Metaphors may be more helpful than literal language in facilitating further social communication about vaccines.

Mental models of the protein shift: Exploring consumers' perceptions of the transition

The protein transition is one of today's major societal challenges to mitigate climate change. To support lasting consumer engagement, it has been suggested to look into consumers' understanding of the protein transition to identify barriers that go beyond the practical issues of changing one's diet. The current study explored consumers' mental models of how the transition unfolds to examine which factors consumers perceive as important drivers of the transition. With a fixed set of factors and actors identified with a questionnaire, Dutch consumers (N = 214) mapped their mental models. The content and structure of the mental models were analyzed with a focus on how consumers perceive their own role. Animal well-being and environmental concerns were most often included as important drivers. The findings showed a lack of consensus about which actor(s) drive the transition (i.e., none of the actors were included by a majority of the participants). This diffusion of responsibility may be a barrier for consumers to act. Moreover, the relative simplicity of the observed mental models suggests that consumers do not yet employ systems thinking. A systems thinking mindset may help consumers understand how the system behind the transition works and how their individual contributions matter. Two avenues to encourage consumer engagement were identified: 1) emphasizing the responsibility of different actors and what consumers can contribute, and 2) encouraging a systems thinking mindset.

Why is Mother Earth on Life Support? Metaphors in Environmental Discourse

From mother nature and carbon footprints to greenhouse gasses and the race against global warming, popular discourse on environmental issues is saturated with metaphor. Some people view these metaphors as obfuscating or ineffective, while others believe they are crucial for improving climate communications and environmental attitudes. In this paper, we provide a systematic overview and evaluation of the use of English metaphors in Anglo environmental discourse, drawing on a range of empirical and popular media sources. We begin by discussing the role of metaphor in language in thought. Next, we introduce a range of metaphors used to frame discussions of (1) our relationship to nature (e.g., the earth is our common home), (2) our impact on the environment (e.g., we are knocking the climate off balance), and (3) how we should address this impact (e.g., reduce our ecological footprint). We classify these metaphors along several dimensions, including how conventional they are, how systemic they are, how emotionally impactful they are, and how aptly they capture the topics they are used to describe. From this analysis, we derive several promising candidate metaphors that may help increase public understanding and engagement with environmental issues. However, we note that such claims must be tested empirically in future research; currently, there are few large, systematic, replicable experiments in the literature assessing the impact of environmental metaphors. We conclude by offering general recommendations for using metaphors in communications about climate change and sustainability.

Costs, Evidence, Context and Values: Journalists' and Policy Experts' Recommendations for U.S. Health Policy Coverage

Health policy plays a critical role in determining a state's or nation's overall population health, and health system change has been a priority for a majority of Americans for at least a decade. News coverage can influence health policy development, but little research has examined the quality of that coverage, in part because no consensus exists regarding what information health policy stories should include. This paper describes a series of in-depth interviews with eight health policy experts and 12 experienced journalists who have covered health policy. While rejecting the notion of strict quality criteria that could be applied to all health policy stories, the interviewees agreed on several factors that would improve health policy coverage. They recommended that health policy stories should include information about financial costs to consumers, evidence that a policy will have its intended effect, historical context for the policy, and "relatable hooks" that help consumers understand which groups a policy will affect and how. In addition, the interviewees stressed the importance of building policy coverage on trustworthy sources representing multiple viewpoints and the need to recognize how audience members' values influence their acceptance and interpretation of evidence. These findings provide an important foundation for future research examining the impact of health policy reporting on both public opinion and public policy development.