{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029166666666666667, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0025, 'mean_word_length': 5.422459893048129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Differential Effects of Message Framing on Obesity Policy Support Between Democrats and Republicans

ABSTRACT This study tests whether gain- and loss-framed messages about establishing obesity-reducing policies have different persuasive effects on Republicans and Democrats. In a randomized between-subject experiment, participants (N = 384) read a message emphasizing either benefits to a society by establishing policies aimed to reduce obesity (i.e., gain-framed message) or costs to a society that fails to establish those policies (i.e., loss-framed message). Results indicated that Democrats perceived the gain-framed message as more persuasive than the loss-framed message and the perceived argument strength fully mediated the framing effect on Democrats’ policy support; however, there was no framing effect on perceived argument strength among Republicans. On the other hand, the gain-framed message led Republicans to attribute the cause of obesity less to the individual level compared to the loss-framed message and the no-message condition. We observed no framing difference among Democrats on causal attributions. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.