Page 287 - The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing

Public Support for Regulating the Public 263

support link is not supported by studies in the alcohol (Latimer et al., 2001)
and drug control (Timberlake, Lock, & Rasinski, 2003) domains.
An important variant of this view focuses on the ideological framing of
an issue and its degree of support. Within the welfare domain, the critical
distinction is between the deserving needy, such as children, and the un-
deserving, such as able-bodied adults (Pereira & Van Ryzin, 1998). More
broadly, this may be seen as drawing a distinction between structural and
behavioral explanations for why a person is needy (Reutter, Harrison, &
Neufeld, 2002). At a more abstract level, Free and Cantril (1968, p. 37)
have described the American view of federal programs as a “schizoid com-
bination of operational liberalism with ideological conservatism” (Feldman
& Zaller, 1992). The essence of ideological conservatism is a combination
of individualism and anti–big government, whereas operational liberalism
translates into supporting humanitarian reasons for specific programs that
aid the deserving needy (Feldman & Zaller, 1992).
In numerous papers, Wallack and his colleagues have argued that a
critical barrier to public support for public health policies is that “the first
language of American culture is individualism” (Wallack & Lawrence,
2005, p. 567). This theme is pervasive in the public health literature.
Individualism is viewed as one of the key reasons why the general public
views problem behaviors as owing to individual choices rather than social/
structural “upstream” forces. Concern over individualism explains why
Wallack and his colleagues frequently express a negative view of conven-
tional health education or social marketing campaigns that focus on alter-
ing individual behavior (Wallack & Dorfman, 1996; Winett & Wallack,
1996). Support for the belief that individualism undercuts support for
public health policies is found in the analysis of case studies where the
agents engaged in communications intended to reframe the source of a
problem behavior in social (not personal) terms and succeeded in engen-
dering policy change.

From Support to Policy

The goal of the process depicted by Figure 9.1 is to influence policy. In the
primary path, the agent communicates with the media, which in turn
communicate with the public, which in turn communicates its support for
the policy to legislators, who in turn make the proposed policy law. The
critical link between public support and legislative action (Link “h”) is
supported by numerous studies in the political science domain (Greenfield
et al., 2004; Pereira and Van Ryzin, 1998). Hersch, Del Rossi, and Viscusi
(2004) reported a positive relationship between the proportion of voters in