CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 278Obesity and Health PracticesObesity, Physical Activity, DietPublic Health Policies and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Obesity Metaphors: How Beliefs about the Causes of Obesity Affect Support for Public Policy

Open access
BARRY, COLLEEN L., BRESCOLL, VICTORIA L., BROWNELL, KELLY D., SCHLESINGER, MARK·2009·The Milbank Quarterly
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00546.xPMC PMC2879183
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

CONTEXT: Relatively little is known about the factors shaping public attitudes toward obesity as a policy concern. This study examines whether individuals' beliefs about the causes of obesity affect their support for policies aimed at stemming obesity rates. This article identifies a unique role of metaphor-based beliefs, as distinct from conventional political attitudes, in explaining support for obesity policies. METHODS: This article used the Yale Rudd Center Public Opinion on Obesity Survey, a nationally representative web sample surveyed from the Knowledge Networks panel in 2006/07 (N = 1,009). The study examines how respondents' demographic and health characteristics, political attitudes, and agreement with seven obesity metaphors affect support for sixteen policies to reduce obesity rates. FINDINGS: Including obesity metaphors in regression models helps explain public support for policies to curb obesity beyond levels attributable solely to demographic, health, and political characteristics. The metaphors that people use to understand rising obesity rates are strong predictors of support for public policy, and their influence varies across different types of policy interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last five years, the United States has begun to grapple with the implications of dramatically escalating rates of obesity. Individuals use metaphors to better understand increasing rates of obesity, and obesity metaphors are independent and powerful predictors of support for public policies to curb obesity. Metaphorical reasoning also offers a potential framework for using strategic issue framing to shift support for obesity policies.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00546.x

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Baker L., 2003, Validity of the Survey of Health and Internet and Knowledge Network's Panel and Sampling
  2. Campos P., 2004, The Obesity Myth
  3. Ehrenreich B., 2001, Welcome to Cancer Land, Harpers Magazine, 43
  4. Entman R., 2001, Mediated Politics, 203
  5. Gamson W.A., 1992, Talking Politics
  6. McGinnis M., 2004, Obesity: An American Public Health Epidemic
  7. Mintz S., 1997, Morality and Health, 173
  8. Rein M., 1994, Frame Reflections: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies.
  9. Stone D., 1988, Policy Paradox and Political Reason
  10. Taylor P., 2006, Americans See Weight Problems Everywhere but in the Mirror

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–277 of 277

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
BARRY, C. L., BRESCOLL, V. L., BROWNELL, K. D., & SCHLESINGER, M.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
BARRY, COLLEEN L.
ORCID
Venue
The Milbank Quarterly
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03
Volume
87
Issue
1
Pages
7-47
ISSN
  • 0887-378X (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0009
DOI
10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00546.x
PMC
PMC2879183
OpenAlex
W2157927542
Cited by
278
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 23
FWCI
49.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 10 d)
Locations
  • Milbank Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Yale University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity and Health Practices
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Public Health Policies and Education
Keywords
obesity, public opinion, causal beliefs, public policy support, obesity prevention policy, political attitudes, issue framing, metaphorical reasoning, health policy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Connecticut, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Pilot Projects, Public Opinion, Public Policy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, United States, Logistic Models, Metaphor, Overweight, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review