为什么社会经济健康不平等不可接受?研究解释框架对认知评价的影响

IF 1.8 4区 社会学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1111/asap.12415
Emma K. Bridger, Angela Tufte‐Hewett, David Comerford, Daniel Nettle
{"title":"为什么社会经济健康不平等不可接受?研究解释框架对认知评价的影响","authors":"Emma K. Bridger, Angela Tufte‐Hewett, David Comerford, Daniel Nettle","doi":"10.1111/asap.12415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Studies of aversion to health inequality have found that this is often greater when health outcomes are presented as varying with socioeconomic conditions. We sought to understand better why this is by studying the cognitive appraisals made about health inequality when presented with distinct explanatory framings. Across two pre‐registered studies (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 1321), UK and US participants judged the acceptability of life expectancy differences attributed to distinct framings: income, education, social class, neighborhood, lifestyle choices, and genetics. Health inequality was least acceptable when attributed to the four socioeconomic framings, and most acceptable for lifestyle choices and genetics. Six appraisal dimensions—complexity, malleability, inevitability, and extent driven by biological, psychological, and sociocultural causes—varied with framing and predicted views on health inequality. These dimensions could explain most of the drop in acceptability for health inequality attributed to socioeconomic factors relative to a condition with no framing. This work illustrates for the first time the cognitive appraisals and causal intuitions that link different explanatory framings to views on health inequality. These framings are viewed as least acceptable because they reduce the perceived involvement of biological causes while increasing the perception that sociocultural and psychological factors contribute to health inequality.Public significance statement: Academics use different socioeconomic variables to describe health inequalities. We show that different explanatory framings change appraisals about the causes, malleability, and inevitability of health inequalities. Socioeconomic explanations (income, education, social class, and neighborhood) reduce acceptability because they reduce the perception that health is biologically caused and increase the perceived role of socio‐cultural factors. Public support for intervention on health inequalities will be best served by framings that emphasize these differences","PeriodicalId":46799,"journal":{"name":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","volume":"202 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why are socioeconomic health inequalities unacceptable? Studying the influence of explanatory framings on cognitive appraisals\",\"authors\":\"Emma K. Bridger, Angela Tufte‐Hewett, David Comerford, Daniel Nettle\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/asap.12415\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Studies of aversion to health inequality have found that this is often greater when health outcomes are presented as varying with socioeconomic conditions. We sought to understand better why this is by studying the cognitive appraisals made about health inequality when presented with distinct explanatory framings. Across two pre‐registered studies (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 1321), UK and US participants judged the acceptability of life expectancy differences attributed to distinct framings: income, education, social class, neighborhood, lifestyle choices, and genetics. Health inequality was least acceptable when attributed to the four socioeconomic framings, and most acceptable for lifestyle choices and genetics. Six appraisal dimensions—complexity, malleability, inevitability, and extent driven by biological, psychological, and sociocultural causes—varied with framing and predicted views on health inequality. These dimensions could explain most of the drop in acceptability for health inequality attributed to socioeconomic factors relative to a condition with no framing. This work illustrates for the first time the cognitive appraisals and causal intuitions that link different explanatory framings to views on health inequality. These framings are viewed as least acceptable because they reduce the perceived involvement of biological causes while increasing the perception that sociocultural and psychological factors contribute to health inequality.Public significance statement: Academics use different socioeconomic variables to describe health inequalities. We show that different explanatory framings change appraisals about the causes, malleability, and inevitability of health inequalities. Socioeconomic explanations (income, education, social class, and neighborhood) reduce acceptability because they reduce the perception that health is biologically caused and increase the perceived role of socio‐cultural factors. Public support for intervention on health inequalities will be best served by framings that emphasize these differences\",\"PeriodicalId\":46799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"202 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12415\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12415","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对健康不平等的厌恶研究发现,当健康结果随社会经济条件的变化而变化时,这种厌恶往往会更强烈。我们试图通过研究不同解释框架下人们对健康不平等的认知评价来更好地理解为什么会出现这种情况。在两项预先登记的研究中(N = 1321),英国和美国的参与者根据不同的框架(收入、教育、社会阶层、邻里关系、生活方式选择和遗传学)来判断预期寿命差异的可接受性。当健康不平等归因于四种社会经济框架时,其可接受性最低,而归因于生活方式选择和遗传时,其可接受性最高。六个评价维度--复杂性、可塑性、不可避免性以及由生物、心理和社会文化原因驱动的程度--随框架的变化而变化,并预测对健康不平等的看法。相对于没有框架的条件,这些维度可以解释社会经济因素导致的健康不平等可接受性下降的大部分原因。这项研究首次说明了将不同的解释框架与对健康不平等的看法联系起来的认知评价和因果直觉。这些框架被认为是最不可接受的,因为它们减少了生物原因的参与,同时增加了社会文化和心理因素对健康不平等的影响:学术界使用不同的社会经济变量来描述健康不平等。我们的研究表明,不同的解释框架改变了人们对健康不平等的原因、可塑性和不可避免性的评价。社会经济解释(收入、教育、社会阶层和邻里关系)降低了可接受性,因为这些解释降低了人们对健康是由生物因素造成的看法,增加了人们对社会文化因素作用的看法。强调这些差异的框架最有利于公众支持对健康不平等进行干预
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Why are socioeconomic health inequalities unacceptable? Studying the influence of explanatory framings on cognitive appraisals
Studies of aversion to health inequality have found that this is often greater when health outcomes are presented as varying with socioeconomic conditions. We sought to understand better why this is by studying the cognitive appraisals made about health inequality when presented with distinct explanatory framings. Across two pre‐registered studies (N = 1321), UK and US participants judged the acceptability of life expectancy differences attributed to distinct framings: income, education, social class, neighborhood, lifestyle choices, and genetics. Health inequality was least acceptable when attributed to the four socioeconomic framings, and most acceptable for lifestyle choices and genetics. Six appraisal dimensions—complexity, malleability, inevitability, and extent driven by biological, psychological, and sociocultural causes—varied with framing and predicted views on health inequality. These dimensions could explain most of the drop in acceptability for health inequality attributed to socioeconomic factors relative to a condition with no framing. This work illustrates for the first time the cognitive appraisals and causal intuitions that link different explanatory framings to views on health inequality. These framings are viewed as least acceptable because they reduce the perceived involvement of biological causes while increasing the perception that sociocultural and psychological factors contribute to health inequality.Public significance statement: Academics use different socioeconomic variables to describe health inequalities. We show that different explanatory framings change appraisals about the causes, malleability, and inevitability of health inequalities. Socioeconomic explanations (income, education, social class, and neighborhood) reduce acceptability because they reduce the perception that health is biologically caused and increase the perceived role of socio‐cultural factors. Public support for intervention on health inequalities will be best served by framings that emphasize these differences
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Recent articles in ASAP have examined social psychological methods in the study of economic and social justice including ageism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, status quo bias and other forms of discrimination, social problems such as climate change, extremism, homelessness, inter-group conflict, natural disasters, poverty, and terrorism, and social ideals such as democracy, empowerment, equality, health, and trust.
期刊最新文献
Associations between negative sexual messaging in childhood and sex guilt in adulthood Anti‐egalitarianism motivates denial of male privilege Do I have to blame the perpetrator if I can't blame the victim anymore? Bystander responsibility in contact sexual violence scenarios Dehumanization in the United States carceral system: Pathways to policy reform Expectancy violations after moral transgressions: Exploring the role of moral disengagement on online vindictive word of mouth
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1