Can the way we talk about food security influence support for policy change? A new rural health research publication co-authored by UCRH researcher Caroline Deen set out to explore that question.
Published in Public Health Nutrition, the paper, Advocacy to improve food security in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Australia: measuring the impact of message frames, examined whether different advocacy messages could increase public support for an electricity subsidy aimed at improving food security in remote communities.
The study surveyed 1,555 adults from across Australia and tested three different ways of presenting the issue: a human rights frame, a fairness frame and a frame focused on community-identified solutions.
While the different approaches had only a modest impact on overall support for the proposed policy, the research found that messages focused on human rights generated the highest levels of support. Fairness-based messages were the least effective.
The findings highlight how challenging it can be to shift public attitudes on complex social issues, even when proposed solutions are designed to address clear disadvantage. They also suggest that tailoring messages to specific audiences may be more effective than relying on a single approach.
Understanding how advocacy messages are received is an important part of improving public conversations about food security and health equity. The research adds to growing efforts to identify practical ways to build support for policies that can improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities living in remote Australia.
The publication also points to opportunities for future research into how different audiences respond to advocacy messages and how emotional engagement may influence support for policy change.
