What sways public opinion? An experimental study on moral vs. evidence-based arguments for drug harm reduction.
Saved in:
| Title: | What sways public opinion? An experimental study on moral vs. evidence-based arguments for drug harm reduction. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Ruiz Flores López, Pamela (AUTHOR), Sánchez Hiza, Óscar (AUTHOR), Zizumbo-Colunga, Daniel (AUTHOR), Cruz Lathrop, Rocío (AUTHOR), Vásquez Salazar, Juan Camilo (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy. Aug2025, Vol. 32 Issue 4, p358-368. 11p. |
| Subjects: | Substance abuse prevention, Drug control, Health attitudes, Health policy, Statistical sampling, Health, Public opinion, Information resources, Decision making, Harm reduction, Ethics, Experimental design, Surveys, Communication, Health behavior, Health education, Drug laws, Public health, Social support, Practical politics, Regression analysis, Social stigma |
| Geographic Terms: | Mexico |
| Abstract: | Background: Unlike evidence-based approaches, public drug policies are shaped more by political factors, with public opinion playing a key role. We hypothesized that using moral arguments in favor of harm reduction would carry greater levels of support in public opinion over empirical evidence arguments in favor of harm reduction. Methods: Based on the experimental methodology embedded within an omnibus survey, we employed a convenience sample consisting of 635 observations, with the survey conducted in Mexico. Participants were presented with either a moral or empirical evidence argument in favor of harm reduction. They then answered questions regarding their support for harm reduction (Support), willingness to donate to a harm reduction NGO (Donation), and willingness to vote for a candidate who supports harm reduction (Vote). Results: Willingness to donate to harm reduction was associated with moral arguments', and we found that conservatives showed greater support for harm reduction when presented with a moral argument. Conclusion: The use of moral arguments in favor of harm reduction is related to greater public support. These results have significant implications for attracting donations to harm reduction organizations and to improve the acceptance of conservatives of measures related to the model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Background: Unlike evidence-based approaches, public drug policies are shaped more by political factors, with public opinion playing a key role. We hypothesized that using moral arguments in favor of harm reduction would carry greater levels of support in public opinion over empirical evidence arguments in favor of harm reduction. Methods: Based on the experimental methodology embedded within an omnibus survey, we employed a convenience sample consisting of 635 observations, with the survey conducted in Mexico. Participants were presented with either a moral or empirical evidence argument in favor of harm reduction. They then answered questions regarding their support for harm reduction (Support), willingness to donate to a harm reduction NGO (Donation), and willingness to vote for a candidate who supports harm reduction (Vote). Results: Willingness to donate to harm reduction was associated with moral arguments', and we found that conservatives showed greater support for harm reduction when presented with a moral argument. Conclusion: The use of moral arguments in favor of harm reduction is related to greater public support. These results have significant implications for attracting donations to harm reduction organizations and to improve the acceptance of conservatives of measures related to the model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09687637 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/09687637.2024.2440413 |
