April 4-6, 2024 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Innovations in Health Communication
Innovations in Health Communication
Abstract: Cultivating Health: Exploring Morally Framed Messages on Fungicide Use and Human Resistance in Agriculture
Background: The unmitigated and increasing use of fungicides in agricultural settings has led to human fungal resistance, posing a serious public health threat, particularly for patients suffering from fungal diseases. Routine professional development trainings offer an opportunity to inform agricultural professionals (e.g., growers, farm managers, farming consultants) on the human implications, and persuade them to adopt the judicial use of fungicide applications. Research on the cognitive, societal, and dispositional factors that influence the adoption of sustainable farming practices has provided a compelling argument for the importance of framing recommendations for farmers (Dessart et al., 2019). Many persuasion scholars have used moral foundations theory (MFT) to guide the design of persuasive messages for highly politicized issues along distinct ideological lines (see Feinberg. & Willer, 2019). Based on the understanding that agricultural professionals are often driven by conservative values such as duty, authority self-discipline, and actions consistent with protecting the “in-group” (Graskemper et al., 2022) we tested whether messaging would be more effective for this population when framed to highlight the “binding” moral values.
Purpose: This exploratory field research examined the effectiveness of morally framed messages on agricultural professionals' knowledge and attitudes toward fungicide use and human resistance. Specifically, the study tested message manipulations in an ecologically valid situation with a population of agricultural professionals who are traditionally difficult to reach.
Methods: The following IRB-approved investigation was a posttest-only, control group field experiment design. Two groups were formed through nonrandom assignment, based on whether participants attended one of the presentations provided by a co-investigator with subject matter expertise (control: n = 16; experimental condition: n = 34). The presentation on human fungal pathogen resistance and the link to agricultural use of fungicides was strategically modified to align with the language and imagery outlined in the moral foundations dictionary to align with the recipients’ moral orientation (Graham et al., 2009). After each presentation, attendees were invited to complete the survey with items assessing knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to fungal resistance and human health. Additional participants were recruited through user-subscribed professional email lists maintained by the state’s cooperative extension service.
Results: Because this is a field experiment, our findings are limited in their ability to draw causal inferences and are interpreted in a way to support future interventions. Statistical analyses revealed a significant difference in knowledge and attitudes about agricultural use of fungicide and human fungal resistance in the predicted direction. This provides an initial examination of the effectiveness of presenting factual information about fungicide resistance to agricultural professionals in a manner consistent with their binding moral values.
Conclusion: Preliminary findings lead the authors to conclude that MFT-based training messages may be an effective strategy to reaching conservative professionals representing the farming community. Findings are not intended to be generalizable; however, they provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of moral framing as a strategy for communicating educational messaging on this topic available to hard-to-reach agriculture professionals from a variety of sources (e.g., University Extension, and certified crop advisors).
Purpose: This exploratory field research examined the effectiveness of morally framed messages on agricultural professionals' knowledge and attitudes toward fungicide use and human resistance. Specifically, the study tested message manipulations in an ecologically valid situation with a population of agricultural professionals who are traditionally difficult to reach.
Methods: The following IRB-approved investigation was a posttest-only, control group field experiment design. Two groups were formed through nonrandom assignment, based on whether participants attended one of the presentations provided by a co-investigator with subject matter expertise (control: n = 16; experimental condition: n = 34). The presentation on human fungal pathogen resistance and the link to agricultural use of fungicides was strategically modified to align with the language and imagery outlined in the moral foundations dictionary to align with the recipients’ moral orientation (Graham et al., 2009). After each presentation, attendees were invited to complete the survey with items assessing knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to fungal resistance and human health. Additional participants were recruited through user-subscribed professional email lists maintained by the state’s cooperative extension service.
Results: Because this is a field experiment, our findings are limited in their ability to draw causal inferences and are interpreted in a way to support future interventions. Statistical analyses revealed a significant difference in knowledge and attitudes about agricultural use of fungicide and human fungal resistance in the predicted direction. This provides an initial examination of the effectiveness of presenting factual information about fungicide resistance to agricultural professionals in a manner consistent with their binding moral values.
Conclusion: Preliminary findings lead the authors to conclude that MFT-based training messages may be an effective strategy to reaching conservative professionals representing the farming community. Findings are not intended to be generalizable; however, they provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of moral framing as a strategy for communicating educational messaging on this topic available to hard-to-reach agriculture professionals from a variety of sources (e.g., University Extension, and certified crop advisors).