#18: Health Communication with Allison Earl

08/10/20 • 39 min

Allison Earl studies the challenges of getting health information to people who need it. Her research looks at how people react defensively to information about their health and how to improve it. In this episode, she shares her research on people's tendency to avoid threatening health information and how simple meditation exercises can make people more open to these kinds of messages.
Some things that come up in this episode:

Targeting health information to specific groups makes people feel judged (Derricks & Earl, 2019)
Rejecting information about stimatized health issues (Earl, Nisson, & Albarracín, 2015)
Race disparities in attention to HIV-prevention information (Earl et al., 2016)
Trigger warnings as a way to get people ready for emotional information (Gainsburg & Earl, 2018)
Meditation makes people more open to threatening health information (Takahashi & Earl, 2020)

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/health-communication-with-allison-earl
Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

For a transcript of this episode, visit this episode's page at: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episodes/
Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Targeting health information to specific groups makes people feel judged (Derricks & Earl, 2019)
Rejecting information about stimatized health issues (Earl, Nisson, & Albarracín, 2015)
Race disparities in attention to HIV-prevention information (Earl et al., 2016)
Trigger warnings as a way to get people ready for emotional information (Gainsburg & Earl, 2018)
Meditation makes people more open to threatening health information (Takahashi & Earl, 2020)

Previous Episode

#17: How We Think About Animals with Kristof Dhont

Kristof Dhont studies the psychology behind humans’ complicated feelings about animals. In particular, his research looks at how the existence of “speciesism” can stem from the same psychological factors that also produce other social prejudices. In this episode, Kristof and I talk about how people avoid connecting meat to the animals it comes from, how a social dominance worldview gives rise to speciesism, and what psychology can (and can’t) tell us about effective advocacy.

Check out Dr. Dhont’s new book: Why We Love and Exploit Animals: Bridging Insights from Academia and AdvocacyAnd as I mention at the end of the episode, a few years ago, I wrote my own vegan cookbook: Vegan Spanish Cooking.

Some of the things that come up in this episode:

How people disconnect “meat” from the animals it comes from (Kunst & Hohle, 2016)
Why people still eat meat even when they object to its production (“the meat-paradox”; Bastian & Loughnan, 2016)
Denying animals’ “minds” to justify meat-eating (Bastian, Loughnan, Haslamn, & Radke, 2011)
“Social dominance orientation” (see this helpful summary)
Connecting social dominance and speciesism (Dhont et al., 2014; 2016)
How dehumanization reflects treating animals as lesser beings (Costello & Hodson, 2010)

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/how-we-think-about-animals-with-kristof-dhont/
Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Next Episode

#19: Political Humor as Persuasion with Danna Young

Dr. Dannagal Young studies political humor. She pulls together psychology, communications, and political science, to understand how political satire works to change minds and expand political knowledge. She also has a new book: Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States, which explores how satire became a tool of political left and outrage media because a tool of the political right.
Some things that come up on this episode:

Daily Show viewers were particularly well-informed about the 2004 election (Young, 2004)
Jon Stewart defending the Daily Show on Crossfire (2006)
Jokes lead people to suspend critical thinking about a message (Polk, Young, & Holbert, 2009; Young, 2008)

For a transcript of this show, visit the episode's webpage: http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/episode/political-humor-as-persuasion-with-danna-young
Learn more about Opinion Science at http://opinionsciencepodcast.com/ and follow @OpinionSciPod on Twitter.

Opinion Science - #18: Health Communication with Allison Earl

Transcript

Andy Luttrell:

I hate going to the dentist and it’s not for the typical reasons. I’m not afraid of drilling, and scraping, and clamping. Okay, I’m a little afraid of those things, but I mostly hate it because it kills my self-esteem. It’s never good news. It’s never, “Wow! Great job! Your mouth is perfect! Go home, celebrate!” Instead, it’s, “Well, I found this little problem that’s gonna be annoying to fix, and in the meantime, just don’t smile at