TABLE 5.

Metaphors Explaining Support for 16 Obesity Policies

Redistributive Policies	Compensatory Policies	Price-Raising Policies
School lunches	Zoning laws	Grocer surcharge
Toxic food environment(↑) School concessions Toxic food environment(↑) Tax credits Sinful behavior(↓) Industry manipulation(↑) Toxic food environment(↑) Low-income summer camps Sinful behavior(↓) Eating disorder(↑) Toxic food environment(↑) Body-image campaign Eating disorder(↑) Toxic food environment(↑)	Sinful behavior(↓) Eating disorder(↑) Industry manipulation(↑) Toxic food environment(↑) Food labeling Sinful behavior(↓) Addiction(↑) Toxic food environment(↑) Public-service announcements Industry manipulation(↑) Toxic food environment(↑) Food advertising Industry manipulation(↑) Toxic food environment(↑) Food establishments Industry manipulation(↑) Toxic food environment(↑)	Industry manipulation(↑) Toxic food environment(↑) Junk-food tax Industry manipulation(↑) Toxic food environment(↑) Insurer premiums Sinful behavior(↑) Disability(↓)
Treatment programs Sinful behavior(↓) Disability(↑) Eating disorder(↑) Toxic food environment(↑) Worker paid time Sinful behavior(↓) Eating disorder(↑) Time crunch(↑) Toxic food environment(↑)	Antidiscrimination protections Sinful behavior(↓) Disability(↑) Eating disorder(↑) Addiction(↑) Time crunch(↑) Toxic food environment(↑)

Note: For reference, Table 3 includes a full description of the 16 obesity policies. In these models, we coded each causal narrative variable as 1 if a respondent endorsed it as an important (10 percent or greater) cause of obesity and zero otherwise. Narratives are included in the table if they were significantly associated (at either the 0.05 or 0.01 level) with supporting a specific obesity policy. A ↑ indicates that a narrative was positively associated with policy support, while a ↓ indicates that the narrative was negatively associated with policy support. Policies are arrayed in each column from high to low public support.