Does ‘Moral Reframing’ Impact Support for Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities in the UK? An Experimental Vignette Study

Export Citation

Nicholls, J orcid iconORCID: 0000-0003-4638-1972, Jones, A, Maynard, O, Askew, R orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-6281-227X, Montgomery, C orcid iconORCID: 0000-0003-2805-5807, Holland, A orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-3617-1966 and Sumnall, H orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-7841-9245 (2026) Does ‘Moral Reframing’ Impact Support for Supervised Drug Consumption Facilities in the UK? An Experimental Vignette Study. Contemporary Drug Problems. ISSN 0091-4509

[thumbnail of nicholls-et-al-2026-does-moral-reframing-impact-support-for-supervised-drug-consumption-facilities-in-the-uk-an.pdf]
Preview
 Text
nicholls-et-al-2026-does-moral-reframing-impact-support-for-supervised-drug-consumption-facilities-in-the-uk-an.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (908kB) | Preview

Abstract

The provision of supervised drug consumption facilities (SDCF) is a recent development in the United Kingdom (UK). The only currently operating facility opened in Glasgow in 2025. It has attracted extensive media and political scrutiny, often framed in moral terms. This experimental vignette study examined the role of moral judgements in UK debates on SDCF provision through the lens of Moral Foundations Theory (MFT).

We undertook a cross-sectional online experimental study with a randomised factorial design. Participants (N=1,506; 52% female; mean age 47±16 years) were randomly assigned one of seven short vignettes. Six made an argument in favour of SDCF provision, framed around one of the six moral foundations identified in the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, Version 2 (MFQ-2). One provided a neutral description of SDCFs. Participants then answered two questions on support for SDCF provision either (a) in the UK or (b) in their local area.

Across all groups, support for SDCF provision somewhere in the UK was broadly positive. However, exposure to different message frames was not associated with differences in level of support. In contrast, only participants exposed to the care/harm framing vignette showed support for an SDCF in their own neighbourhood. Furthermore, MFQ-2 scores showed only limited associations with support: specifically, orientation towards the care/harm foundation predicted greater support for local provision.

Our findings suggest that moral framing may have limited persuasive effect when policy proposals are hypothetical or abstract, but that some types of moral considerations may become more salient as interventions are concretised in local contexts. The findings raise questions about the extent to which MFQ scores predict opinions on specific drug policy issues and invite further research on the role of emotional salience in shaping public responses to drug policy proposals.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: 11 Medical and Health Sciences; 16 Studies in Human Society; 32 Biomedical and clinical sciences; 42 Health sciences; 44 Human society
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
H Social Sciences > HN Social history and conditions. Social problems. Social reform
R Medicine > RS Pharmacy and materia medica
Divisions: Psychology (from Sep 2019)
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date of acceptance: 25 August 2026
Date of first compliant Open Access: 30 September 2026
Date Deposited: 30 Sep 2026 13:02
Last Modified: 30 Sep 2026 13:02
DOI or ID number: 10.1177/00914509261488595
URI: https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/29571
View Item View Item
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)