Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 39, Issue 2, Supplement , Pages S13-S19 , March 2007

Designing Media Messages About Health and Nutrition: What Strategies Are Most Effective?

  • Barbara J. Wilson, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Barbara J. Wilson, PhD, Department of Speech Communication, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 702 S. Wright St, MC-456, Urbana, IL 61801; Tel: (217) 352-7551

References 

  1. American Dietetic Association. In Dramatically Increasing Numbers, TV and Magazines Remain Consumers’ Most Popular Sources of Nutrition Information, American Dietetic Association Survey Shows. Available at: http://www.eatright.org. Accessed June 30, 2005.
  2. International Food Information Council. How Consumers Feel About Food and Nutrition Messages. Available at: http://ific1.nisgroup.com/research/newsconvres.cfm. Accessed June 30, 2005.
  3. Patterson RE, Satia JA, Kristal AR, Neuhouser ML, Drewnowski A. Is there a consumer backlash against the diet and health message?. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001;101:37–41
  4. Hornik R, Kelly B. Communication and diet: An overview of experience and principles. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2007;39:S5–S12
  5. Snyder LB. Health communication campaigns and their impact on behavior. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2007;39:S32–S40
  6. Buijzen M, Valkenburg PM. The effects of television advertising on materialism, parent-child conflict, and unhappiness: a review of research. J Appl Dev Psychol. 2003;24:437–456
  7. McLeod DM, Kosicki GM, McLeod J. Resurveying the boundaries of political communication effects. In:  Bryant J,  Zillmann D editor. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002;p. 215–268
  8. Paik HJ, Comstock G. The effects of television violence on antisocial behavior. Comunic Res. 1994;21:516–546
  9. Oliver MB. Individual differences in media effects. In:  Bryant J,  Zillmann D editor. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002;p. 507–524
  10. Slater MD. Choosing audience segmentation strategies and methods for health communication. In:  Maibach E,  Parrott RL editor. Designing Health Messages: Approaches from Communication Theory and Public Health Practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 1995;p. 186–198
  11. American Dietetic Association. Attitudes, Knowledge, Beliefs, Behaviors: Findings of American Dietetic Association’s Public Opinion Survey Nutrition and You: Trends 2002. Available at: http://www.eatright.org. Accessed June 30, 2005.
  12. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1986;
  13. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Strathman AJ, Priester JR. To think or not to think: Exploring two routes to persuasion. In:  Brock TC,  Green MC editor. Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2005;p. 81–116
  14. Petty RE, Kasmer JA, Haugtvedt CP, Cacioppo JT. Source and message factors in persuasion: A reply to Stiff’s critique of the elaboration likelihood model. Commun Monogs. 1987;54:233–249
  15. Petty RE, Priester JR, Brinol P. Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In:  Bryant J,  Zillmann D editor. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002;p. 155–197
  16. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. The effects of involvement on response to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1984;46:69–81
  17. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Involvement and persuasion: tradition versus integration. Psychol Bull. 1990;107:367–374
  18. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE. The need for cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1982;42:116–131
  19. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Feinstein JA, Jarvis WB. Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: the life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:197–253
  20. Ackerman BP. Reason inferences in the story comprehension of children and adults. Child Dev. 1988;59:1426–1442
  21. Smith SL, Wilson BJ. Children’s comprehension of and fear reactions to television news. Media Psych. 2002;4:1–26
  22. Laczniak RN, Muehling DD, Carlson L. Effects of motivation and ability on ad-induced cognitive processing. In:  Holman R editors. Proceedings of the 1991 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. New York, NY: D’Arcy, Masius, Benton & Bowles; 1991;p. 81–87
  23. Chaiken S, Eagly AH. Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1976;34:605–614
  24. Salmon C, Atkin C. Using media campaigns for health promotion. In:  Thompson T,  Dorsey A,  Miller K,  Parrott R editor. Handbook of Health Communication. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003;p. 449–472
  25. American Dietetic Association. Attitudes, Knowledge, Beliefs, Behaviors: Findings of American Dietetic Association’s Public Opinion Survey Nutrition and You: Trends 2002. Available at: http://www.eatright.org. Accessed June 30, 2005.
  26. O’Keefe DJ. Persuasion: Theory & Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications; 2002;
  27. Partnership for Essential Nutrition. Public Service Announcement on Behalf of the Partnership for Essential Nutrition: How to Lose Weight in a Healthy Way. Available at: http://www.essentialnutrition.org/psa_script.php. Accessed April 18, 2006.
  28. Pornpitakpan C. The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2004;34:243–281
  29. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Goldman R. Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1981;41:847–855
  30. Wilson EJ, Sherrell DL. Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. J Acad Mark Sci. 1993;21:101–112
  31. O’Keefe DJ. The persuasive effects of delaying identification of high- and low-credibility communicators: a meta-analytic review. Cent States Speech J. 1987;38:63–72
  32. National Institute of Child Health and Human Services. Milk Matters: Campaign Publications and Materials. Available at: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubskey.cfm?from=milk. Accessed April 24, 2006.
  33. Simons HW, Berkowitz NN, Moyer RJ. Similarity, credibility and attitude change: A review and a theory. Psychol Bull. 1970;73:1–16
  34. Chaiken S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:752–766
  35. UK doctors join chefs in fight against childhood obesity. Available at: http://wwwfoodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=60837-uk-doctors-join. Accessed August 8, 2006.
  36. Woodside AG, Davenport JW. The effect of salesman similarity and expertise on consumer purchasing behavior. J Market Res. 1974;11:198–202
  37. Leavitt C, Kaigler-Evans K. Mere similarity versus information processing: an exploration of source and message interaction. Communic Res. 1975;2:300–306
  38. Wagner W. Social comparison of opinions: similarity, ability, and the value-fact distinction. J Psych. 1984;117:197–202
  39. Berscheid E. Interpersonal attraction. In:  Lindzey G,  Aronson E editor. Handbook of Social Psychology. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Random House; 1985;
  40. Sexy Paris Hilton ads boost burger sales. Available at: http://moneycnn.com/2005/06/01/news/,idcasp/cke_restaurants/inde.htm. Accessed August 9, 2006.
  41. Chaiken S. Physical appearance and social influence. In:  Herman CP,  Zanna MP,  Higgins ET editor. Physical Appearance, Stigma, and Social Behavior: The Ontario Symposium. vol 3:Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1986;
  42. Maddux JE, Rogers RW. Effects of source expertness, physical attractiveness, and supporting arguments on persuasion: a case of brains over beauty. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:235–244
  43. O’Keefe DJ. Standpoint explicitness and persuasive effect: A meta-analytic review of the effects of varying conclusion articulation in persuasive messages. Argumentation and Advocacy. 1987;34:1–12
  44. Hewitt D. Conceptual complexity, environmental complexity, communication salience and attitude change. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1972;2:285–306
  45. Hass RG, Linder DE. Counterargument availability and the effects of message structure on persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1972;23:219–233
  46. O’Keefe DJ. How to handle opposing arguments in persuasive messages: A meta-analytic review of the effects of one-sided and two-sided messages. Communication Yearbook. 1999;22:209–249
  47. Mongeau PA. Another look at fear-arousing persuasive appeals. In:  Allen M,  Preiss RW editor. Persuasion: Advances Through Meta-analysis. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton; 1998;p. 53–68
  48. Boster FJ, Mongeau P. Fear-arousing persuasive messages. Communication Yearbook. 1984;8:330–375
  49. Sutton S. Shock tactics and the myth of the inverted U. Br J Addict. 1992;87:517–519
  50. Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:591–615
  51. Das EHHJ, de Wit JBF, Stroebe W. Fear appeals motivate acceptance of action recommendations: Evidence for a positive bias in the processing of persuasive messages. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29:650–664
  52. Ruiter RAC, Verplanken B, De Cremer D, Kok G. Danger and fear control in response to fear appeals: the role of need for cognition. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. 2004;26:13–24
  53. Taylor SE, Thompson SC. Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychol Rev. 1982;89:155–181
  54. Baesler EJ, Burgoon JK. The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communic Res. 1994;21:582–602
  55. Wilkes MS. The public dissemination of medical research: Problems and solutions. J Health Commun. 1997;2:3–16
  56. Ayoob KT, Duyff RL, Quagliani D. Position of the American Dietetic Association: food and nutrition misinformation. J Am Diet Assoc. 2002;102:260–266
  57. National Health Council. Americans Talk About Science and medical news. Washington, DC: National Health Council; 1997;
  58. Bigresearch. Consumer Multitasking is Putting More Pressure on Marketers in Search of Greater Advertising ROI. Available at: http://www.mediacenter.org/content/3673.cfm4. Accessed June 30, 2005.

PII: S1499-4046(06)00651-8

doi: 10.1016/j.jneb.2006.09.001

Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior
Volume 39, Issue 2, Supplement , Pages S13-S19 , March 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution