Memorable Messages: Networks of Meaning in Breast Cancer. Professor Cynthia Stohl Department of Communication University of California Santa Barbara Presented to the Psychology Department, University of Canterbury Christchurch New Zealand August 19, 2009
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Memorable Messages: Networks of Meaning in Breast Cancer
Professor Cynthia Stohl
Department of Communication
University of California Santa Barbara
Presented to the Psychology Department, University of Canterbury
Christchurch New Zealand
August 19, 2009
This project was carried out as part of the NIEHS/NCI Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Centers, four centers with transdisciplinary research collaborations integrated across biologic, epidemiologic, and community outreach projects. Professor Sandi Smith of Michigan State University leads the memorable message project.
Verbal messages which are remembered for extremely long periods of time and which people perceive as a major influence on the course of their lives. They are retrospective judgments.
Socializing and memorable nature of the messages are enhanced by several recurrent features in their form and structure, the receptivity of the respondent, the content, and the context
Knapp, M. L., Stohl, C., & Reardon, K. K. (1981). "Memorable" Messages. Journal of Communication, 31, 27-41.
Stohl, C. (1986). The role of memorable messages in the process of organizational socialization. Communication Quarterly, 34, 231-249
Memorable Messages—Hitting the target where it matters. What stops you in your tracks?
Like Cupid's arrow, memorable messages cut through the clutter to strike at what's important to the reader. To be seen and read, they must be sharp and focused on your target's wants, needs and desires. Messages that matter are the ones that have meaning to the reader. The more personal— and personalized they are, the more they will be remembered.
Creating memorable messages is utilizing effective communication to move people to act. Memorable messages are the cornerstone of effective marketing messages, whether they are TV commercials, marketing campaigns or product designs, Memorable messages are those that give us confidence in some politicians, authority leaders and products, while we remain distrustful of others. Messaging is the communication of the details on a product or issue that will compel the audience to act on the information received.
BLUE COLLAR WORKERS
Ford, L., Babrow, A. & Stohl, C. (1996). “Social support messages and the management of uncertainty in the experience of breast cancer: An application of problematic integration theory.” Communication Monographs, 63, 189-207.
Ford, L. A. & Ellis, B. H. (1998). A preliminary analysis of memorable support and nonsupport messages received by nurses in acute care settings. Health Communication, 10, 37-63.
Keeley, M. P. (2004). Final conversations: Survivors' memorable messages concerning religious faith and spirituality. Health Communication, 16, 87-104.
Parrott, R., Volkman, J., Ghetian, C., Weiner, J., Raup-Krieger, J., & Parrott, J. (2008). Memorable messages about genes and health: Implications for direct-to-consumer marketing of genetic tests and therapies. Health Marketing Quarterly, 25, 8-32.
Smith, S. W., Atkin, C., Skubisz, C. M., Munday, S., & Stohl, C. (2009). The impact of personal and/or close relationship experience on memorable messages about breast cancer and the perceived speech acts of the sender. Journal of Cancer Education, 24, 129-134.
Smith, S. W. Munday, S., LaPlante, C., Kotowski, M. R., Atkin, C., Skubisz, C. M., & Stohl, C. (2009). Topics and sources of memorable breast cancer messages and their impact on prevention and detection behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 14, 293-307.
are important because they have been found to guide both
behavior and performance assessment (Ellis and Smith, 2004).
The American Cancer Society has
predicted that in 2009 alone,
1,479,350 new cases would be
diagnosed in the United States.
It is the second most common
cancer among women, and
about 1 in 8 women will develop invasive breast
cancer at some time during their life span, whereas
other women will experience concerns related to the disease. Currently, there are over 2 million breast can survivors in the United States.
American women would seek screening for breast cancer (Husaini et al., 2001).
had graduate schooling.
Smith et al.(2009) Topics and Sources of Memorable Breast Cancer Messages and Their Impact on Prevention and Detection Behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 14:293–307, 2009Smith, S., Atkin, C., Skubisz, C., ,Nazione, S., and Stohl, C. (2009). The impact of Personal and/or Close Personal and/or Close Relationships on Memorable Messages About Breast Cancer and the Perceived Speech Acts of the Sender Journal of Cancer Education,24:2,129 — 134
medical professionals (15.2%)
Percentages of topics of memorable messages and their sources
Source BC Awareness Prevention Detection Treatment Total
Family 1.9 (6%) 2.8 (46%) 11.3 (30%) 5.2 (20%) 21.1
Media 16.9 (55%) 1.9 (31%) 9.4 (25%) 7.4 (29%) 35.7
Health Care 2.8 (9%) 0.9 (15%) 9.4 (25%) 1.9 (8%) 15
Friend 7 (23%) 0.5 (8%) 5.6 (15%) 9.4 (37%)22.5
Other 2.3 (7%) 0.0 (0%) 1.9 (5%) 1.4 (6%) 5.6
Total 31% 6.1% 37.6% 25.4%100
Note. Percentages that come first are percentage of total and percentages in parentheses are percent of message topic in each source category.
The Effects of Framing of Memorable Breast Cancer Messages on Engagement in Detection or Prevention Behaviors
Study based on Prospect theory Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky (1979) "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk", Econometrica, XLVII (1979), 263-291.
Framing makes the difference. A and C are the same, and B and D are the same.
benefits (gain-framed) or the costs (loss-framed) of a behavior.
(Dillard & Marshall, 2003; Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Wilson, Purdon, & Wallston, 1988)
O'Keefe and Jensen (2006) supplemented this disambiguation by also considering the kernel states of framed messages. In their words, "The kernel state is the basic, root state mentioned in the message's description of the consequence" (p. 7).
H1: There will be a significant positive association between gain-framed messages and prevention behaviors.
Women who recalled a message with an undesirable kernel state that was less likely to occur engaged in prevention behaviors (M = 1.90, SD = 0.32) to a greater degree than women who did not recall that type of message (M = 1.30, SD = .86), t (55) = 2.18, p < .05, r = .28, P (.04 ≤ ρ ≤ .54) =.95.
Those participants who recalled a memorable message with a desirable kernel state that was more likely engaged in fewer prevention behaviors (M = 1.09, SD = 0.89) than those not exposed to such messages (M = 1.91, SD = 0.29), t (55) = -4.20, p < .05,
H2: There will be a significant positive association between loss-framed messages and detection behaviors.
People exposed to messages that contained an undesirable kernel state that was more likely were no more likely to engage in detection behaviors (M = 1.00, SD = 0.87) than participants who were not exposed to such messages (M = 1.43, SD = 0.72), t (53) = -1.60, ns, r = -.22, P (-.47 ≤ ρ ≤ .03) =.95. Similarly, people who reported messages with a desirable kernel state that was avoided were no more likely (M = 1.67, SD = 0.58) to engage in detection behaviors than those not exposed (SD = 1.35, SD = 0.76), t (53) = 0.71, ns, r = .10, P (-.16 ≤ ρ ≤ .36) =.95.