Distinctive Qualities in Communication Research by Carbaugh Donal;Buzzanell Patrice M.;Buzzanell Dr Patrice M;

Author:Carbaugh, Donal;Buzzanell, Patrice M.;Buzzanell, Dr Patrice M;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Taylor & Francis Group
Published: 2011-02-01T00:00:00+00:00

MESSAGE DESIGN

Communication scholars focus on the message, itself, while others see communication in a more simplistic way as a means toward an end such as health promotion. This plays out most clearly in public health campaigns. My colleague, Roxanne Parrott (2004), has long made the claim, supported by my observations as a grant reviewer, that researchers without a communication perspective rely on “information” to induce change. Lacking a deep understanding of messages, they pay little attention to what form the message takes and how it is delivered. The insufficiency of this approach is evident in a number of domains. A series of meta-analyses in school-based drug prevention, for example, demonstrates that information-only campaigns fail to influence adolescence substance use and this finding has led prevention researchers to focus on the social processes involved in these health behaviors (Tobler et al., 2000). The fact that a number of very effective prevention programs now exist across health domains reflects the emergence of a deeper understanding of communication processes (Bierman & Greenberg, 1996; Botvin, Schinke, Epstein, Diaz, & Botvin, 1995; Buller, 2006; Hawkins & Catalano, 1992; Hecht & Miller-Day, in press; Spoth, Redmond, & Shin, 2000).

Communication has much to contribute to this emerging body of knowledge. Building on rhetorical traditions while breaking away from its restrictive humanistic lens, communication scholars have long studied the forms of the message and the processes of their delivery. From McCroskey’s (1968) early work on evidence and credibility, Ev Rogers’ (2003; Singhal & Rogers, 2003) work on diffusion of innovation, and DeVito’s work on language (1970) to more recent advances such as M. Burgoon’s work on message intensity (Hamilton, Hunter, & Burgoon, 1990) and Donohue, Palmgreen and the Kentucky group’s message sensation value (Donohew, Palmgreen, Zimmerman, Harrington, & Lane, 2003), this work shows that “providing” information is very much about the form of the message and how it is delivered. One can focus on any number of lines of research in this area, including work in message design (Ajzen, 2002; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1981; Parrott, 2004), message adaptation processes (Gallois, Ogay, & Giles, 2005), as well as message targeting and tailoring (Kreuter, Lukwago, Bucholtz, Clark, & Sanders-Thompson, 2003; Kreuter, Strecher, & Glasman, 1999; Strecher, Wang, Derry, Wildenhaus, & Johnson, 2002; Strecher et al., 2005). Advances in the understanding of influence processes (Cialdini, Reno, & Kallgren, 1990; Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992) have also contributed in this area. Thus, we can see that communication scholars have made many valuable contributions to community-based research.

While numerous message forms provide communication research with a unique perspective on public health research, prominent among these has been our understanding of the role of narrative. From the work of Walter Fisher (1987) to more recent advances from my colleague Michelle Miller-Day (2004), narrative is seen as a message structure (i.e., putting messages in the form of a story) as well as a form of persuasive appeal or argument (i.e., narrative appeals). Narrative theory conceptualizes human thought and behavior as based on story telling. Narrative form

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.