Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness
Identifieur interne : 001856 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001855; suivant : 001857Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness
Auteurs : Molly Byrne ; Ruth CurtisSource :
- British Journal of Health Psychology [ 1359-107X ] ; 2000-05.
Abstract
Objective. The written format has been found consistently to be the most effective medium for communicating relatively complex information (e.g. Furnham, Gunter, & Green, 1990). Looking at the communication of health information, Corston and Colman (1997) accounted for media differences by referring to the facts that reading a written presentation is self‐paced (the self‐pacing theory) and that a written presentation contains fewer distracting characteristics than either audio‐visual or auditory‐only presentations (the distraction theory). The present study sought to test these theories. Method. Female students (N = 175) between the ages of 16 and 18 from two secondary schools were exposed to a fictitious health warning and completed a questionnaire immediately afterwards, measuring communication effectiveness via recall. Participants were divided into seven treatment condition groups which varied in the medium of presentation (two written, three audio‐visual and three auditory‐only) and distraction level inherent to the design of the communication. Results. In line with previous literature, the written format was the most effective way to communicate a piece of health‐related information (p < .01). No evidence was provided for the ‘self‐pacing theory’. Substantial support, however, was found for the ‘distraction theory’. Conclusions. In general, minimally distracting communication proved maximally effective. A simple distraction effect, however, was not found within the audio‐visual medium. Here the presentation where the viewers see a reader conveying the message (the ‘talking head’ condition) proved most effective, even though it was not the least distracting. Being able to see someone reading the message appears to convey a special communication advantage on the presentation.
Url:
DOI: 10.1348/135910700168856
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness</title><author><name sortKey="Byrne, Molly" sort="Byrne, Molly" uniqKey="Byrne M" first="Molly" last="Byrne">Molly Byrne</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Health Services Research Centre, Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: molly.byrne@nuigalway.ie</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Curtis, Ruth" sort="Curtis, Ruth" uniqKey="Curtis R" first="Ruth" last="Curtis">Ruth Curtis</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1348/135910700168856</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001856</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001856</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness</title><author><name sortKey="Byrne, Molly" sort="Byrne, Molly" uniqKey="Byrne M" first="Molly" last="Byrne">Molly Byrne</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Health Services Research Centre, Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: molly.byrne@nuigalway.ie</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Curtis, Ruth" sort="Curtis, Ruth" uniqKey="Curtis R" first="Ruth" last="Curtis">Ruth Curtis</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">British Journal of Health Psychology</title><idno type="ISSN">1359-107X</idno><idno type="eISSN">2044-8287</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-05">2000-05</date><biblScope unit="volume">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="189">189</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="199">199</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1359-107X</idno></series><idno type="istex">2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1348/135910700168856</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BJHP36</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1359-107X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Objective. The written format has been found consistently to be the most effective medium for communicating relatively complex information (e.g. Furnham, Gunter, & Green, 1990). Looking at the communication of health information, Corston and Colman (1997) accounted for media differences by referring to the facts that reading a written presentation is self‐paced (the self‐pacing theory) and that a written presentation contains fewer distracting characteristics than either audio‐visual or auditory‐only presentations (the distraction theory). The present study sought to test these theories. Method. Female students (N = 175) between the ages of 16 and 18 from two secondary schools were exposed to a fictitious health warning and completed a questionnaire immediately afterwards, measuring communication effectiveness via recall. Participants were divided into seven treatment condition groups which varied in the medium of presentation (two written, three audio‐visual and three auditory‐only) and distraction level inherent to the design of the communication. Results. In line with previous literature, the written format was the most effective way to communicate a piece of health‐related information (p < .01). No evidence was provided for the ‘self‐pacing theory’. Substantial support, however, was found for the ‘distraction theory’. Conclusions. In general, minimally distracting communication proved maximally effective. A simple distraction effect, however, was not found within the audio‐visual medium. Here the presentation where the viewers see a reader conveying the message (the ‘talking head’ condition) proved most effective, even though it was not the least distracting. Being able to see someone reading the message appears to convey a special communication advantage on the presentation.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Molly Byrne</name><affiliations><json:string>Health Services Research Centre, Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland</json:string><json:string>E-mail: molly.byrne@nuigalway.ie</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Ruth Curtis</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>BJHP36</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Objective. The written format has been found consistently to be the most effective medium for communicating relatively complex information (e.g. Furnham, Gunter, & Green, 1990). Looking at the communication of health information, Corston and Colman (1997) accounted for media differences by referring to the facts that reading a written presentation is self‐paced (the self‐pacing theory) and that a written presentation contains fewer distracting characteristics than either audio‐visual or auditory‐only presentations (the distraction theory). The present study sought to test these theories. Method. Female students (N = 175) between the ages of 16 and 18 from two secondary schools were exposed to a fictitious health warning and completed a questionnaire immediately afterwards, measuring communication effectiveness via recall. Participants were divided into seven treatment condition groups which varied in the medium of presentation (two written, three audio‐visual and three auditory‐only) and distraction level inherent to the design of the communication. Results. In line with previous literature, the written format was the most effective way to communicate a piece of health‐related information (p > .01). No evidence was provided for the ‘self‐pacing theory’. Substantial support, however, was found for the ‘distraction theory’. Conclusions. In general, minimally distracting communication proved maximally effective. A simple distraction effect, however, was not found within the audio‐visual medium. Here the presentation where the viewers see a reader conveying the message (the ‘talking head’ condition) proved most effective, even though it was not the least distracting. Being able to see someone reading the message appears to convey a special communication advantage on the presentation.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.691</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>414.992 x 604.346 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractCharCount>1810</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>4691</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>29532</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>11</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>255</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness</title><refBibs><json:item><host><author></author><title>Table 3. Correlation coeffcients describing relationship between recall, distraction and difculty in concentration variables</title></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>W,J Bottriell</name></json:item><json:item><name>F,N Johnson</name></json:item></author><host><volume>13</volume><pages><last>1049</last><first>1048</first></pages><author></author><title>Medical Science Psychology and Psychiatry</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></host><title>Effect of a speaker's accent on the listener' s memory for verbal material: II. Delayed recall</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>A Buchner</name></json:item><json:item><name>F Faul</name></json:item><json:item><name>E Erdfelder</name></json:item></author><title>G Power: A priori, post hoc, and compromise power analyses for the Macintosh (Version 2.1.2) (Computer program)</title><publicationDate>1997</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S Chaiken</name></json:item><json:item><name>A,H Eagly</name></json:item></author><host><volume>34</volume><pages><last>614</last><first>605</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title><publicationDate>1976</publicationDate></host><title>Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasivenessand message comprehensibility</title><publicationDate>1976</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>S Chaiken</name></json:item><json:item><name>A,H Eagly</name></json:item></author><host><volume>45</volume><pages><last>256</last><first>241</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</title><publicationDate>1983</publicationDate></host><title>Communication modality as a determinant of persuasion: The role of communicator salience</title><publicationDate>1983</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>G,C Chu</name></json:item><json:item><name>W Schramm</name></json:item></author><title>Learning from television: What the research says</title><publicationDate>1967</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>J Cohen</name></json:item></author><title>Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences</title><publicationDate>1977</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>R Corston</name></json:item><json:item><name>A,M Colman</name></json:item></author><host><volume>2</volume><pages><last>194</last><first>185</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Health Psychology</title><publicationDate>1997</publicationDate></host><title>Modality of communication and recall of health-related information</title><publicationDate>1997</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>A Coulter</name></json:item><json:item><name>V Entwistle</name></json:item><json:item><name>D Gilbert</name></json:item></author><title>Informing patients: An assessment of the quality of patient information materials</title><publicationDate>1998</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>W,J Dixon</name></json:item><json:item><name>M,B Brown</name></json:item><json:item><name>L Engelman</name></json:item><json:item><name>J,W Frane</name></json:item><json:item><name>M Hill</name></json:item><json:item><name>R,I Jennrich</name></json:item><json:item><name> Toposek</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>J. D</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></host><title>BMDP statistical software</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A Furnham</name></json:item><json:item><name>B Gunter</name></json:item></author><host><volume>11</volume><pages><last>105</last><first>99</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Educational Television</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></host><title>Sex, presentation mode and memory for violent and non-violent news</title><publicationDate>1985</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A Furnham</name></json:item><json:item><name>B Gunter</name></json:item></author><host><volume>1</volume><pages><last>262</last><first>255</first></pages><author></author><title>Applied Cognitive Psychology</title><publicationDate>1987</publicationDate></host><title>Effects of time of day and medium of presentation on immediate recall of violent and non-violent news</title><publicationDate>1987</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>A Furnham</name></json:item><json:item><name>B Gunter</name></json:item><json:item><name>A Green</name></json:item></author><host><volume>4</volume><pages><last>212</last><first>203</first></pages><author></author><title>Applied Cognitive Psychology</title><publicationDate>1990</publicationDate></host><title>Remembering science: The recall of factual information as a function of the presentation mode</title><publicationDate>1990</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>B Gunter</name></json:item></author><host><volume>6</volume><pages><last>11</last><first>8</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Educational Television</title><publicationDate>1979</publicationDate></host><title>Recall of brief television news items: Effects of presentation mode, picture content and nal position</title><publicationDate>1979</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>B Gunter</name></json:item><json:item><name>A Furnham</name></json:item><json:item><name>J Leese</name></json:item></author><host><volume>1</volume><pages><last>142</last><first>135</first></pages><author></author><title>Social Behaviour</title><publicationDate>1986</publicationDate></host><title>Memory for information from a party political broadcast as a function of the channel of communication</title><publicationDate>1986</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>C Harrison</name></json:item></author><title>Readability in the classroom</title><publicationDate>1980</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>D,E Hinkle</name></json:item><json:item><name>W Wiersma</name></json:item><json:item><name>S,G Jurs</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Applied statistics for the behavioural sciences</title><publicationDate>1994</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>1994</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>N Kishchuk</name></json:item><json:item><name>F Anbar</name></json:item><json:item><name>J O 'loughlin</name></json:item><json:item><name>P Mason</name></json:item><json:item><name>G Silver</name></json:item></author><host><volume>5</volume><pages><last>359</last><first>355</first></pages><author></author><title>American Journal of Health Promotion</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></host><title>Efciency of printed materials in worksite health promotion</title><publicationDate>1991</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>C Roser</name></json:item></author><host><volume>17</volume><pages><last>600</last><first>571</first></pages><author></author><title>Communication Research</title><publicationDate>1990</publicationDate></host><title>Involvement, attention and perceptions of message relevance in the response to persuasive appeals</title><publicationDate>1990</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>S Siegal</name></json:item><json:item><name>N,J Castellan</name></json:item></author><title>Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences</title><publicationDate>1995</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>M,H N Tattersall</name></json:item><json:item><name>P,N Butow</name></json:item><json:item><name>A,M Griffn</name></json:item><json:item><name>S,M Dunn</name></json:item></author><host><volume>12</volume><pages><last>1311</last><first>1305</first></pages><author></author><title>Journal of Clinical Oncology</title><publicationDate>1994</publicationDate></host><title>The take-home message: Patients prefer consultation audiotapes to summary letters</title><publicationDate>1994</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>J,M Wober</name></json:item></author><host><volume>3</volume><pages><last>24</last><first>19</first></pages><author></author><title>Health Education Research</title><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate></host><title>Informing the British public about AIDS</title><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>P,L Wright</name></json:item></author><host><volume>38</volume><pages><last>205</last><first>192</first></pages><author></author><title>Public Opinion Quarterly</title><publicationDate>1974</publicationDate></host><title>Analyzing media effects on advertising responses</title><publicationDate>1974</publicationDate></json:item></refBibs><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>5</volume><publisherId><json:string>BJHP</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>11</total><last>199</last><first>189</first></pages><issn><json:string>1359-107X</json:string></issn><issue>2</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>2044-8287</json:string></eissn><title>British Journal of Health Psychology</title><doi><json:string>10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8287</json:string></doi></host><categories><wos><json:string>social science</json:string><json:string>psychology, clinical</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>health sciences</json:string><json:string>psychology & cognitive sciences</json:string><json:string>clinical psychology</json:string></scienceMetrix></categories><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1348/135910700168856</json:string></doi><id>2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3</id><score>0.023622822</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><availability><p>2000 The British Psychological Society</p></availability><date>2000</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Molly</forename><surname>Byrne</surname></persName><email>molly.byrne@nuigalway.ie</email><affiliation>Health Services Research Centre, Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-2"><persName><forename type="first">Ruth</forename><surname>Curtis</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">British Journal of Health Psychology</title><idno type="pISSN">1359-107X</idno><idno type="eISSN">2044-8287</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8287</idno><imprint><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><pubPlace>Oxford, UK</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000-05"></date><biblScope unit="volume">5</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="189">189</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="199">199</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1348/135910700168856</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BJHP36</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2000</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Objective. The written format has been found consistently to be the most effective medium for communicating relatively complex information (e.g. Furnham, Gunter, & Green, 1990). Looking at the communication of health information, Corston and Colman (1997) accounted for media differences by referring to the facts that reading a written presentation is self‐paced (the self‐pacing theory) and that a written presentation contains fewer distracting characteristics than either audio‐visual or auditory‐only presentations (the distraction theory). The present study sought to test these theories. Method. Female students (N = 175) between the ages of 16 and 18 from two secondary schools were exposed to a fictitious health warning and completed a questionnaire immediately afterwards, measuring communication effectiveness via recall. Participants were divided into seven treatment condition groups which varied in the medium of presentation (two written, three audio‐visual and three auditory‐only) and distraction level inherent to the design of the communication. Results. In line with previous literature, the written format was the most effective way to communicate a piece of health‐related information (p < .01). No evidence was provided for the ‘self‐pacing theory’. Substantial support, however, was found for the ‘distraction theory’. Conclusions. In general, minimally distracting communication proved maximally effective. A simple distraction effect, however, was not found within the audio‐visual medium. Here the presentation where the viewers see a reader conveying the message (the ‘talking head’ condition) proved most effective, even though it was not the least distracting. Being able to see someone reading the message appears to convey a special communication advantage on the presentation.</p></abstract></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2000-05">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-12-12">References added</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-02-8">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley component found"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisherName><publisherLoc>Oxford, UK</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8287</doi><issn type="print">1359-107X</issn><issn type="electronic">2044-8287</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="BJHP"></id><id type="publisherDivision" value="ST"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" sort="BRITISH JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY">British Journal of Health Psychology</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="05102"><doi origin="wiley">10.1111/bjhp.2000.5.issue-2</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="5">5</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue" number="2">2</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2000-05">May 2000</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="6" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley">10.1348/135910700168856</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="BJHP36"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="11"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="tocHeading1">Original Article</title></titleGroup><copyright>2000 The British Psychological Society</copyright><eventGroup><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:BPG_TO_WML3G version:2.4 mode:FullText" date="2010-12-14"></event><event type="firstOnline" date="2010-12-16"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2010-12-16"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-01-07"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-15"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst" number="189">189</numbering><numbering type="pageLast" number="199">199</numbering></numberingGroup><correspondenceTo>Department of General Practice, Clinical Science Institute, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland (e‐mail: <email>molly.byrne@nuigalway.ie</email>).</correspondenceTo><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:BJHP.BJHP36.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="referenceTotal" number="0"></count><count type="linksCrossRef" number="3"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main">Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness</title></titleGroup><creators><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr1" affiliationRef="#a1" corresponding="yes"><personName><givenNames>Molly</givenNames><familyName>Byrne</familyName></personName></creator><creator creatorRole="author" xml:id="cr2" affiliationRef="#a2"><personName><givenNames>Ruth</givenNames><familyName>Curtis</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="a1" countryCode="IE"><unparsedAffiliation>Health Services Research Centre, Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation><affiliation xml:id="a2" countryCode="IE"><unparsedAffiliation>Department of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><p>Objective. The written format has been found consistently to be the most effective medium for communicating relatively complex information (e.g. Furnham, Gunter, & Green, 1990). Looking at the communication of health information, Corston and Colman (1997) accounted for media differences by referring to the facts that reading a written presentation is self‐paced (the self‐pacing theory) and that a written presentation contains fewer distracting characteristics than either audio‐visual or auditory‐only presentations (the distraction theory). The present study sought to test these theories. Method. Female students (<i>N</i> = 175) between the ages of 16 and 18 from two secondary schools were exposed to a fictitious health warning and completed a questionnaire immediately afterwards, measuring communication effectiveness via recall. Participants were divided into seven treatment condition groups which varied in the medium of presentation (two written, three audio‐visual and three auditory‐only) and distraction level inherent to the design of the communication. Results. In line with previous literature, the written format was the most effective way to communicate a piece of health‐related information (<i>p</i> < .01). No evidence was provided for the ‘self‐pacing theory’. Substantial support, however, was found for the ‘distraction theory’. Conclusions. In general, minimally distracting communication proved maximally effective. A simple distraction effect, however, was not found within the audio‐visual medium. Here the presentation where the viewers see a reader conveying the message (the ‘talking head’ condition) proved most effective, even though it was not the least distracting. Being able to see someone reading the message appears to convey a special communication advantage on the presentation.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Molly</namePart><namePart type="family">Byrne</namePart><affiliation>Health Services Research Centre, Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: molly.byrne@nuigalway.ie</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Ruth</namePart><namePart type="family">Curtis</namePart><affiliation>Department of Psychology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Oxford, UK</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000-05</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">Objective. The written format has been found consistently to be the most effective medium for communicating relatively complex information (e.g. Furnham, Gunter, & Green, 1990). Looking at the communication of health information, Corston and Colman (1997) accounted for media differences by referring to the facts that reading a written presentation is self‐paced (the self‐pacing theory) and that a written presentation contains fewer distracting characteristics than either audio‐visual or auditory‐only presentations (the distraction theory). The present study sought to test these theories. Method. Female students (N = 175) between the ages of 16 and 18 from two secondary schools were exposed to a fictitious health warning and completed a questionnaire immediately afterwards, measuring communication effectiveness via recall. Participants were divided into seven treatment condition groups which varied in the medium of presentation (two written, three audio‐visual and three auditory‐only) and distraction level inherent to the design of the communication. Results. In line with previous literature, the written format was the most effective way to communicate a piece of health‐related information (p < .01). No evidence was provided for the ‘self‐pacing theory’. Substantial support, however, was found for the ‘distraction theory’. Conclusions. In general, minimally distracting communication proved maximally effective. A simple distraction effect, however, was not found within the audio‐visual medium. Here the presentation where the viewers see a reader conveying the message (the ‘talking head’ condition) proved most effective, even though it was not the least distracting. Being able to see someone reading the message appears to convey a special communication advantage on the presentation.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>British Journal of Health Psychology</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1359-107X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">2044-8287</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1111/(ISSN)2044-8287</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">BJHP</identifier><part><date>2000</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>5</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>189</start><end>199</end><total>11</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1348/135910700168856</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">BJHP36</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">2000 The British Psychological Society</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001856 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001856 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:2C964703A94403550A2F015ABDCFDCD90CE3DEF3
|texte= Designing health communication: Testing the explanations for the impact of communication medium on effectiveness
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |