Effects of Message-Sidedness on Perceived Source Bias: When Presenting Two Sides Does Versus Does Not Alleviate Concerns About Bias

Communicators commonly present two-sided messages to avoid being perceived as biased. This approach equates bias with one-sidedness rather than divergence from the position supported by available data. Messages often concern topics with mixed qualities: a product is exceptional but expensive; a politician is inexperienced but ethical. For these topics, providing a two-sided message should reduce perceived bias according to both views of bias as one-sidedness and divergence from available data. However, if perceived bias follows divergence from available data, for topics viewed as one-sided (univalent), a two-sided message should not reduce perceived bias. Across five studies, acknowledging two sides reduced perceived bias for novel topics. In two of the studies, two-sidedness no longer reduced perceived bias for topics viewed as univalent. This work clarifies that people conceptualize bias as a divergence from available data, not simply one-sidedness. It also clarifies when and how to leverage message-sidedness to reduce perceived bias.

Exploring the Strategic Use of TikTok for Clinical Trial Recruitment: How audiences' Prior Short-Form Video Usage Influences Persuasive Effects

Guided by the elaboration likelihood model and framing theory, this study explores the potential of short-form video platforms (e.g. TikTok), for targeted clinical trial recruitment. An online experiment compared doctor vs. peer-led videos addressing logistical or psychological barriers to participation, mimicking common TikTok communication tactics. Results indicate that high (vs. low) TikTok users are more persuaded by recruitment messages, and they exhibit stronger intentions to participate in clinical trials. Although doctor-sourced messages generate greater credibility and a more favorable message attitude, peer-sourced messages may be more effective in increasing participation intention. Lastly, doctor-sourced videos that address logistical barriers and peer-sourced videos that discuss psychological barriers result in higher self-efficacy for clinical trial participation. This study contributes to the growing body of research on new media's role in health communication and provides insights into how to strategically utilize TikTok and other short-form video platforms for clinical trial recruitment.

Social Media Communication about HPV Vaccine in China: A Study Using Topic Modeling and Survey

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is relatively novel to people in China. Social media is becoming an important channel for learning new health information. However, limited is known about what HPV vaccine information has been disseminated on social media, and how such online information is associated with health-related behaviors in China. Based on Longo et al.'s model of patient use of healthcare information for healthcare decision, and Longo's model of health information seeking behaviors, this study examined HPV vaccine-related information type and information acquisition pattern. Following the mixed-methods approach, we first crawled 67,773 postings about HPV vaccine on Weibo, the largest microblogging website in China, and performed topic modeling to identify HPV vaccine-related topics that are prevalent on Weibo. The results showed six major topics about HPV vaccine, namely policy, guidance information, advertising, scandals, personal experience sharing, and HPV risks. Second, we conducted an online survey (n = 1,982) to investigate how scanning, seeking, and discussing the six HPV vaccine topics identified from big data analytics can affect HPV vaccine knowledge, safety concern, and vaccination intention. We documented significant impacts of social media health communication on users' health knowledge, attitude and behavioral intention.

Reactance to Social Authority in a Sugar Reduction Informational Video: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial of 4013 Participants

Background

Short and animated story-based (SAS) videos can be an effective strategy for promoting health messages. However, health promotion strategies often motivate the rejection of health messages, a phenomenon known as reactance. In this study, we examine whether the child narrator of a SAS video (perceived as nonthreatening, with low social authority) minimizes reactance to a health message about the consumption of added sugars.

Objective

This study aims to determine whether our SAS intervention video attenuates reactance to the sugar message when compared with a content placebo video (a health message about sunscreen) and a placebo video (a nonhealth message about earthquakes) and determine if the child narrator is more effective at reducing reactance to the sugar message when compared with the mother narrator (equivalent social authority to target audience) or family physician narrator (high social authority) of the same SAS video.

Methods

This is a web-based randomized controlled trial comparing an intervention video about sugar reduction narrated by a child, the child’s mother, or the family physician with a content placebo video about sunscreen use and a placebo video about earthquakes. The primary end points are differences in the antecedents to reactance (proneness to reactance, threat level of the message), its components (anger and negative cognition), and outcomes (source appraisal and attitude). We performed analysis of variance on data collected (N=4013) from participants aged 18 to 59 years who speak English and reside in the United Kingdom.

Results

Between December 9 and December 11, 2020, we recruited 38.62% (1550/4013) men, 60.85% (2442/4013) women, and 0.52% (21/4013) others for our study. We found a strong causal relationship between the persuasiveness of the content promoted by the videos and the components of reactance. Compared with the placebo (mean 1.56, SD 0.63) and content placebo (mean 1.76, SD 0.69) videos, the intervention videos (mean 1.99, SD 0.83) aroused higher levels of reactance to the message content (P<.001). We found no evidence that the child narrator (mean 1.99, SD 0.87) attenuated reactance to the sugar reduction message when compared with the physician (mean 1.95, SD 0.79; P=.77) and mother (mean 2.03, SD 0.83; P=.93). In addition, the physician was perceived as more qualified, reliable, and having more expertise than the child (P<.001) and mother (P<.001) narrators.

Conclusions

Although children may be perceived as nonthreatening messengers, we found no evidence that a child narrator attenuated reactance to a SAS video about sugar consumption when compared with a physician. Furthermore, our intervention videos, with well-intended goals toward audience health awareness, aroused higher levels of reactance when compared with the placebo videos. Our results highlight the challenges in developing effective interventions to promote persuasive health messages.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Registry DRKS00022340; https://tinyurl.com/mr8dfena

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/25343

Lay concepts of source likeability, trustworthiness, expertise, and power: A prototype analysis

Previous research on persuasion has used researcher-generated exemplars to manipulate source characteristics such as likeability, trustworthiness, expertise, or power. This approach has been fruitful, but it relies to some degree on an overlap between researcher understanding of these variables and lay understanding of these variables. Additionally, these exemplar manipulations may have unintentionally affected multiple characteristics and may be limited to certain topics or time periods. In the current work, we sought to provide persuasion researchers with a methodological tool to increase construct and potentially external validity by conducting a prototype analysis of the four traditional source characteristics: likeability, trustworthiness, expertise, and power. This bottom-up approach provided insight into the ways in which recipients perceive sources and allowed us to examine relations between the characteristics. Moving forward, a bottom-up understanding of source characteristics will allow researchers to more effectively develop manipulations that might transcend time and topic as well as isolate their effects to the intended source characteristic.

ISIS′ grammar of persuasion of hatred in the article ‘The Kafir's blood is halal for you, so shed it’ published in the Rumiyah magazine

This study is to reveal the types of mood and their speech function realizations in a text (an article) issued in Rumiyah magazine entitled ‘The Kafir's blood is halal for you, so shed it’. A discourse analysis with a qualitative approach is applied. The results of the analysis are then correlated with Kellermann and Cole's classification of compliance-gaining strategy to see the persuasion strategies applied. The results show that Rumiyah, in this text, mainly employs declarative mood to function as statements of opinion, statements of fact, and indirect directives. In terms of Kellermann and Cole's classification, the speech function realizations indicates six strategies of persuasion: The 'nature of situation' to deliver its opinions; the ‘authority appeal’ to present that the opinions and arguments come from very powerful sources; the ‘duty’ to show that hating and killing mushrikin (non-Muslims) is an honorable obligation of a Muslim; the 'logical empirical' to clarify and explain Allah's or the Prophet's words or statements; the 'assertion' to state forcefully an obligation or a prohibition of doing something; and the ‘moral appeal’ to get the readers' compliance by appealing to their moral standards. In this text, the statement of fact (TSSS technique) becomes the key element in persuading the readers.

Evaluating arguments during instigations of defence motivation and accuracy motivation

When people evaluate the strength of an argument, their motivations are likely to influence the evaluation. However, few studies have specifically investigated the influences of motivational factors on argument evaluation. This study examined the effects of defence and accuracy motivations on argument evaluation. According to the compatibility between the advocated positions of arguments and participants' prior beliefs and the objective strength of arguments, participants evaluated four types of arguments: compatible-strong, compatible-weak, incompatible-strong, and incompatible-weak arguments. Experiment 1 revealed that participants possessing a high defence motivation rated compatible-weak arguments as stronger and incompatible-strong ones as weaker than participants possessing a low defence motivation. However, the strength ratings between the high and low defence groups regarding both compatible-strong and incompatible-weak arguments were similar. Experiment 2 revealed that when participants possessed a high accuracy motivation, they rated compatible-weak arguments as weaker and incompatible-strong ones as stronger than when they possessed a low accuracy motivation. However, participants' ratings on both compatible-strong and incompatible-weak arguments were similar when comparing high and low accuracy conditions. The results suggest that defence and accuracy motivations are two major motives influencing argument evaluation. However, they primarily influence the evaluation results for compatible-weak and incompatible-strong arguments, but not for compatible-strong and incompatible-weak arguments.

Identifying Persuasive Public Health Messages to Change Community Knowledge and Attitudes About Bulimia Nervosa

Addressing stigma through social marketing campaigns has the potential to enhance currently low rates of treatment seeking and improve the well-being of individuals with the eating disorder bulimia nervosa. This study aimed to evaluate the persuasiveness of health messages designed to reduce stigma and improve mental health literacy about this disorder. A community sample of 1,936 adults (48.2% male, 51.8% female) from Victoria, Australia, provided (a) self-report information on knowledge and stigma about bulimia nervosa and (b) ratings of the persuasiveness of 9 brief health messages on dimensions of convincingness and likelihood of changing attitudes. Messages were rated moderately to very convincing and a little to moderately likely to change attitudes toward bulimia nervosa. The most persuasive messages were those that emphasized that bulimia nervosa is a serious mental illness and is not attributable to personal failings. Higher ratings of convincingness were associated with being female, with having more knowledge about bulimia nervosa, and with lower levels of stigma about bulimia nervosa. Higher ratings for likelihood of changing attitudes were associated with being female and with ratings of the convincingness of the corresponding message. This study provides direction for persuasive content to be included in social marketing campaigns to reduce stigma toward bulimia nervosa.

Do incompatible arguments cause extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments? The role of congruence between argument compatibility and argument quality

Previous studies have demonstrated that arguments incompatible with prior beliefs are subjected to more extensive refutational processing, scrutinized longer, and judged to be weaker than arguments compatible with prior beliefs. However, this study suggests whether extensive processing is implemented when evaluating arguments is not decided by argument compatibility, but by congruence between two evaluating tendencies elicited by both argument compatibility and argument quality. Consistent with this perspective, the results of two experiments show that relative to congruent arguments, participants judged arguments eliciting incongruent evaluating tendencies as less extreme in strength, spent more time, and felt more hesitant generating strength judgments for them. The results also show that it is mainly incongruent arguments, not congruent arguments, whose strength ratings were more closely associated with the perceived personal importance of the issue, which intensified the tendency to evaluate arguments depending on argument compatibility. These results suggest that it is the incongruity between argument compatibility and argument quality, and not simply the argument compatibility, that plays a more important role in activating an extensive processing in the evaluation of arguments.

How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing?

Next generation genomic sequencing technologies (including whole genome or whole exome sequencing) are being increasingly applied to clinical care. Yet, the breadth and complexity of sequencing information raise questions about how best to communicate and return sequencing information to patients and families in ways that facilitate comprehension and optimal health decisions. Obtaining answers to such questions will require multidisciplinary research. In this paper, we focus on how psychological science research can address questions related to clinical genomic sequencing by explaining emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in response to different types of genomic sequencing information (e.g., diagnostic results and incidental findings). We highlight examples of psychological science that can be applied to genetic counseling research to inform the following questions: (1) What factors influence patients' and providers' informational needs for developing an accurate understanding of what genomic sequencing results do and do not mean?; (2) How and by whom should genomic sequencing results be communicated to patients and their family members?; and (3) How do patients and their families respond to uncertainties related to genomic information?

Intention to undergo colonoscopy screening among relatives of colorectal cancer cases: a theory-based model

BACKGROUND

It is recommended that persons having familial risk of colorectal cancer begin regular colonoscopy screening at an earlier age than those in the general population. However, many individuals at increased risk do not adhere to these screening recommendations.

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to examine cognitive, affective, social, and behavioral motivators of colonoscopy intention among individuals at increased risk of familial colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Relatives of colorectal cancer cases (N = 481) eligible for colonoscopy screening completed a survey assessing constructs from several theoretical frameworks including fear appeal theories.

RESULTS

Structural equation modeling indicated that perceived colorectal cancer risk, past colonoscopy, fear of colorectal cancer, support from family and friends, and health-care provider recommendation were determinants of colonoscopy intention.

CONCLUSIONS

Future interventions to promote colonoscopy in this increased risk population should target the factors we identified as motivators. (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01274143).

A formative evaluation of social media campaign to reduce adolescent dating violence

Background

The Emory Jane Fonda Center implemented the Start Strong Atlanta social marketing campaign, “Keep It Strong ATL”, in 2007 to promote the development of healthy adolescent relationships and to foster the prevention of adolescent dating abuse among 11-14 year olds.

Objective

A formative evaluation was conducted to understand whether messages directed at the target audience were relevant to the program’s relationship promotion and violence prevention goals, and whether the “Web 2.0” social media channels of communication (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Tumblr, and Pinterest) were reaching the intended audience.

Methods

Mixed methodologies included qualitative interviews and a key informant focus group, a cross-sectional survey, and web analytics. Qualitative data were analyzed using constant comparative methodology informed by grounded theory. Descriptive statistics were generated from survey data, and web analytics provided user information and traffic patterns.

Results

Results indicated that the Keep It Strong ATL social marketing campaign was a valuable community resource that had potential for broader scope and greater reach. The evaluation team learned the importance of reaching adolescents through Web 2.0 platforms, and the need for message dissemination via peers. Survey results indicated that Facebook (ranked 6.5 out of 8) was the highest rated social media outlet overall, and exhibited greatest appeal and most frequent visits, yet analytics revealed that only 3.5% of “likes” were from the target audience. These results indicate that the social media campaign is reaching predominantly women (76.5% of viewership) who are outside of the target age range of 11-14 years.

Conclusions

While the social media campaign was successfully launched, the findings indicate the need for a more focused selection of communication channels, timing of media updates to maximize visibility, balancing message tone and delivery, and incorporating differentiated messaging for the target audiences. Collaboration with parents and community partners is also emphasized in order to expand the campaign’s reach and create more channels to disseminate relationship promotion and dating violence prevention messaging to the intended audience.

Source Credibility and Persuasion

Highly credible communicators have been found to elicit greater confidence and attitudes that are based more on recipients’ thoughts (i.e., self-validation) compared with non-credible sources. However, source credibility may produce different effects on thought confidence and persuasion depending on the position of an advocacy. When messages are proattitudinal, credible sources should initiate self-validation because recipients may be motivated to confirm (bolster) their existing views. Conversely, when appeals are counterattitudinal, recipients may be motivated to defend their opinions and disconfirm information. In these contexts, greater self-validation may emerge when a communicator lacks rather than possesses credibility. When a message was counterattitudinal and contained weak arguments, evidence of self-validation was found with low source credibility (Studies 1 and 2) and among participants high in defense motivation (Study 2). In response to strong, proattitudinal arguments, findings were consistent with high credibility producing self-validation when bolstering motivation was high (Study 3).

Evaluating the message or the messenger? Implications for self-validation in persuasion

Characteristics of persuasive message sources have been extensively studied. However, little attention has been paid to situations when people are motivated to form an evaluation of the communicator rather than the communicated issue. We postulated that these different foci can affect how a source validates message-related cognitions. Participants focused on the source (Studies 1 and 2) or the issue (Study 2) while reading weak or strong message arguments. Later, the communicator was described as low or high in credibility. When focused on the source, highly motivated participants were more confident and their attitudes were more reflective of thoughts when argument quality matched (e.g., weak arguments-low credibility) rather than mismatched (e.g., weak arguments-high credibility) source credibility. Conversely, when participants were focused on the issue, self-validation was greater when credibility was high rather than low-regardless of argument quality. Implications of these findings for the study and practice of persuasion are discussed.

Weak > Strong

When people seek support for a cause, they typically present the strongest case they can muster. The present research suggests that under some conditions, the opposite strategy may be superior—in particular, presenting weak rather than strong arguments might stimulate greater advocacy and action. Across four studies, we show that when individuals already agree with a cause (i.e., it is pro-attitudinal), receiving weak arguments in its favor can prompt them into advocating more on its behalf. Perceived argumentation efficacy mediates this effect such that people exposed to weak arguments are more likely to think they have something valuable to contribute. Moreover, consistent with the notion that it is driven by feelings of increased efficacy, the effect is more likely to emerge when initial argumentation efficacy and attitude certainty are moderate or low. Individuals with high argumentation efficacy and high certainty generally advocate more, regardless of the strength of arguments received.