Stereotype Processing's Effect on the Impact of the Myth/Fact Message Format and the Role of Personal Relevance

Abstract

This research examines the effectiveness of the myth/fact message format (MFMF)-a message format that first presents a common misperception as a myth then counters it with a correcting fact-within the health-care and social marketing context of mental illness (MI). Stereotype processing theory predicts that the use of a negative aspect of the stereotype in a MFMF may further instantiate the negative belief, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the message. Conversely, using a message format that conveys only facts (i.e., new positive beliefs) without inclusion of the myth will lead to more positive attitudes. However, this effect will only be seen among people with personal relevance with MI as only they are sufficiently motivated to suppress the automatically activated stereotype and elaborate on the message. A study demonstrates that advertising utilizing a fact-only format leads to more positive attitudes than the MFMF among people with personal relevance while people without personal relevance to MI demonstrate no differences in attitude between myth/fact and fact-only message formats. Personal relevance had the opposite moderating effect on perceived learning. These findings suggest that the MFMF's impact on attitudes, the typical focal point of social marketing campaigns targeting misconceptions about stereotyped groups, may be ineffective. Thus, using a fact-only format that conveys new positive beliefs in a social marketing message is recommended within the specific context of MI and may be warranted in other health-care and social issues. C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

The Stigma Turbine: A Theoretical Framework for Conceptualizing and Contextualizing Marketplace Stigma

“…This definition captures the two fundamental components of stigmatization—recognizing a difference from a perceived norm, followed by devaluing the deviating entity (Dovidio, Major, and Crocker 2000). Extant research has explored marketplace stigma as it pertains to products and service encounters (Adkins and Ozanne 2005; Crockett, Grier, and Williams 2003), consumer coping strategies (Ho and O'Donohoe 2014; Nguyen, Chen, and Mukherjee 2014), and the impact of stereotypes on consumer behavior (Campbell and Mohr 2011; Matta and Folkes 2005; Yeh, Jewell, and Hu 2013). Yet the literature on marketplace stigma is fragmented, and no unifying conceptual framework situates the phenomenon within broader sociocultural discourses on (de)stigmatization or shows how the marketplace can be a wellspring from which (de)stigmatization can emanate.…”

Diffusing obesity myths

“…Based on a belief that repeating a stereotype, even though it is counteracted with evidence, may actually strengthen the learned stereotype by both strengthening the association and weakening the evidence Yeh et al (2013) argue that it may be better to present just the evidence in order to create a new learned association and change attitudes (40). In their study, Yeh et al used a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial study design in which participants (109 undergraduate students enrolled in an introductory marketing class) randomly received either the MFMF or the fact-only message format.…”

“…This demonstrates that counterarguments alone may not be sufficient to motivate individuals to inhibit their automatic stereotypes. Multilevel (intrapersonal, interpersonal and structural) approaches are needed to reduce the effects of stigma across system levels .…”

Necessary condition analysis in marketing research

“…Necessary conditions are widely discussed but not always empirically investigated (or at least not from a necessity perspective) in the marketing communications domain. For example, consumer learning is posited as a necessary but not sufficient condition of persuasion (Yeh, Jewell, & Hu, 2013). Also, lobbying appears being a necessary but not sufficient condition for obtaining preferential treatment (Anderson, Martin, & Lee, 2018) or maintaining communication is necessary for firms to articulate and transfer knowledge (Park, Vertinsky, & Lee, 2012).…”