Abstract:According to the South African health organisation loveLife, billboards with cryptic messages that the target group finds difficult or impossible to understand will give rise to dialogue with peers and parents. According to Hoeken et al. (2009), however, perceived comprehension is a necessary condition for such dialogues. These contradictory views were investigated in an experiment. Five loveLife billboards, together with a questionnaire, were presented to 149 first-year university students. Contradictory to l… Show more
“…As with the findings of Jansen & Janssen (2010), the findings of the present study seem to contradict loveLife's supposition that the cryptic nature of their billboard messages will lead to discussions and debate. Instead, the assumption described by Hoeken et al (2009) is better supported: that the better young people think they understand HIV/AIDS messages, the greater the chance that they will appreciate these messages and the higher the probability they will engage in discussions about HIV and AIDS.…”
HIV/AIDS messages are often deliberately puzzling so as to increase the chance for them to be used as food for conversation. The South African health organisation 'loveLife,' for instance, uses messages that include complicated rhetorical expressions in their media campaigns, reasoning that those who find the messages puzzling and wonder about their meaning will be inclined to discuss the messages with their peers. In order to test the assumption that puzzlement about health messages is related to keenness to talk about these messages, structured interviews were held with 30 black learners, ages 15 to 19, from Limpopo Province, South Africa, about the messages of six HIV/ AIDS posters and six HIV/AIDS radio advertisements from 'loveLife' or another South African health organisation. No support was found for the assumption that presenting a puzzling health message will contribute to engaging the recipients in discussion. The participants indicated that they were willing to discuss the themes addressed in either a poster or radio advertisement because they appreciated the message and felt that its content was relevant to them, rather than because the message was puzzling or difficult to understand. The participants' overall actual comprehension of the messages, however, proved to be strikingly low.
“…As with the findings of Jansen & Janssen (2010), the findings of the present study seem to contradict loveLife's supposition that the cryptic nature of their billboard messages will lead to discussions and debate. Instead, the assumption described by Hoeken et al (2009) is better supported: that the better young people think they understand HIV/AIDS messages, the greater the chance that they will appreciate these messages and the higher the probability they will engage in discussions about HIV and AIDS.…”
HIV/AIDS messages are often deliberately puzzling so as to increase the chance for them to be used as food for conversation. The South African health organisation 'loveLife,' for instance, uses messages that include complicated rhetorical expressions in their media campaigns, reasoning that those who find the messages puzzling and wonder about their meaning will be inclined to discuss the messages with their peers. In order to test the assumption that puzzlement about health messages is related to keenness to talk about these messages, structured interviews were held with 30 black learners, ages 15 to 19, from Limpopo Province, South Africa, about the messages of six HIV/ AIDS posters and six HIV/AIDS radio advertisements from 'loveLife' or another South African health organisation. No support was found for the assumption that presenting a puzzling health message will contribute to engaging the recipients in discussion. The participants indicated that they were willing to discuss the themes addressed in either a poster or radio advertisement because they appreciated the message and felt that its content was relevant to them, rather than because the message was puzzling or difficult to understand. The participants' overall actual comprehension of the messages, however, proved to be strikingly low.
“…A considerable gap was found between perceived comprehension and actual comprehension. As was the case in Lubinga et al (2010) and in Jansen and Janssen (2010), participants in the present study overestimated their level of understanding.…”
An experiment was conducted in order to determine the extent to which the presentation of HIV and AIDS messages in different languages would affect the appreciation and comprehension of these messages among young South Africans. Interviews were carried out with 60 learners in rural and peri-rural schools in Limpopo Province. Four messages (on posters or in radio advertisements), were presented in three languages. The interviews focused on appreciation (to what extent do the participants like the messages?), perceived comprehension (to what extent do the participants think that they understand the message?), and actual comprehension (to what extent do the participants really understand the message?). The language of presentation did not prove to have any influence on appreciation, perceived comprehension or actual comprehension. A considerable gap was found between perceived comprehension and actual comprehension; participants overestimated their level of understanding. Significant correlations were found between perceived comprehension and appreciation, indicating that the better members of this target group think they understand HIV and AIDS messages, the more they like them.
“…questionnaire studies in which conversations on health issues are studied indirectly, for instance by asking participants to report on past conversation behavior (e.g., Chatterjee et al, 2009;Frank et al, 2012;Helme et al, 2011;Van den Putte et al, 2011;, or on their intention to engage in conversations on a certain topic (e.g., Jansen & Janssen, 2010;Lubinga, Schulze, Jansen, & Maes, 2010;Lubinga, Jansen, & Maes, 2014). Thus, these studies mainly focused on whether or not conversations took place, i.e., conversational occurrence.…”
Section: 1the Role Of Interpersonal Health Communication In the Permentioning
Even though health campaign designers are advised to specifically focus on triggering conversations between people about health issues, there is still a lot unknown about what aspects of a conversation may contribute to safe sex behavior and intentions. Empirical research in this field so far has mainly focused on conversational occurrence rather than conversational content, and where content is taken into account, this mostly concerns self-reports. In this mixed method study, we looked into the quantitative effects of real-life conversations about safe sex, triggered by a safe sex message, on college students’ intentions related to safe sex. We then used a qualitative analysis to try and identify content-related aspects that may be related to the quantitative effects. Two weeks after filling in a questionnaire on their safe sex-related intentions, participants (N = 24) were instructed to watch and talk about a safe sex video with a conversation partner of choice, followed by filling in a questionnaire. The conversational data were analyzed qualitatively. The results suggest that the conversations increased safe sex-related intentions compared to pretest scores, and that content-related aspects such as conversational valence, type of communication behavior and behavioral determinants were related to these effects. Thus, our findings provide enhanced insight into the social norms and behavioral patterns related to safe sex, and indicate that it is important to look at conversational content in detail rather than to focus on mere conversational occurrence or quantitative effects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.