Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion (보건교육건강증진학회지)

Korean Society for Health Education and Promotion (한국보건교육건강증진학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Gist-based Message Design Principles for Health Promotion and Public Health Education: Explication of Fuzzy Trace Theory

핵심정보 중심의 건강증진 및 보건교육 메시지 구성 원리: Fuzzy Trace Theory의 함의

  • Received : 2013.10.30
  • Accepted : 2013.12.24
  • Published : 2013.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: This paper aims to explain principles of gist-based health message design and discuss their implications for health promotion and public health education. Methods: After reviewing Reyna and Brainerd's Fuzzy Trace Theory(FTT), the authors explicate how to transform FTT into a practical guidance of health message design. Our explication is based upon FTT's reasoning that human intuition, rather than analysis, takes a primary role in message recall and comprehension, followed by judgment and decision making. We expect gist-based message design to be appropriate to serve such intuition. Results: Four principles of gist-based message design are offered: (1) provision of qualitative, as well as quantitative, information of gist, (2) inclusion of visual images corresponding to gist, (3) use of effective message formats to emphasize the gist (4) inclusion of relevant reasons and contextutal information. Conclusions: Gist-based message design has theoretical and practical implications for health promotion, specifically in the field of public health education, the press and governmental communication toward the public, and provider-patient communication in medical settings.

Keywords

References

  1. Bensley, R. J., & Brookins-Fisher, J. (2008). Community health education methods: A practical guide. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
  2. Brainerd, C. J., & Reyna, V. F. (1990). Gist is the gist: Fuzzy trace theory and the new intuitionism. Development Review, 10, 3-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0273-2297(90)90003-M
  3. Brown, S. N., Nowlan, L., Taylor, P. J., & Morley, A. M. (2013). Fuzzy risk perception: Correlates of “fuzzy” and specific measures of outcome likelihood in young drinkers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19(2), 120-129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033284
  4. Carollo, A., Rieutord, A., & Launay-Vacher, V. (2012). European society of clinical pharmacy (ESCP) glossary of scientific terms: A tool for standardizing scientific jargon. International journal of clinical pharmacy, 34, 263-268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-012-9619-1
  5. Chaffee, S. H. (1991). Communication concepts I: Explication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  6. Cho, H. (Ed.). (2012). Health communication message design: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  7. Cho, E-J., & Moon, B. Y. (2003). An analysis of educational videos for health promotion and education. Korean Health and Social Affairs Research, 21(1), 152-175.
  8. Dake, K. (1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48(4), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1992.tb01943.x
  9. DeWalt, D. A., Boone, R. S., & Pignone, M. P. (2007). Literacy and its relationship with self-efficacy, trust, and participation in medical decision-making. American Journal of Health Behavior, 31, 27-35. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.31.s1.5
  10. Dieckmann, P., Friis, S. M., Lippert, A., & Ostergaard, D. (2009). The art and science of debriefing in simulation. Medical Teacher, 31, 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590902866218
  11. Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgement, and social cognition. The Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255-278. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
  12. Fagerlin, A., & Peters, E. (2011). Quantitative information. In B. Fischhoff, N. T. Brewer, & J. S. Downs (Eds.), Communication risk and benefit: An evidence-based user's guide (pp. 53-64). Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), US Department of Health and Human Services.
  13. Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S
  14. Frewer, L. (1999). Risk perception, social trust, and public participation in strategic decision making: Implications for emerging technologies. Ambio, 28(6), 569-574.
  15. Gaissmaier, W., Wegwarth, O., Skopec, D., Müller, A. S., Broschinski, S., & Politi, M. C. (2012). Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: Individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Health Psychology, 31, 286. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024850
  16. Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., Houlihan, A. E., Stock, M. L., & Pomery, E. A. (2008). A dual-process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype willingness model. Developmental Review, 28, 29-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.10.001
  17. Han, G. T., & Ma, J. M. (2000). Message design factors for public campaigns in Korea. Advertisement Research, 47, 7-35.
  18. Hess, R., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Risk communication with pictorgraphs: The role of numeracy and graph processing. Journal of Decision Making, 6, 263-274.
  19. Hong, J. P. (2006). A scientific approach to the design of public communication campaigns: Integration and utilization of theories of media effects, persuasion and behavior change. Journal of Korean Psychological Association: Consumer and Advertising Psychology, 7(2), 249-276.
  20. Kahnenman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
  21. Kang, D. S., & Lee, E. H. (2013). Segmenting publics for developing more strategic anti-drinking campaigns based on the risk perception attitude framework. Korean Consumption Culture Research, 16(2), 37-67. https://doi.org/10.17053/jcc.2013.16.2.003
  22. Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety. (2013). What is a problem with Benzopyrene in ramens? Yeol-lin-ma-ru, March-April Issue. Retrieved August 30, 2013, from http://www.mfds.go.kr/webzine/201303/E-book.html?page=10.
  23. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  24. Kwon, Y. J., & Na, E. Y. (2011). A Study on the effects of the credibility of message source and rational/emotional message types on social support, attitudes, and the intention of health-related Behavior: Focused on the answers of doctors and general public in the Internet health search engine, Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 55(5), 128-158.
  25. Lipkus, I. M. (2007). Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 696-713. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X07307271
  26. Loewenstein, G., Weber, E., Hsee, C., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.267
  27. Maibach, E., & Parrott, R. L. (Eds.). (1995). Designing health messages. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  28. Murray-Johnson, L., & Witte, K. (2003). Looking toward the future: Health message design strategies. In T. L. Thompson, A. Dorsey, K. I. Miller, & R. Parrotte, The Routledge Handbook of Health Communication (pp. 473-495). Medford, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
  29. Neuhauser, L., & Paul, K. (2011). Readability, comprehension, and usability. In B. Fischhoff, N. T. Brewer, & J. S. Downs (Eds.), Communication risk and benefit: An evidence-based user's guide (pp. 129-148). Silver Spring, MD: Food and Drug Administration (FDA), US Department of Health and Human Services.
  30. O'Keefe, D. J. (2012). From psychological theory to message design: Lessons from the story of gain-framed and loss-framed persuasive messages. In H. Cho, (Ed.), Health communication message design: Theory and practice (pp. 3-20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  31. Park, K. O. (2008). Teachers' conceptual maps on health education topics for high school students: Analytic evidences for field-based curriculum development. Korean Society of School Health, 9(1), 99-113.
  32. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
  33. Reyna, V. F. (2008). A theory of medical decision making and health: Fuzzy trace theory. Medical Decision Making, 28, 850-865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X08327066
  34. Reyna, V. F. (2012). A new intuitionism: Meaning, memory, and development in Fuzzy-Trace Theory. Judgment and Decision Making, 7, 332-359.
  35. Reyna, V. F., & Adam, M. B. (2003). Fuzzy-trace theory, risk communication, and product labeling in sexually transmitted diseases. Risk Analysis, 23, 325-342. https://doi.org/10.1111/1539-6924.00332
  36. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995a). Fuzzy trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and Individual differences, 7, 1-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(95)90031-4
  37. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (1995b). Fuzzy trace theory: Some foundational issues. Learning and Individual differences, 7, 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/1041-6080(95)90028-4
  38. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2008). Numeracy, ratio bias, and denominator neglect in judgments of risk and probability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 89-107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2007.03.011
  39. Reyna, V. F., & Brainerd, C. J. (2011). Dual processes in decision making and developmental neuroscience: A fuzzy-trace model. Developmental Review, 31, 180-206.
  40. Rivers, S. E., Reyna, V. F., & Mills, B. (2008). Risk taking under the influence: A fuzzy-trace theory of emotion in adolescence. Developmental Review, 28, 107-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.11.002
  41. Schmalzle, R. (2008). Intuitive risk perception: A neuroscientific approach (Doctoral Dissertation). University Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
  42. Severtson, D. J., & Henriques, J. B. (2009). The effect of graphics on environmental health risk. Risk Analysis, 11, 1549-1565.
  43. Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucane, M. L., & MacGregor, D. G. (2005). Affect, risk, and decision making. Health Psychology, 24, 35-40. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S35
  44. Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (2006). Risk perception and affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 322–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x
  45. Son, H. J., Shim, M. S., & You, M. S. (2013). Gist-encouraging messages in communicating risks related to food and drug: Development and verification. Paper presented at the 2013 fall conference of the Korean Health Communication Association, Seoul, Korea.
  46. Tait, A. R., Voepel-Lewis, T., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., & Fagerlin, A. (2010). The effect of format on parents' understanding of the risks and benefits of clinical research: A comparison between text, tables, and graphics. Journal of Health Communication, 15(5), 487-501. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2010.492560
  47. US Food and Drug Administration. (n.d). Questions and answers: Gluten-free food labeling final rule. Retreived August 30, 2013, from http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocume ntsRegulatoryInformation/Allergens/ucm362880.htm
  48. Wilhelms, E. A., & Reyna, V. F. (2013a). Effective ways to communicate risk and benefit. Virtual Mentor, 15(1), 34-41. https://doi.org/10.1001/virtualmentor.2013.15.1.stas1-1301
  49. Wilhelms, E. A., & Reyna, V. F. (2013b). Fuzzy trace theory and medical decisions by minors: Differences in reasoning between adolescents and adults. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 38(3), 268-282. https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jht018
  50. You, M. S., & Ju, Y. K. (2012). Readability of health messages and its communicative effect. Journal of Korean Society for Health Education and Promotion, 29(5), 27-36.

Cited by

  1. An Exploratory Study on the Importance and Performance Analysis of Health Message Design Principles vol.14, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5392/JKCA.2014.14.06.307
  2. The effects of gist-based health messages on the lay public’s message reception and behavioral intention vol.36, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.14367/kjhep.2019.36.3.113