Differences in Judgments of Persuasive Argument Quality by Three Population Groups in Iowa

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This study describes a method for studying the perceived persuasiveness of rationales for adopting preventive health behaviors. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model, we surveyed 156 individuals as to the level of persuasiveness that each of several categories of reason presented in adopting target "prevention" behaviors such as eliminating the use of smokeless tobacco or seeking regular dental care. Significant differences between what the public reported as persuasive reasons and those selected by future dental practitioners were found. Patients saw potential cost savings, elimination of future pain, and being told by an authority person to adopt a behavior as highly persuasive reasons to adopt a target behavior. Nonwhite patients gave significantly higher scores than did white patients to arguments centering on social/aesthetic appeal. On the negative side, episodic care seekers felt significantly more strongly than regular care seekers that their practicing dental prevention activities (e.g., regular checkups, brushing, and flossing) benefited someone other than themselves (dental profession and dental manufacturers). Results of this study suggest that one way to improve persuasive public health preventive messages is to consider whether the fundamental arguments on which preventive health campaigns are built have broad patient appeal.

This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit: