The articles published in this symposium make contributions to an increased understanding of the theoretical bases for communication campaigns. They add to a growing literature that aims to move communication campaigns from a formulaic craft to a theory-driven, but practical, endeavor (Hornik, 2002a; Rice & Atkin, 2001; Zaller, 1992)

Cappella, Joseph N

English

ScholarlyCommons@Penn

University of PennsylvaniaScholarlyCommonsDepartmental Papers (ASC) Annenberg School for CommunicationJanuary 2003Editor's Introduction: Theoretical Approaches toCommunication CampaignsJoseph N. CappellaUniversity of Pennsylvania, jcappella@asc.upenn.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papersThis paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/110For more information, please contact libraryrepository@pobox.upenn.edu.Recommended CitationCappella, J. N. (2003). Editor's Introduction: Theoretical Approaches to Communication Campaigns. Communication Theory, 13 (2),160-163. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2003.tb00286.xEditor's Introduction: Theoretical Approaches to CommunicationCampaignsAbstractThe articles published in this symposium make contributions to an increased understanding of the theoreticalbases for communication campaigns. They add to a growing literature that aims to move communicationcampaigns from a formulaic craft to a theory-driven, but practical, endeavor (Hornik, 2002a; Rice & Atkin,2001; Zaller, 1992).This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/110Editor’s Introduction: TheoreticalApproaches to Communication CampaignsThe articles published in this symposium make contributions to an in-creased understanding of the theoretical bases for communication cam-paigns. They add to a growing literature that aims to move communica-tion campaigns from a formulaic craft to a theory-driven, but practical,endeavor (Hornik, 2002a; Rice & Atkin, 2001; Zaller, 1992).Communication campaigns have long been accepted as a means forforming attitudes, increasing knowledge, and achieving social and be-havioral change. Despite the almost formulaic treatment of the designand execution of communication campaigns (Maibach & Parrott, 1995),researchers in politics (Holbrook, 1996), health (Hornik, 2002b), devel-opment (Thomas, 1994), and other arenas have questioned the efficacyof even well-designed campaigns. Some are beginning to weigh seriouslythe conditions under which campaigns might produce consequencesopposite to those intended (Werch & Owen, 2002). At the same time,communication campaigns can be effective (Snyder & Hamilton, 2002)even with behaviors that are difficult to modify, such as cigarette smok-ing (Worden, Flynn, et al., 1988) and drug use (Palmgreen, Donohew,Lorch, Hoyle, & Stephenson, 2001).Understanding the mechanisms that activate campaign effects and,perhaps more importantly for the discipline of communication, the theo-retical bases for the creation of effective messages to inform, persuade,and motivate audiences is the sine qua non of the design of effectivecampaigns.The papers in this symposium take rather different approaches to thetheoretical foundations of communication campaigns. Fishbein and Yzerwork through the implications of the integrated theory of behavior changeto explore the general content of messages that campaign designers needto consider. This is an important step. Some theories of persuasion, suchas the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), describethe conditions under which high argument quality is essential. However,the theory is mute about the domain (or topics) of the arguments. Fishbeinand Yzer offer useful guidance to campaign designers concerning theJoseph N. Cappellabeliefs that are especially relevant to changing a targeted intention orbehavior.Rimal and Real focus specifically on the social normative componentof behavioral intention, exploring the conceptual bases of social normsthat might work alone or in concert to account for alcohol consump-tion. Social norms are a potentially powerful but complex arena involv-ing not only actual levels of behavior by those in the target person’ssocial network, but also perception of the prevalence of the behavior.These objective aspects of normative force (that is, prevalence) are bal-anced by perceived approval and disapproval by significant others andmotivation to comply with others’ attitudes. Rimal and Real explorethese components’ ability to predict alcohol consumption in an empiri-cal test targeting college-aged drinkers.Hornik and Yanovitzky raise a somewhat different set of theoreticalconcerns. Many communication campaigns are subjected to careful evalu-ation to determine their effects on knowledge, attitudes, intentions, andbehaviors. In order to build theory from a strong empirical base, wemust know which campaigns are effective and which are ineffective.Hornik and Yanovitzky argue that evaluations of campaigns can them-selves fail to detect success if the evaluation investigates an incompleteset of paths through which a communication campaign might exert itsinfluence. In effect, a successful and accurate campaign evaluation re-quires a well-specified theory of the campaign’s routes to influence.Morris offers readers a metatheoretical perspective on communica-tion campaigns, especially those geared toward developing regions ofthe globe. She compares campaigns aimed at participation and empow-erment to those aimed at diffusion of information and behavior change.In some cases, the former are an inadvertent by-product of the latterclass of campaigns. Morris invites campaign evaluators (and designers)to think in terms of both classes of outcomes even if one or the other isprimary at the initial stages of design. Morris’s perspective on the prob-lem of campaign goals can be seen as an expansion of Hornik andYanovitzky’s call for a theory of the campaign’s influence and a broad-ening of the scope of the more precise (but limiting) perspectives of be-havior change and social normative theories.The articles in this symposium make significant steps toward buildingthe theoretical substructure for communication campaigns. Large gapsremain, however. Although theories such as the integrated model of be-havior change can tell us what general topics a campaign should pursue,it tells us little about how to build persuasive messages about those top-ics. Although the field of communication has developed some theoriesof message design to affect behavior and attitude change (Donohew,Lorch, & Palmgreen, 1998; Zillman & Brosius, 2000), investing addi-tional resources will help to secure a central place for communicationtheory in the design of campaigns, their evaluation, and the creation ofmessages carrying the campaign.Joseph Cappella (PhD, Michigan State University) is the Gerald R. Miller Professor of Communica-tion in the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. Correspon-dence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph N. Cappella, Annenberg School forCommunication, 3620 Walnut St., University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104–6220 or byemail: jcappella@asc.upenn.edu.Donohew, L., Lorch, E. P., & Palmgreen, P. (1998). Applications of a theoretic model of informa-tion exposure to health intervention. Human Communication Research, 24, 454–468.Holbrook, T. M. (1996). Do campaigns matter? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hornik, R. C. (Ed.). (2002a). Public health communication: Evidence for behavior change. Mahwah,NJ: Erlbaum.Hornik, R. C. (2002b). Public health communication: Making sense of contradictory evidence. InR. C. Hornik (Ed.), Public health communication: Evidence for behavior change (pp. 1–22).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Maibach, E., & Parrott, R. L. (Eds.). (1995). Designing health messages: Approaches from com-munication theory and public health practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Palmgreen, P., Donohew, L., Lorch, E. P., Hoyle, R. H., & Stephenson, M. T. (2001). Televisioncampaigns and adolescent marijuana use: Tests of sensation seeking targeting. American Jour-nal of Public Health, 91, 292–296.Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L.Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). NewYork: Academic Press.Rice, R. E., & Atkin, C. K. (Eds.). (2001). Public communication campaigns (3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.Snyder, L. B., & Hamilton, M. A. (2002). A meta-analysis of U.S. health campaign effects onbehavior: Emphasize enforcement, exposure, and new information, and beware the secular trend.In R. C. Hornik (Ed.), Public health communication: Evidence for behavior change (pp. 1–22).Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Thomas, P. (1994). Participatory development communication: Philosophical premises. In S. A.White, K. S. Nair, & J. Ashcroft (Eds.), Participatory communication: Working for change anddevelopment (pp. 49–59). New Delhi, India: Sage.Werch, C. E., & Owen, D. M. (2002). Iatrogenic effects of alcohol and drug prevention programs.Journal on Studies of Alcohol, 63, 581–590.Worden, J. K., Flynn, B. S., Geller, B. M., Chen, M., Shelton, L. G., Secker-Walker, R. H., Solomon,L. J., Couchey, S., & Costanza, M. C. (1988). Development of a smoking prevention massmedia program using diagnostic and formative research. Preventive Medicine, 17, 531–538.Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origin of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.Zillman, D., & Brosius, H. (2000). Exemplification in communication: The influence of case re-ports on the perception of issues. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum..AuthorReferencesGuest Reviewers for Symposium ArticlesCharles Atkin, Michigan State UniversityHans Bernd Brosius, Ludwig-Maximilians UniversityDavid Buller, Center for Health Communication, Denver, COJoseph Cappella, University of PennsylvaniaRobert Cialdini, Arizona State UniversityMichael Cody, University of Southern CaliforniaWilliam Crano, Claremont Graduate UniversityMichael Hecht, Pennsylvania State UniversityJudith A. McDivitt, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GARon Rice, Rutgers UniversityRajiv Rimal, University of TexasJohn Sherry, Purdue UniversityMichael Slater, Colorado State UniversityMichael Stephenson, Texas A&M UniversityLea Stewart, Rutgers UniversityThomas Valente, University of Southern CaliforniaKaren Gwinn Wilkins, University of Texas

Editor\u27s Introduction: Theoretical Approaches to Communication Campaigns

https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&amp;context=asc_papers

Editor\u27s Introduction: Theoretical Approaches to Communication Campaigns

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarlyCommons@Penn