IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v19y1984i9p957-963.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public communication on donorcards: A comparison of persuasive styles

Author

Listed:
  • Winkel, Frans Willem

Abstract

Due to scarcity of supply of transplantable human organs thousands of patients who definitely would benefit from an organ or tissue transplant are confronted with excessively long waiting lists, resulting in needless suffering and death. Public communication is suggested here as a possible instrument to reduce this scarcity. According to mass communication theory the nature of the persuasive appeal is the primary determinant of campaign-effectiveness, i.e. successfully influencing behaviour towards filling in donorcards. A conventional and a refutational message style are experimentally tested as to their effects. The main hypothesis, emanating from a SEU-type model of filling in donorcards is experimentally confirmed. It is therefore concluded that finally a campaign stressing both positive behavioural consequences and negative behavioural consequences by refutation is a more promising instrument in recruiting organ donors than a conventional campaign, stressing solely positive consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Winkel, Frans Willem, 1984. "Public communication on donorcards: A comparison of persuasive styles," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 19(9), pages 957-963, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:9:p:957-963
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(84)90325-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:19:y:1984:i:9:p:957-963. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.