Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion (보건교육건강증진학회지)

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

Readability of Health Messages and Its Communicative Effect

건강 메시지의 독이성과 소통 효과

  • Received : 2012.10.22
  • Accepted : 2012.12.24
  • Published : 2012.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: Developing efficient health messages is important for improving health behaviors at a societal level. This study attempts to test a few variables that could constitute the elements for measuring readability of health message. The number of subject-verb relationships in a sentence, placement of jargon, i.e., explication before or after each jargon, and the number of less familiar Chinese characters were manipulated to hypothetically differentiate readability. Methods: In a $2{\times}2$ mixed factorial experiment, 152 college students read two health messages regarding side effect of health functional food and energy drink. The participants' perceived readability was asked, and eight questions were developed to measure the participants' recognition of the health information. Results: Those who read messages manipulated to have high readability rated the message significantly higher than those who read messages with low readability. Also, the former answered the questions more correctly than the latter, implying the association between readability and knowledge acquisition regarding health. Conclusions: Readability is suggested as a factor determining the effect of health messages in affecting the public's health risk perception and relevant behaviors. Further studies to sophisticate the measurement itself and to examine the effect of actual public messages with different readabilities are suggested.

Keywords

References

  1. Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14(2), 178-194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.14.2.178
  2. Cha, B. (1988). Some thoughts on developing a measurement tool for Korean readability. Newspaper Research Institute at Seoul National University, 25, 113-132.
  3. Cha, D. (2006). Using the EPPM to investigate the persuasive effects of fear appeal messages different in the levels of threat and efficacy. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 50(4), 411-436.
  4. Choi, I. (2005). A comparative study on modelling readability formulas : Focus on primary and secondary textbooks. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 22(4), 173-195. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2005.22.4.173
  5. Danielson, W. A., & Bryan, S. D. (1963). Computer automation of two readability formulas. Journalism Quarterly, 40, 201-206. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769906304000207
  6. Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189-196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.18.2.189
  7. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x
  8. Flesch, R. (1943). Marks of a readable style: A study in adult education. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
  9. Fry, E. (1977). Fry's readability graph: Clarification, validity and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading, 21, 242-252.
  10. Garcia-Retamero, R., & Galesic, M. (2010). How to reduce the effect of framing on messages about health. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(12), 1323-1329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-010-1484-9
  11. Gastel, B. (2005). Health writer's handbook. Ames, IA: Blackwell Publishing.
  12. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp.133-168). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  13. Hong, K., Ju, Y., Jun, S., Yoon, H., & You, M. (2012). Health literacy and related factors among Korean adults: A case of health information provided by a public institution. Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion, 29(3), 53-61.
  14. Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the Elaboration Likelihood Model and Prospect Theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02078.x
  15. Ju, Y., & You, M. (2011). Diagnostic or prognostic? Analyzing the news framing of H1N1 coverage in Korea. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 55(5), 30-54.
  16. Kang, S., & Park, S. (2009). Comparison of the readability of science and social studies textbooks. Journal of the Society for the International Gifted in Science, 3, 55-65.
  17. Kim, S. (1994). The Korean newspaper's coverage pattern regarding public health. (Master thesis). Joong-Ang University, Seoul, Korea.
  18. Kim, S., & Cha, H. (2009). The effect of public segmentation and message framing on the health risk communication: Applying anger activism model. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 53(2), 231-254.
  19. Kim, J., & Yu, H. (2012). The effects of gain-or loss-framed health news and exemplars on the perception of reported issues and prevention intention. Korean Journal of Journalism and Communication Studies, 56(1), 5-31.
  20. Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of readability. Ames, IW: Iowa State University Press.
  21. Klare, G. R. (2000). Readable computer documentation. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 148-168. https://doi.org/10.1145/344599.344645
  22. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50, 46-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x
  23. Lang, A. (2006). Using the limited capacity model of motivated mediated message processing to design effective cancer communication messages. Journal of Communication, 56, S57-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00283.x
  24. Leshner, G., Bolls, P., & Thomas, E. (2009). Scare' em or disgust 'em: The effects of graphic health promotion messages graphic health messages. Health Communication, 24, 447-458. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230903023493
  25. Leshner, G., & Cheng, I. (2009). The effects of frame, appeal, and outcome extremity of antismoking messages on cognitive processing. Health Communication, 24(3), 219-227. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230902804117
  26. Leshner, G., Vultee, F., Bolls, P., & Moore, J. (2010). When a fear appeal isn''t a fear appeal: The effects of graphic anti-tobacco messages. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54(3), 485-507. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2010.498850
  27. Park, J., & Son, M. (2001). Public health and medical reporting. Seoul, Korea: Communication Books.
  28. Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of gain and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, 202-220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x
  29. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3
  30. Yu, N., Ahern, L. A., Connolly-Ahern, C., & Shen, F. (2010). Communicating the risks of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Effects of message framing and exemplification. Health Communication, 25(8), 692-699. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.521910