PROVIDING INFORMATION
If people become aware of a health risk from a source they perceive to be trustworthy
and they also believe they can easily protect themselves, information alone can prompt
behaviour change. For example, media coverage about food scares such as bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) can lead to widespread change in behaviours such
as beef purchase (e.g. Swientek, 2001; Tyler, 2001). Inaccurate information can also
promote behaviour changes that increase health risk. For example, when a highly
regarded medical journal (The Lancet) published an article linking the measles, mumps
and rubella vaccine (MMR) with autism and inflammatory bowel disease in 1998,
MMR vaccination uptake fell and cases of measles increased. Although the validity of
the research was subsequently questioned by the journal’s editor as well as being
denounced by 10 of the 13 original authors and the UK prime minister (see The
Guardian, Tuesday 24 February 2004), it proved difficult to re-build public confidence
in the safety of MMR and raise vaccination uptake to previous levels. Further research
found no immunological response differences to MMR in children with and without
autism (Baird et al., 2008) but in 2008 national vaccination uptake levels still remained
lower than the optimal 95 per cent levels. This example emphasizes the power of
a credible source. When scientists and government ministers offer contradictory
information or when advice is perceived to serve the interests of the source (e.g.
industry), information and reassurance may not be believed. People may interpret,
‘there is no cause for concern’, as, ‘there must be a problem’ or, similarly, ‘this is
dangerous’ as ‘just more state interference’. Consequently, as well as the ethical
imperative for health professionals, scientists and government to ensure that information
available to the public is not misleading, there is a need to ensure information is accurate
and evidence-based to maintain future credibility.
Source credibility may also be enhanced by presentation of two-sided arguments.
Presenting the disadvantages as well as the advantages of a product or recommended
action has been found to be more persuasive because two-sided presentations result
in greater perceived credibility of the source (e.g. Crowley and Hoyer, 1994; Eisend,
2006). This may be especially true for sceptical audiences. Two-sided arguments may
also increase the perceived novelty of the message, which, in turn, enhances attention
and interest and so may promote positive attitude change (Eisend, 2007). Thus, being
open about the costs or side effects of a recommended action may be more effective
in changing attitudes and intentions because the audience is more likely to believe that
the highlighted benefits are real.
CHANGING MOTIVATION 1653 Explain how the manner in which messages are processed (i.e. the degree of
cognitive elaboration) determines which message features have most impact on
attitude change. Use this explanation to provide evidence-based advice on how
health promoters can maximize attitude change.
4 Illustrate the importance of self-efficacy to motivation, health behaviour and
health and explain how self-efficacy can be enhanced.