Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 668–672 | Cite as

Message Design and Audience Engagement with Tobacco Prevention Posts on Social Media

  • Yulia A. StrekalovaEmail author
  • Rachel E. Damiani


Understanding the appropriate medium to communicate health promotion messages is vital for improving personal and societal health. As increasingly more people utilize social media for health information, public health practitioners use these platforms to engage an existing audience in health promotion messages. In this study, the relational framing theory was used as a lens for studying how message framing may influence social media audience engagement. Specifically, we assessed how posts from Tobacco Free Florida’s Facebook page were framed as either dominant-submissive or affiliate-disaffiliate to an implied audience of either smokers, nonsmokers, active quitters, or a mixed audience, and the extent to which a direct call for engagement, in terms of a request to comment, like, or share the post, was used for audience engagement. A three-way interaction for the level of engagement through comments was significant, F(3217) = 7.11, p < .001, ηp 2 = .09, and showed that framing, a call for engagement, and varying implied audience choice played a role in audience engagement with smoking cessation posts on social media. Implied audiences of Tobacco Free Florida’s posts included smokers, those who are trying to quit, and nonsmokers as health promotion can be targeted at the individual’s health, social support infrastructure, or the well-being of the society, and implications for strategic message design and audience targeting are discussed.


Social media engagement Message design Message framing Smoking cessation 


  1. 1.
    World Health Organization. 2016. Health promotion.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. The Health Communicator’s Social Media Toolkit.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perrin, Andrew. 2015. Social media usage: 2005–2015.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neiger BL, Thackeray R, Burton SH, Giraud-Carrier CG, Fagen MC (2013) Evaluating social media’s capacity to develop engaged audiences in health promotion settings: use of Twitter metrics as a case study. Health Promot Pract 14:157–162. doi: 10.1177/1524839912469378 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kreuter MW, Wray RJ (2003) Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behav 27:S227–S232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dillard JP, Solomon DH, Samp JA (1996) Framing social reality: the relevance of relational judgments. Commun Res 23:703–723. doi: 10.1177/009365096023006004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McLaren, Rachel M., and Denise Haunani Solomon. 2014. Relational framing theory. In Engaging Theories in Interpersonal Communication: Multiple Perspectives, ed. D. O. Braitwaite and P. Schrodt, 115–127.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Strekalova, Yulia A. 2016. Health risk information engagement and amplification on social media: News about an emerging pandemic on Facebook. Health Education & Behavior: 1090198116660310. doi:10.1177/1090198116660310.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Solomon DH, Dillard JP, Anderson JW (2002) Episode type, attachment orientation, and frame salience: evidence for a theory of relational framing. Hum Commun Res 28:136–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00801.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krippendorff, Klaus. 2012. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. SAGE.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Burgoon JK, Johnson ML, Koch PT (1998) The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Commun Monogr 65:308–335. doi: 10.1080/03637759809376456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mccroskey JC, Richmond VP, Daly JA (1975) The development of a measure of perceived momophily in interpersonal communication. Hum Commun Res 1:323–332. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Picanço L, Biancovilli P, Jurberg C (2016) Beyond the drama: the beautiful life in news feeds on cancer. J Cancer Educ:1–5. doi: 10.1007/s13187-016-1094-2
  14. 14.
    Graham H (2012) Smoking, stigma and social class. Journal of Social Policy 41:83–99. doi: 10.1017/S004727941100033X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Riege A, Lindsay N (2006) Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder partnerships in the public policy development. J Knowl Manag 10:24–39. doi: 10.1108/13673270610670830 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Journalism and CommunicationsUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations