Advertisement

Nicht-intendierte Medienwirkungen im Gesundheitsbereich

  • Tino MeitzEmail author
  • Anja Kalch
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Gesundheitskampagnen und -informationen können eine Vielzahl nicht-intendierter Effekte hervorrufen, die vor allem dann relevant werden, wenn sie negative Konsequenzen im Gesundheitsverhalten der Rezipientinnen und Rezipienten hervorrufen. Der vorliegende Beitrag führt zunächst grundlegend in nicht-intendierte Medienwirkungen ein, stellt Systematisierungsvorschläge für die Gesundheitskommunikation vor und geht auf ausgewählte Beispiele ein, bevor abschließend der Umgang mit nicht-intendierten Effekten in der empirischen Forschung diskutiert wird.

Schlüsselwörter

Nicht-intendierte Effekte Bumerang-Effekt Strukturelle und funktionale Effekte Risikokommunikation Indirekte Effekte 

Literatur

  1. Albrecht, M., Mühlhauser, I., & Steckelberg, A. (2014). Evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsinformationen. In K. Hurrelmann & E. Baumann (Hrsg.), Handbuch Gesundheitskommunikation (S. 142–158). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  2. Betsch, C., & Sachse, K. (2013). Debunking vaccination myths: Strong risk negations can increase perceived vaccination risks. Health Psychology, 32(2), 146–155.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., & Krieger, H. (2015). Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: A critical review using a systematic search strategy. Medical Decision Making, 35(4), 539–557.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14547740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond, M., Pavey, T., Welch, K., Cooper, C., Garside, R., Dean, S., & Hyde, C. (2013). Systematic review of the psychological consequences of false-positive screening mammograms. Health Technology Assessment, 17(13).  https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17130.
  5. Byrne, S., & Hart, P. S. (2009). The boomerang effect a synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. Annals of the International Communication Association, 33(1), 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chapman, S., McLeod, K., Wakefield, M., & Holding, S. (2005). Impact of news of celebrity illness on breast cancer screening: Kylie Minogue’s breast cancer diagnosis. Medical Journal of Australia, 183(5), 247–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cho, H., & Salmon, C. T. (2006). Fear appeals for individuals in different stages of change: Intended and unintended effects and implications on public health campaigns. Health Communication, 20(1), 91–99.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327027hc2001_9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho, H., & Salmon, C. T. (2007). Unintended effects of health communication campaigns. Journal of Communication, 57(2), 293–317.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00344.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, D. G. R., Barwell, J., Eccles, D. M., Collins, A., Izatt, L., Jacobs, C., et al. (2014). The Angelina Jolie effect: How high celebrity profile can have a major impact on provision of cancer related services. Breast Cancer Research, 16(5).  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-014-0442-6.
  10. Gerber, B. S., & Eiser, A. R. (2001). The patient physician relationship in the Internet age: Future prospects and the research agenda. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 3(2), E15.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3.2.e15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (Hrsg.). (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Haase, N., Betsch, C., & Renkewitz, F. (2015). Source credibility and the biasing effect of narrative information on the perception of vaccination risks. Journal of Health Communication, 20(8), 920–929.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haslberger, A. G. (2003). Codex guidlines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects. Nature Biotechnology, 21, 739–741.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0703-739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hastall, M. R. (2014). Persuasions- und Botschaftsstrategien. In K. Hurrelmann & E. Baumann (Hrsg.), Handbuch Gesundheitskommunikation (S. 399–412). Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  15. Hastall, M. R. (2016). Wirkung von Furchtappellen in der Werbung. In G. Siegert, W. Wirth, P. Weber & J. A. Lischka (Hrsg.), Handbuch Werbeforschung (S. 493–513). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holbach, T., & Maurer, M. (2014). Wissenswerte Nachrichten. Agenda-Setting-Effekte zwischen Medienberichterstattung und Online-Informationsverhalten am Beispiel der EHEC-Epidemie. Publizistik, 59, 65–81.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11616-013-0191-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hovland, C. I. (1959). Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental and survey studies of attitude change. American Psychologist, 14(1), 8–17.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hovland, C. I., Lumsdaine, A. A., & Sheffield, F. D. (1949). Short-time and long-time effects of an orientation film (Experiments on mass communication, Bd. 3, S. 182–200). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hwang, Y. (2012). Social diffusion of campaign effects: Campaign-generated interpersonal communication as a mediator of antitobacco campaign effects. Communication Research, 39(1), 120–141.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210389029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelman, H. C., & Hovland, C. I. (1953). „Reinstatement“ of the communicator in delayed measurement of opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(3), 327–335.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lienemann, B. A., Siegel, J. T., & Crano, W. D. (2013). Persuading people with depression to seek help: Respect the boomerang. Health Communication, 28(7), 718–728.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.712091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lipset, S. M., Lazarsfeld, P. F., Barton, A. H., & Linz, J. (1954). The psychology of voting: An analysis of political behavior. In G. Lindzey (Hrsg.), Handbook of social psychology (Special fields and applications, Bd. 2, S. 1124–1175). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  23. Lombardini, C., & Lankoski, L. (2013). Forced choice restriction in promoting sustainable food consumption: Intended and unintended effects of the mandatory vegetarian day in Helsinki Schools. Journal of Consumer Policy, 36(2), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lorenc, T., & Oliver, K. (2014). Adverse effects of public health interventions: A conceptual framework. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 68(3), 288–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Macedo, A. F., Taylor, F. C., Casas, J. P., Adler, A., Prieto-Merino, D., & Ebrahim, S. (2014). Unintended effects of statins from observational studies in the general population: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine, 12, 51.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32(1), 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Meitz, T. G. K., Ort, A., Kalch, A., Zipfel, S., & Zurstiege, G. (2016). Source does matter: Contextual effects on online media-embedded health campaigns against childhood obesity. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 565–574.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mica, A. (2014). Weber’s „essential paradox of social action“: What can sociology of the unintended learn from public policy analysis? Profilaktyka Społeczna i Resocjalizacja, 23, 71–95.Google Scholar
  29. Miettinen, O. S. (1983). The need for randomization in the study of intended effects. Statistics in Medicine, 2(2), 267–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgan, S. E., King, A. J., Smith, J. R., & Ivic, R. (2010). A kernel of truth? The impact of television storylines exploiting myths about organ donation on the public’s willingness to donate. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 778–796.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01523.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Niederdeppe, J., Shapiro, M. A., & Porticella, N. (2011). Attributions of responsiblity for obesity: Narrative communication reduces reactive counterarguing among liberals. Human Communication Research, 37(3), 295–323.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01409.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peters, G. J. Y., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: A critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychology Review, 7, S8–S31.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2012.703527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.Google Scholar
  34. Petty, R., Kasmer, J., Haugtvedt, C., & Cacioppo, J. (1987). Source and message factors in persuasion: A reply to Stiff’s critique of the elaboration likelihood model. Communication Monographs, 54, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Redelmeier, D. A., Rozin, P., & Kahneman, D. (1993). Understanding patients decisions – Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association, 270(1), 72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shackelton, R. J., Marceau, L. D., Link, C. L., & McKinlay, J. B. (2009). The intended and unintended consequences of clinical guidelines. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 15(6), 1035–1042.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2009.01201.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  38. Shepperd, J. A., Waters, E. A., Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. P. (2015). A primer on unrealistic optimism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 232–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Siegrist, M., & Cvetkovich, G. (2001). Better negative than positive? Evidence of a bias for negative information about possible health dangers. Risk Analysis, 21(1), 199–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sternthal, B., Phillips, L. W., & Dholakia, R. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility: A situational analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 42(3), 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Trevena, L. J., Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., Edwards, A., Gaissmaier, W., Galesic, M., Han, P. K. J., … Woloshin, S. (2013). Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: A risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(Suppl. 2), 7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S7a.
  42. Weber, M. (1958). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (Student’s ed.). New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  43. White, M. P., Pahl, S., Buehner, M., & Haye, A. (2003). Trust in risky messages: The role of prior attitudes. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wilson, K., Senay, I., Durantini, M., Sánchez, F., Hennessy, M., Spring, B., & Albarracín, D. (2015). When it comes to lifestyle recommendations, more is sometimes less: A meta-analysis of theoretical assumptions underlying the effectiveness of interventions promoting multiple behavior domain change. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 474–509.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals – The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591–615.  https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yanovitzky, I., & Stryker, J. (2001). Mass media, social norms, and health promotion efforts. A longitudinal study of media effects on youth binge drinking. Communication Research, 28(2), 208–239.  https://doi.org/10.1177/009365001028002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Young, R., Subramanian, R., & Hinnnant, A. (2016). Stigmatizing images in obesity health campaign messages and healthy behavioral intentions. Health Education & Behavior, 43(4), 412–419.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198115604624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lehrbereich Kommunikations- und MedienpsychologieFriedrich-Schiller-Universität JenaJenaDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für Medien, Wissen und Information – Rezeption und WirkungUniversität AugsburgAugsburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations