The Community Studies of the Stanford Heart Disease Prevention Program

  • Nathan Maccoby
  • John W. Farquhar
  • Stephen P. Fortmann
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (NSSA, volume 84)


In 1971, the Stanford University Heart Disease Prevention Program undertook a three-community study to discover a method for risk reduction that would be generally applicable. (Farquhar et al., 1977; Maccoby et al., 1977). Why did we pick a community as the unit of education for reducing risk of cardiovascular disease? (1) If an individual therapist-instructor is used with either one person at a time or even with a small group of persons, the problem of general risk reduction is just too large to manage. Such an undertaking would be very expensive, and the number of therapist-instructors needed would be astronomically high. (2) Risk reduction involves behavior changes that have a very long-term-even a lifetime—duration. Cessation of smoking or not beginning to smoke cigarettes is behavior that has to last if it is going to make a contribution to the reduction of risk of disease. Similarly, changes in diet involving reductions in dietary cholesterol, saturated fats, salt, and calories generally call for permanent changes in eating habits. (3) These changes need to take place not in the clinic but in the context of people’s environments. Furthermore, the community nexus can contribute greatly to the maintenance of changes in life style. The home, the school, the work place (Meyer and Henderson, 1974) and other community settings are the environments in which such behavior occurs, and therefore it must be practiced there. Furthermore, these institutions are potential sources of support for new behavior, or they can constitute obstacles to such changes (Farquhar, 1978).


Community Study Medium Campaign City Project Community Health Promotion Survey Effect 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. 1980.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 37 (1982) 122–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandura, A. The self system in reciprocal determinims. American Psychologist 33 (1978) 344–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.Google Scholar
  6. Bernstein, D. A. and McAlister, A. The modification of smoking behavior: Progress and problems. Addictive Behavior 1 (1976) 195–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bauer, R. The obstinate audience: The influence process from the point of view of social communications. American Psychologist 19 (1964) 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butts, W. C., Kuehneman, M., and Widdowson, G. M. Automated method for determining serum thiocyanate to distinguish smokers from non-smokers. Clinical Chemistry 20 (1974) 1344–1348.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cartwright, D. Some principles of mass persuasion. Human Relations 2 (1949) 253–267.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Fleur, M. L. and Ball-Rokeach, S. Theories of mass communication. New York: David MacKay, 1974.Google Scholar
  11. Dervin, B. Mass communications: Changing conceptions of the audience. In R. Rice and W. Paisley (eds.), Public communication campaigns, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. Farquhar, J. W. The community-based model of life-style intervention trials. American Journal of Epidemiology 108 (1978) 103–111.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Farquhar, J. W., Maccoby, N., Wood, P. D., Alexander, J. K., Breitrose, H., Brown, B. W., Jr., Haskell, W. L., McAlister, A. L., Meyer, A. J., Nash, J. D., and Stern, M. P. Community education for cardiovascular health. Lancet (1977) 1192–1195.Google Scholar
  14. Festinger, L. and Maccoby, N. On resistance to persuasive communications. Journal of Social and Abnormal Psychology 68 (1964).Google Scholar
  15. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior. In Introduction to theory and research. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1975.Google Scholar
  16. Lumsdaine, A. A. and Janis, I. L. Resistance to counterpropaganda produced by one-sided and two-sided communication. Public Opinion Quarterly 17 (1953) 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maccoby, N., Farquhar, J. W., Wood, P. D., and Alexander, J. K. Reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease: effects of a community-based campaign on knowledge and behavior. Journal of Community Health 3 (1977) 100–114.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mendelsohn, H. Some reasons why information campaigns can succeed. Public Opinion Quarterly 37 (1973) 50–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer, A. J. and Henderson, J. B. Multiple risk factor reduction in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Preventive Medicine 3 (1974) 225–236.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. McAlister, A. L., Perry, C., and Maccoby, N. Adolescent smoking: Onset and prevention. Pediatrics 63 (1979) 650–658.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. McCombs, M. and Shaw, D. The agenda setting function of the mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (1972) 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGuire, W. J. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey and E. (eds.) The handbook of social psychology Aronson, 3rd Edition. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1984.Google Scholar
  23. McGuire, W. J. The nature of attitude change. In G. Lindzey and E. Aranson (eds.) The handbook of social psychology. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley, 1969.Google Scholar
  24. McGuire, W. J. Reducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches. In L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  25. Ray, M. L., Sawyer, A. G., Rothschild, M. L., Heelers, R. M., Strong, E. C., and Reed, J. B. Marketing communication and the hierarchy of effects. In P. Clarke (ed.) New models for mass communication research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1973.Google Scholar
  26. Roberts, D. F. and Maccoby, N. Information processing and persuasion: Counterarguing behavior. In P. Clarke (ed.) New models for mass communication research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1973.Google Scholar
  27. Robertson, L. S., Kelley, A. B., O’Neill, B., Wixom, C., Eisworth, R., and Haddon, W. A controlled study of the effort of television messages on safety belt use. American Journal of Public Health 64 (1974) 1071–1080.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  29. Star, S. and Hughes, H. M. Report of an educational campaign: The Cincinnati plan for the United Nations. American Journal of Sociology 55 (1950) 826–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stunkard, A. J. From explanation to action in psychosomatic medicine: The case of obesity. Psychosomatic Medicine 37 (1975) 195–236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. United States Department of Health Education, and Welfare. Lipid Research Clinics manual of laboratory operations, Vol. 1. Lipid and lipoprotein analysis. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1974. (DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 75–628).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan Maccoby
  • John W. Farquhar
  • Stephen P. Fortmann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations