Potential Risks of “Risk” Language in Breastfeeding Advocacy

Abstract

In this article the authors analyze the use of "risks of formula language" versus "benefits of breastfeeding language" in breastfeeding advocacy texts. Feeding intentionality and 434 adult respondents' assessments of advocacy texts were examined at a mid-western university in the fall of 2009. No significant difference was observed between those who read text phrased in terms of "risks of formula feeding" and those who read text describing "benefits of breastfeeding" in feeding intentionality. Results supported the expectation that respondents would less favorably assess texts using risk language-respondents rated risk texts as less trustworthy, accurate, and helpful compared to benefit text. Texts were also varied in "medical" and "breastfeeding advocacy group" affiliations. Analyses revealed that texts including the medical logo were rated significantly more favorably compared to breastfeeding advocacy logo and no logo conditions. Findings suggest that use of risk language may not be an advantageous health promotion strategy, but may be counter-productive to the goals of breastfeeding advocates.

When ‘breast’ is no longer ‘best’: Post-partum constructions of infant-feeding in the hospital

“…For example, as a "health-risk behaviour", any use of formula feeding is purported to be linked to otitis media (McNiel et al, 2010, p. 57), higher risks of obesity, asthma, Type 2 diabetes, diarrhea and ear infections, reduced cognitive development, chronic disease, and mortality (Sterken, 2006). The impact of the risk discourse on infant feeding practice is not well known (Heinig, 2009;Ebert Wallace and Taylor, 2011), and breastfeeding is understood in the literature as 'successful' when it is exclusively practiced, or, in other words, when supplementation is not required or used (Murphy, 2000;Schmied et al, 2001). …”

Running a Risk: Expectant Mothers Respond to “Risk” Language in Breastfeeding Promotion

“…We expected this to be true for both types of promotion text used in this study: "benefits of breastfeeding" and "risks of formula." Given the overall positive but weak effects found in other short-term, riskbased health promotion programs (e.g., smoking cessation; Tyas & Pederson, 1998), and given findings from our previous study (Wallace & Taylor, 2011), we hypothesized that respondents' intentionality to feed future infants would not be significantly differentiated by the language of the promotion text. Further, given that most expectant mothers have been exposed to information regarding infant feeding prior to the birth of their children, and because there is evidence that most people know that breastfeeding is believed by health experts to be advantageous (Kukla, 2006), we did not expect the reading of the breastfeeding promotion texts to be associated with feeding intent among these expectant mothers.…”

“…Each of these outcome measures was created by the investigators for a previous study (Wallace & Taylor, 2011). Regarding feeding intentionality, respondents indicated their agreement with statements of intent for three different feeding methods, including feeding breast milk from the breast, feeding pumped breast milk from a bottle, and feeding formula from a bottle.…”

“…(Each version of the text is provided in the Appendix.) These texts were developed for use in our previous study (Wallace & Taylor, 2011). The base (benefit) text was chosen from the National Breastfeeding Committee's publication because it is representative of a highly accepted mainstream Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 11:31 21 June 2016 breastfeeding promotional information/text that emphasizes the advantages of breastfeeding and breast milk.…”

“…Heinig (2009) provided a commentary on the topic, based on her personal experience counseling mothers, and results of Nommsen-Rivers et al's (2010) quantitative study suggested that expectant mothers' feelings about formula were significantly more strongly related to feeding intention than other factors. The only other systematic examination of this research question to date is our previous study (Wallace & Taylor, 2011), in which we sought to fill this gap in the literature by examining the relationships between the phrasing of breastfeeding promotion language, attitudes toward the text, and infant feeding intent among university students.…”