Refutational Messages on Donor Cards: A Test of Boomerang Effects

Abstract

The use of refutational messages was suggested in a recent discussion about public communication campaigns as an instrument in recruiting donor-card holders. Characteristically such messages not only point out arguments in favour of filling in a donor card, but they also refute potential counterarguments. In the light of normative altruism models this particular sort of message runs a high risk of boomerang effects. In this experiment it was hypothesised that, specifically for subjects showing a strong tendency to deny responsibility, the presence of a refutational message results in (a) stronger agreement with negative behavioural outcomes, (b) weaker intentions to fill in a donor card, and (c) less desired behaviour. Experimental results relate to 202 inhabitants of a Dutch town. Their average age is 39 yr.; 34% are male, while average education is comparable to junior high school. High-denial subjects showed the predicted effect of stronger agreement with negative behavioural consequences, less willingness to complete a donor card, and less desired behaviour. However, boomerang effects were not experimentally confirmed. Some conditions explaining the nonoccurrence of detrimental campaign effects and suggestions for further experiments are discussed.

A Comprehensive Observational Coding Scheme for Analyzing Instrumental, Affective, and Relational Communication in Health Care Contexts

“…Health care recipients do not always agree with clinician recommendations and this dynamic may reveal much about their shared interaction. Successful use of refutations can neutralize reservations or build resistance to recommendations (Boster, Levine, & Kazoleas, 1993; Kazoleas, 1993; Winkel & Huismans, 1986). SCCAP coding includes identification and description of persuasive arguments and any corresponding refutation from any speaker.…”

Effects of Refutational Messages, Thought Provocation, and Decision Deadlines on Signing to Donate Organs1

“…This finding suggested that effective messages need to accompany requests for signing: messages which present both the beneficial aspects of organ donation and refutations of false beliefs about its perceived negative aspects. The superior effects of such messages on willingness were demonstrated by Winkel (1 984), Winkel and Huismans (1986), and Deuser (1989). For example, Deuser's study compared the effect of a true statement regarding the nutritional value of red meat to a foot-in-the-door procedure and to a two-sided message.…”

Signing an Organ Donation Letter: The Prediction of Behavior From Behavioral Intentions1

“…1986), knowledge (e.g., Horton & Horton, 1990. and persuasive message styles (e.g., Winkel, 1984;Winkel & Huismans, 1986). Shortcomings o f these approaches include the failure to require that family serves as a witness, the fact that only a small percentage of those wishing to donate actually have donor cards (Overcast et al, 1984).…”