April 7-9, 2022 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Communication Strategies to Promote Comprehensive Well-being
Communication Strategies to Promote Comprehensive Well-being
Abstract: Translating Health Communication Research Using Whiteboard Animation
Health communication scholars have called for increased dissemination of research, through translational practices, non-technical audiences easily understand and access peer-reviewed research (Estabrooks, et al., 2018; Kreps, 2011). Whiteboard animation and narrative messaging are tactics that are useful in translating health-related information. Whiteboard animation is used to communicate complex facts in a succinct way and appeal to people across education levels (Kramer & Bohrs, 2017; Lang et al., 1995). Furthermore, communication scholarship has established the usefulness of narratives in prompting narrative transportation (Hinyard & Krueter, 2007; Green et al., 2004) and, in turn, understanding credible information about health issues (Chang, 2008). Thus, narrative transportation is likely a powerful tool that can be used to help non-technical audiences gain understanding of health communication research. Based on cognitive-affective theory of learning with media (CATML), we assessed the effectiveness of whiteboard animation videos versus written scripts on inducing narrative transportation (Moreno, 2006). Further, using the logic of the extended elaboration likelihood model (E-ELM; Slater & Rouner, 2002), this study examined the effectiveness of whiteboard animation, and narrative messaging at promoting narrative transportation, which may be a step towards successful translation of peer-reviewed health communication literature. We conducted a 2 (video vs. written) x 2 (narrative vs. non-narrative) x 2 (Thompson et al. vs. Rafferty et al. article) factorial design. We developed the stimuli by creating messages based on key findings provided in two peer-review articles about health communication (Rafferty & Beck, 2019; Thompson et al., 2020). Narrative scripts followed the story from a specific character’s perspective (e.g., Taylor) and non-narrative scripts told the story from an aggregate perspective (e.g., some people). Participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk). All participants (N = 444) completed a pretest, were randomly assigned into one of eight experimental conditions, and completed a posttest. There was not a significant difference between narrative and non-narrative conditions (F(1, 443) = 3.34, p =.56). Whiteboard animation videos induced significantly more narrative transportation compared to the written scripts (F(1, 443) = 3.79, p =.05). As predicted by E-ELM, the model (e.g., enjoyment, quality of content, homophily, and unobtrusiveness of persuasion predict transportation) was supported (F(4, 440) = 52.37 , p <.001). Although the model was supported in all conditions, the model accounted for the most variance in the video, narrative, Rafferty et al. condition (R2 = .65). Results from this study suggests that whiteboard animation videos are more successful than written text at transporting individuals. Given the affordability and ease of whiteboard animation creation, it should be considered as a viable option for translating health communication research. Furthermore, narratives did not yield more narrative transportation than non-narrative messaging, possibly because the differences between the stories were too subtle (e.g., Taylor vs. some people). Finally, this study provides further support for the E-ELM; however, given the large differences in the variance accounted for across conditions, our study suggests a need for further examination about the role that messaging elements (e.g., narratives, videos, written, etc.) play within the E-ELM.