crystal blue persuasion

I am currently sitting in a dark and dingy(ish) room in the basement of Life Sciences, thinking about the Health Communications course we just had. Today, we talked about the skeleton of health communication--the various components that go into and that should be evaluated and considered when creating a health communication campaign. Perhaps the most salient topic discussed was that of the dual process persuasion theory, which my JDP classmates will remember learning about an eternity ago. (Big ups to Radmilla). Yep--systematic vs. heuristic; argument vs. cue; central vs. peripheral. The works. Despite having understood the theory's principles the first time around, it was today that I really grasped its weight and relevance to our field.

Applying this theory in the context of producing health promotion campaigns makes complete sense. In our field, we talk a lot about tailoring messages to have the best impact--almost incessantly. But I hadn't before considered the practical utility of tailoring health messages based on whether someone was likely to think about an issue centrally (i.e., systematically, effortfully) or peripherally (heuristically, using mental shortcuts). I came away from today's class realizing that it is critical to make messages relevant to the target group and to then to use either simple cues or complex arguments, depending on the cognitive approach the target individuals are using.

As I close, I am thinking about some of the (psychotherapy) clients with whom I have trouble making an impact. Perhaps part of the reason that my message does not get through to some of the folks I am working with is that I have not adequately accounted for the relevance of the topic to and/or the cognitive style of the individual. In other words, perhaps some of my clients are “cognitive misers!” With this new perspective in mind, I look forward to working with my clients on Friday--perhaps I will be able to move some folks toward much-needed change... Fingers crossed!