Organ donation video messaging: differential appeal, emotional valence, and behavioral intention

Clinical Transplantation

Volumn 28, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1184-1192

  Rodrigue, J R ^a,b   Fleishman, A ^a   Vishnevsky, T ^a   Fitzpatrick, S ^c   Boger, M ^c  

^a BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c New England Organ Bank   (United States)

Author keywords

donation education; donor registration; organ donation

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EMOTION; FEMALE; GRAFT RECIPIENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION SEEKING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MASS COMMUNICATION; NARRATIVE; ORGAN DONOR; ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RACE DIFFERENCE; VIDEO MESSAGING; VIDEORECORDING;

EID: 85007107791     PISSN: 09020063     EISSN: 13990012     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ctr.12449     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Healthcare Systems Bureau, 2012. National Survey of Organ Donation Attitudes and Behaviors. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
2. Donate Life America. National donor designation report card, 2013. http://donatelife.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/DLA_ReportCardFinal_2013.pdf.
3. Siminoff LA, Gordon N, Hewlett J, Arnold RM. Factors influencing families' consent for donation of solid organs for transplantation. JAMA 2001: 286: 71.
4. Rodrigue JR, Cornell DL, Howard RJ. Organ donation decision: comparison of donor and nondonor families. Am J Transplant 2006: 6: 190.
5. Childress JF, Liverman CT, eds. Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006.
6. Feeley TH, Moon S. A meta-analytic review of communication campaigns to promote organ donation. Commun Rep 2009: 22: 63.
7. Harrison TR, Morgan SE, Di Corcia MJ. Effects of information, education, and communication training about organ donation for gatekeepers: clerks at the Department of Motor Vehicles and organ donor registries. Prog Transplant 2008: 18: 301.
8. Rodrigue JR, Krouse J, Carroll C et al. A Department of Motor Vehicles intervention yields moderate increases in donor designation rates. Prog Transplant 2012: 22: 18.
9. Thornton JD, Alejandro-Rodriguez M, León JB et al. Effect of an iPod video intervention on consent to donate organs: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2012: 156: 483.
10. Bohannon J. Human subjects research: social science for pennies. Science 2011: 334: 307.
11. Gibson E, Piantadosi S, Fedorenko K. Using mechanical turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Lang Linguist Compass 2011: 5: 509.
12. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 2011: 6: 3.
13. Greene WF. Observations: what drives commercial liking? J Advert Res 1992: 32: 65.
14. MacKenzie SB, Lutz RJ, Belch GE. The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: a test of competing explanations. J Mark Res 1986: 23: 130.
15. Skumanich SA, Kintsfather DP. Promoting the organ donor card: a causal model of persuasion effects. Soc Sci Med 1996: 43: 401.
16. Reinhart AM, Marshall HM, Feeley TH, Tutzauer H. The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: the mediating role of psychological reactance. Commun Monogr 2007: 74: 229.
17. Feeley TH, Marshall HM, Reinhart AM. Reactions to narrative and statistical written messages promoting organ donation. Commun Rep 2006: 19: 89.
18. Chandler J, Mueller P, Paolacci G. Nonnaïveté among Amazon Mechanical Turk workers: consequences and solutions for behavioral researchers. Behav Res Methods 2014: 46: 112.