title: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Western Illinois University, Macomb, Illinois 61455, USA. lew109@wiu.edu
authors.forename: Lora J Ebert
authors.initials: LJ
authors.lastname: Wallace
authors.forename: Erin N
authors.initials: EN
authors.lastname: Taylor
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001942:Breast Feeding; D005260:Female; D006266:Health Education / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D041943:Infant Formula; D007229:Infant Welfare; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007802:Language; D008297:Male; D015146:Midwestern United States; D010565:Persuasive Communication; D012044:Regression Analysis; D012306:Risk; D014495:Universities; D055815:Young Adult