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.

KEYWORDS:

• infant feeding
• breastfeeding advocacy
• public health

Notes

Note. †Condition groups did not differ significantly in composition by white/nonwhite race, gender, age, parental educational attainment, or parental income.

Notes. *p < .05

**p < .01

†Models 1–7 included gender, race, income, education, and risk/benefit language, Model 2 also included logo/no logo, Model 3 also included medical logo/breastfeeding advocacy logo, Model 4 also included medical logo/any other logo, Model 5 also included breastfeeding advocacy logo/any other logo, Model 6 also included medical logo/no logo, Model 7 also included breastfeeding advocacy logo/no logo.

††A higher numerical score indicates higher parental income or higher level of parental educational attainment.

Notes. *p < .05

**p < .01

†Models 1–7 included gender, race, income, education, and risk/benefit language, Model 2 also included logo/no logo, Model 3 also included medical logo/breastfeeding advocacy logo, Model 4 also included medical logo/any other logo, Model 5 also included breastfeeding advocacy logo/any other logo, Model 6 also included medical logo/no logo, Model 7 also included breastfeeding advocacy logo/no logo.

††A higher numerical score indicates higher parental income or higher level of parental educational attainment.

Notes. *p < .05

**p < .01

†Models 1–7 included gender, race, income, education, and risk/benefit language, Model 2 also included logo/no logo, Model 3 also included medical logo/breastfeeding advocacy logo, Model 4 also included medical logo/any other logo, Model 5 also included breastfeeding advocacy logo/any other logo, Model 6 also included medical logo/no logo, Model 7 also included breastfeeding advocacy logo/no logo.

††A higher numerical score indicates higher parental income or higher level of parental educational attainment.

Notes. *p < .05

**p < .001.

†Models 1–7 included gender, race, income, education, and risk/benefit language, Model 2 also included logo/no logo, Model 3 also included medical logo/breastfeeding advocacy logo, Model 4 also included medical logo/any other logo, Model 5 also included breastfeeding advocacy logo/any other logo, Model 6 also included medical logo/no logo, Model 7 also included breastfeeding advocacy logo/no logo.

1. A body of research has associated a decrease in diabetes, asthma, certain forms of cancer, and other health complications and illnesses with breastfeeding, both for the breastfed infant and the breastfeeding woman (see Labbok, 1999). Some scholars and other commentators have challenged the well-known and widespread assertions regarding the benefits of breastfeeding, suggesting that the research is not as conclusive as medical researchers, public health officials, and breastfeeding advocates have argued (see Law, 2000; Wolf, 2007).

2. See http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/reportcard2.htm for national rates of breastfeeding initiation and duration.

3. Research shows that intent to breastfeed and actual feeding behavior are not commensurate. While intent to breastfeed is correlated with breastfeeding behavior (McMillan et al., 2008; Wallace & Chason, 2007), only 43% of mothers who initiated breastfeeding continued to breastfeed six months after birth in 2007 (http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/reportcard2.htm). The gap between intent and behavior is connected to many factors, as evidenced by the research that chronicles the wide variety of reasons (e.g., returning to paid work, lack of family support) that women desist from breastfeeding after initiation (Arora et al., 2000; Avishai Bentovim, 2002; Khoury et al., 2005; Roe et al., 1999).