Comparing Theories of Media Learning: Cognitive Mediation, Information Utility, and Knowledge Acquisition from Cancer News

Abstract

Determining what factors predict media learning is an important avenue of research for the field of mass communication. The present study provides a comparative investigation of two models of media learning: the cognitive mediation model and the information utility model. Participants (N = 1,076) read a news article related to scientific discoveries relevant to cancer prevention and responded to all constructs of the two models. Recognition and comprehension were used to measure knowledge acquisition. Results generally support previous predictions of each model, though predicted variance remains small. In addition to testing the existing models, a modified cognitive mediation model using a key construct related to information utility—perceived relevance—was tested. The refined cognitive mediation model offered a more nuanced understanding of certain causal mechanisms but did not result in a meaningful change in predictive power of the model. Implications of the theoretical comparison and integration are discussed.

Notes

¹The larger study was a 2 (hedged vs. not hedged) × 2 (hedging attributed to the scientists responsible for the research vs. attributed to scientists not responsible for the research) × 4 (cancer news articles: nanobombs, lung cancer surgery, lycopene pills, Mediterranean diet) between subjects experimental design. In other words, participants were randomly assigned to one of four news articles that were each manipulated in terms of two message factors (hedging and attribution). After reading their respective news article, participants then completed measures of cancer fatalism, medical skepticism, patient trust, backlash, and recognition/comprehension of the content. They also completed measures relevant specific to this study, described below. As reported in Jensen et al. (2011), hedging significantly influenced perceptions of cancer fatalism and nutritional backlash, and attribution was related to medical skepticism. Hedging and attribution were not related to recognition/comprehension of the content—nor were they expected to be—thus those outcomes were not reported in the aforementioned article. Purdue University's institutional review board reviewed and approved study procedures in 2009.

²The correlation of the two perceived relevance items was high (r = .68, p < .001). There is some debate among researchers about whether to report two-item measures using correlational metrics or Cronbach's alpha (see Eisinga, te Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2013). Both are provided for reader consideration.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Andy J. King

Andy J. King (Ph.D., Purdue University, 2012) is an assistant professor in the College of Media & Communication at Texas Tech University. His research interests include health communication, message design, and visual messaging.

Jakob D. Jensen

Jakob D. Jensen (Ph.D., University of Illinois, 2007) is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. His research interests include cancer communication, mass media, and message design.

Nick Carcioppolo

Nick Carcioppolo (Ph.D., Purdue University, 2012) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Miami. His research interests include health communication and message design.

Melinda M. Krakow

Melinda M. Krakow (Ph.D., University of Utah, 2015) is a Cancer Prevention Fellow at the National Cancer Institute. Her research interests include cancer communication and women's health.

Ye Sun

Ye Sun (Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2008) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. Her research interests include media effects on individuals and health communication.