Communication Processes Following a Positive Newborn Screening for Cystic Fibrosis

With the tremendous expansion of knowledge that must follow from advances in the Human Genome Project, the question of how to effectively communicate genetic risk information will assume increasing importance. This project examines interactions between medical personnel and family members whose infant has received a positive newborn screening result for cystic fibrosis. The project aims to further our understanding of these highly stressful episodes for the purpose of reducing negative emotional reactions and heightening memory for genetic risk information.

Dillard, J.P., Carson, C.L., Bernard, C.J., Laxova, A., & Farrell, P.M. (2004). An analysis of communication following newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Health Communication, 16, 195-206.
Dillard, J.P., & Carson, C.L. (2005). Uncertainty management following a positive newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 57-76.
Dillard, J.P., & Tluczek, A. (2005). Information flow after a positive newborn screening for cystic fibrosis. Journal of Pediatrics, Issue 3, Supplement 1, 594-597.
Dillard, J.P., Shen, L., Laxova, A., & Farrell, P.M. (under review). Potential threats to the effective communication of genetic risk information: The case of cystic fibrosis.
Dillard, J.P., Shen, L., Tluczek, A., Modaff, M.K., & Farrell, P.M. (under review). The effect of disruptions during counseling on recall of genetic risk information: The case of cystic fibrosis.

How Do Emotions Persuade?

Despite the fact that emotion has been acknowledged to play an important role in persuasion since the time of Aristotle, we have relatively little solid social scientific knowledge regarding how feelings produce persuasive effects. Professor James Dillard, who oversees the emotion and persuasion project, is pursuing this question by examining public service announcements (PSAs) and other public health messages. To date, the project has shown that emotional responses to health messages are far more complex than previously thought. The aim is to develop a body of knowledge that can be used to design more effective ways of convincing individuals to maintain and improve their own well-being as well as that of others. Click on any of the article titles below to see an abstract of the research.

Dillard, J.P. (1994). Rethinking the study of fear appeals: An emotional perspective. Communication Theory, 4, 295-323.

Hale, J.L., & Dillard, J.P. (1994). Fear appeals in health promotion campaigns: Too much, too little, or just right? In E. Maibach & R. Parrott. (Eds.), Designing health messages: Approaches from communication theory and public health practice (pp. 65-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dillard, J.P., Plotnick, C.A., Godbold, L.C., Freimuth, V.S., & Edgar, T. (1996). The multiple affective consequences of AIDS PSAs: Fear appeals do more than scare people. Communication Research, 23, 44-72.

Dillard, J.P. (1997). The role of affect in communication, biology, and social relationships. In P.R. Andersen & L.Guerrero (Eds.), Communication and emotion (pp. xvii-xxxii). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Dillard, J.P., & Peck, E. (2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research, 27, 461-495.

Dillard, J.P. & Peck, E. (2001). Persuasion and the structure of affect: Dual systems and discrete emotions as complementary models. Human Communication Research, 27, 38-68.

Dillard, J.P., & Meijnders, A. (2002). Persuasion and the structure of affect. In J.P. Dillard & M.W. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp.309-328). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dillard, J.P., & Anderson, J.W. (2004). The role of fear in persuasion. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 909-926. (special issue on fear appeals.)

Dillard, J.P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its’ role in persuasion. Communication Monographs, 72, 144-168.

Dillard, J. P., & Nabi, R. (In press). The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. Journal of Communication.

How do people (try to) get what they want from others?

One of the central functions of communication is to produce change in others. Thus, it is important to examine how and why individuals attempt to influence the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of others. This line of research, conducted by James Dillard, focuses on the processes by which individuals produce messages that are intended to bring about change in other people. One distinguishing feature of the research is its emphasis on identifying the types of goals that individuals possess during influence interactions and showing how those goals relate to the variations in communication behavior.

Dillard, J.P., & Burgoon, M. (1985). Situational influences on compliance-gaining message selection: Two tests of the predictive utility of the Cody-McLaughlin typology. Communication Monographs, 52, 289-304.

Dillard, J.P., & Fitzpatrick, M.A. (1985). Compliance-gaining in marital interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 419-433.

Dillard, J.P. (1988). Compliance-gaining message selection: What is our dependent variable? Communication Monographs, 55, 162-183.

Dillard, J.P., Segrin, C. & Harden, J.M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the interpersonal influence process. Communication Monographs, 56, 19-38.

Dillard, J.P. (1989). Types of influence goals in close relationships. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 6, 293-308.

Dillard, J.P. (1990). The nature and substance of goals in tactical communication. In M.J. Cody & M.L. McLaughlin (Eds.), Psychology of tactical communication (pp. 70-90). London: Multilingual Matters.

Dillard, J.P. (1990). A goal-driven model of interpersonal influence. In J.P. Dillard (Ed.), Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages (pp. 41-56). Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch-Scarisbrick.

Dillard, J.P. (Ed.). (1990). Seeking compliance: The production of interpersonal influence messages. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch-Scarisbrick.

Dillard, J.P., & Harkness, C.D. (1992). Exploring the affective impact of influence messages. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 11, 179-191.

Dillard, J.P., & Kinney, T.A. (1994). Experiential and physiological responses to interpersonal influence. Human Communication Research, 20, 502-528.

Dillard, J.P., Kinney, T.A., & Cruz, M.G. (1996). Influence, appraisals, and emotions in close relationships.Communication Monographs, 63, 105-130.

Dillard, J.P. (1997). Explicating the goal construct: Tools for theorists. In J.O. Greene (Ed.), Message production: Advances in communication theory (pp. 47-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schrader, D.C., & Dillard, J.P. (1999). Goal structures and interpersonal influence. Communication Studies, 49, 276-293.

Dillard, J.P., & Schrader, D.C. (1998). On the utility of the goals-plans-action sequence. Communication Studies,49, 300-304.

Dillard, J.P., Anderson, J.W., & Knobloch, L.K. (2002). Interpersonal influence. M. Knapp & J. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dillard, J.P. (2004). The goals-plans-action model of interpersonal influence. In J.S. Seiter & R. Gass (Eds.), Readings in persuasion, social influence, and compliance-gaining (pp. 185-206). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

How Do Individuals Perceive and Process Relational Messages?

The study of communication has long been guided by the assumption that relationships are created, revealed, and modified by interpersonal interactions. Relational framing theory, developed by Denise Solomon and James Dillard, attempts to explain relational judgments as a product of cognitive structures interacting with social reality. One current application of the theory focuses on how informal interactions between organizational employees might be construed as either intimate communication or sexual harassment.

Dillard, J.P., Solomon, D.H., & Samp, J.A. (1996). Framing social reality: The relevance of relational judgments.Communication Research, 23, 703-723.

Dillard, J.P., Solomon, D.H., & Palmer, M.T. (1999). Structuring the concept of relational communication. Communication Monographs, 66, 49-65.

Tusing, K.J., & Dillard, J.P. (2000). The sounds of dominance: Vocal precursors of dominance during interpersonal influence. Human Communication Research, 26, 148-171.

Solomon, D.H., Dillard, J.P., & Anderson, J.W. (2002). Episode type, attachment anxiety, and the salience of dominance and affiliation: Evidence for a theory of relational framing. Human Communication Research, 28, 136-152.

Lannutti, P.J., & Monahan, J.L. (2002). When the frame paints the picture: Alcohol consumption, relational framing, ans sexual communication. Communication Research, 29, 390-421.

Henningsen, M.L.M., Henningsen, D.D., Cruz, M.G., & Morrill, J. (2003). Social influence in groups: A comparative application of relational framing theory and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication Monographs, 70, 175-197.

Dillard, J.P., & Solomon, D.H. (2005). Measuring the relevance of relational frames: A relational framing theory perspective. In V. Manusov (Ed.). Beyond words: A sourcebook of methods for measuring nonverbal cues (pp. 325-334). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.