Title: The impact of objective/sensationalist media on young women’s concern and
misconceptions about breast cancer: An experimental study
Version: 3 Date: 06 Mar 2025
Reviewer's report:
This is a relatively straightforward study that is easy to follow with some nice takeaways. I have
a few notes that are primarily focused on detail that can be added. I will highlight these in the
order they come up in the paper.
First, objective versus sensationalist information comparisons are not precisely what is going on
here. The key manipulation is narrative format versus non-narrative format, or what could even
be construed as an exemplification (e.g., Zillman, 1999) manipulation with “base rate” versus
more vivid exemplar. That framework matches your predictions here, for the most part, in which
exemplars (such as a personalized story with experiences, quotes, and photos) result in elevated
risk perceptions relative to a more “base rate” message that focuses only on the straightforward
information (“objective”). Then, this study adds an additional question of whether an age marker
further alters perceptions of cancer risk.
Zillmann, D. (1999). Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by some of its parts. Media
psychology, 1(1), 69-94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_5
More than a representation of what stories are in certain publications (e.g., “women’s
magazines”), but that this also resembles more general narratives in media (and social media)
and perhaps even interpersonal sharing. Relatedly, I found “sensationalist” to be a bit strong.
While that may be more “sensational,” the manipulation is more squarely one of vividness,
personification, and narrative form.
All that said, I do not think that this is an issue for validity. Instead, a matter of framing in the
set-up and your take-aways.
METHOD:
Age manipulation is straightforward, but were there and pre-tests or manipulation tests to see
whether they were perceived as same vs older than the participants?
For the measures, while pull primarily from established scales with their citations, it would be
helpful for readers if an example item or two was included to give additional context.
Regarding sampling, a little more detail is needed. Was this only shared to researchers’ personal
accounts? Shared via snowball sampling? Or public posting?
RESULTS:
Generally speaking, the data supports the primary assumptions of the study and of
exemplification: Providing a vivid message increased perceptions of risk, but adding age
markers largely did not alter perceptions by an large. But, that adding of an age marker did affect
personal cancer likelihood.
While personal cancer susceptibility varied between the younger vivid condition and base rate
condition, there was no variation between the older vivid condition and the base rate condition.
What does that mean in the context of your other findings? That particularly arose for me in
the tests of H2 and H4.
That said, it is worth noting the extent of the difference here. First, tables with relevant mean
scores should be pointed to when reporting these results to give better context.
If I am reading correctly, this would be a difference of Condition 1 M = 29.09 (SD=2.46) and
Condition 2 M=39.34 (SD=2.48). This yields a Cohen’s d of ~4.15 (in addition to being a 10
point difference), which is quite large!
While I still see the age manipulation as a bit weak, pending any sort of manipulation check,
it is quite apparent there is a difference here, though slightly smaller when comparing the two
narrative conditions (d=2.89)
Otherwise, I think the takeaways generally make sense. It could be more clearly stated that
these personalized stories that are often found in media and shared interpersonally can skew
risk perceptions, in addition to the sample just generally having inaccurate beliefs, but that it is
especially the case that *personal* cancer risk is especially affected, rather than more general
cancer prevalence perceptions.