Here is a helpful response to the soap opera question posed by the [him] moderator at http://www.hivinfo4mm.org/blog/_archives/2010/1/7/4422478.html.
[him] moderator
*************************
Dramatic narratives can change knowledge, but that is not their real
strength. Straightforward messages from a credible source do it much
better, and at a much cheaper cost. Using a dramatic narrative to teach
the facts of HIV is often a waste of communication resources. This is
because broadcast messages with low repetition (such as a soap opera) have
little "staying power", and fictional characters are often not a
authoritative sources -- both "staying power" and a credible source are
needed to increase knowledge levels. The facts of HIV can be taught more
cheaply and more effectively using other media or other broadcast formats.
Similarly, if other communication needs are greater, such as persuasion,
skills-building or advocacy, other communication approaches are called
for. Soap operas can't do everything, and they may or may not be the best
medium in a given situation.
The real strength and documented best use of soap operas is in deep
attitude change.
Here are three effective uses of soap operas for change, all well
supported by communication research:
1. To raise self efficacy through vicarious experience (following
Bandura's theory of modeling). Self efficacy is the measure of how capable
one feels of a certain action. Self efficacy increases when an appealing
character with whom the audience identifies strongly is seen struggling to
overcome obstacles, ultimately succeeding at doing something they
previously thought they could not do. For HIV prevention this might be
standing up to opposition from peers to end a risky behavior, asking a
partner to use a condom, or learning to accept and support a friend with
HIV, for example. This occurs when the audience starts to feel that a
character in a soap opera is as real as a real friend.
2. To change social norms by showing certain behaviors as common and
acceptable. This is one of the few media effects that is strongly
supported by research. For example, research shows that when audiences
consistently see television programs with more equal gender roles, more
violence, or more smoking etc., they are more likely to think that these
behaviors are normal. The effect on behavior itself is much more difficult
to prove, but since they are among the precursors of behavior, changing
social norms can be a worthwhile goal.
3. To improve the image of a certain behavior or category of person. In a
well-known example cited by Manoff, a soap opera successfully changed the
image of female family planning workers in a community where it was
thought that no "good woman" would do such work. Similarly to (2), the
soap opera introduced new ideas into the discourse, shifting the picture
of reality for the audience members and ultimately reshaping this
attitude.
What soap operas do NOT do well and should never try to do (but too often
do) is to tell cautionary tales about the dangers of HIV. Negative
examples have NOT been shown to increase preventive behaviors, and they
may increase stigma and discrimination, leading paradoxically to an
increase in risk, as people seek to avoid the labels.
In short, soap operas are not easy tools for behavior change. They are no
quick fix, but they can be effective if done right. They need good
audience research/analysis and a clear understanding of how to apply
behavior change theory. Appropriate communication objectives need to be
formulated and characters and storylines skillfully designed. The best
change-oriented soap operas I have seen involved a close, on-going
partnership between HIV communication specialists, media producers and the
community.
Some careful thought and design can help this project make the best use of
their funding. I hope these thoughts have been helpful. I wish them well.
Barbara A.K. Franklin, PhD
All One Communication
Chiang Mai, Thailand
66-81-830-4281
www.allonecommunication.com
