Donors and Nondonors: Communication and Information E. P. BETTINGHAUS AND M. B. MILKOVICH From the Depattment of Communication. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan
seems reason to improve donor procurement practices. In many areas of the United States, increasing the amount of blood collected depends on the development and utilization of better communication with donors and potential donors. Effective communication campaigns would improve blood collection efforts by broadening the present donor pool and/or increasing collections within the present donor pool. The effectiveness of such campaigns, however, is highly dependent upon an intimate knowledge of the audiences to whom messages are directed. A review of the literature revealed that research strategies which could be important INCREASINGEFFORTS have been made to in providing information about donors and more effectively utilize this nation’s blood potential donors have been used sparingly. resources. Such efforts are essential if the Only one study was found, for example, demands for blood and blood products are which systematically compared donors and to be met in the years ahead. A task force nondonors. Ford and Wallace: as part of a sponsored by the Component Therapy Inlarger study on news media usage, asked restitute and conducted through the services of spondents if they had donated, how many the National Academy of Sciences reported times they had donated, and when they last that the therapeutic benefits derived from did so. While limited in the amount of data the human blood collected in the United collected pertaining to differences between States falls short of its potential value to the donors and nondonors, some of their findpatient population .2 ings were interesting in the light of other Silver13 noted that six million units of donor studies. For example, while London blood are collected each year from only 2 to and Hemphilllo reported that it was the 183 per cent of the one hundred million Amerito 20-year-olds who gave blood in the cans who are able to give blood. Given that greatest numbers, Ford and Wallace’se re1) the amount of blood collected annually spondents were remarkably consistent in from volunteer donors does not meet prestheir dispersion across age groups. ent needs,’ 2) the need for whole blood is The Ford and Wallace finding on age steadily increasing,* and 3) a dramatic indiffered not only from that of London and crease in the need for specialized blood Hemphill but also from that of virtually products is currently taking place,” there every other study found in the literature. Such inconsistency could be the result of a variety of factors, two of which seem highly Received for publication April 19, 1974; accepted September 3, 1974. probable. First, all other studies had 165Donors and nondonors from six states were surveyed to determine differences in: 1 ) socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, 2) knowledge about blood donation, 3) arc= to information about donating, and 4) motivation to donate. The findings indicate that the present donor pool consists largely of socioeconomically advancing young adults. There was little difference between donors’ and nondonors’ knowledge of the donating process and access to mass mediadisseminated information about blood donation. Nondonors receive more information about donating from friends than do donors and interpersonal influence is an effective means of donor recruitment. The use of motivators other than humanitarianism may also be useful for inducing volunteer donations. Nondonors do lack knowledge about the location of local collection facilities. The present sample is socioeconomically and demographically representative of the U S . adult population. A s such, it provides information useful for developing effective donor recruitment strategies.
Transfusion Mar.-Apr. 1975
Volume IS Number 2
166
Transfusion
BETTINGHAUS A N D MlLKOVlCH
gathered data at a single blood collection site or, at different facilities operated by a single blood collection agency.9 Second, no two studies had been completed in the same area of the US. Other attempts have been made to study the nondonor and, in particular, his knowledge of the donating process. London and Hemphill’O were unsuccessful in their attempt, a situation they attributed to the respondent’s unwillingness to be identified as a nondonor. These authors were forced to suggest that the relative knowledge level of the actual donor be taken as the probable upper limit of the nondonors’ knowledge. Condie3 attempted indirectly to assess nondonor knowledge when he compared first-time and veteran donors. He reasoned that if the questionnaire were to have been administered some months earlier, first-time donors would indeed have been nondonors. His data did indicate a difference between the two groups in terms of a “knowledge factor.” To resolve these problems and implement an effective means of donor recruitment, a comprehensive research program is needed to: 1) identify the factors of concern to current donors in their decision to make a donation, 2) identify potential audiences within the nondonor population and isolate those factors which might prove effective in recruiting new donors, and 3) develop persuasive donor recruitment messages which will appeal to the particular groups we wish to recruit. These are complex and difficult tasks. The present study was conducted to distinguish between donors and nondonors on the basis of variables frequently used in persuasion research: socioeconomic, demographic, and knowledge levels. Materials and Methods The data were collected by means of a 69-item questionnaire completed by a nonrandom sample of 155 respondents. In order to assure a response by a geographic cross-section of the U.S., the questionnaire was distributed in six states: California, Michigan, Montana, New York, Ohio,
Mar.-Apr. 1975
and Utah. A past hoc examination of the sample was made to be sure it was representative. The occupational prestige of the respondents according to the NORC scale ranged from a low of 47 to a high of 89. Thirdy-five individuals who were employed had donated blood; 56 had not. The remaining 64 respondents were unemployed (this includes housewives), retired individuals, or students. Overall, 56 had donated blood at some time in the past; 103 respondents indicated that they had never made a donation. Respondent ages encompassed the entire range allowable for making donations, that is, from 18 to 69 and over. The sample consisted of whites, blacks, Latin Americans, American Indians, and Orientals. All respondents had completed at least eight years of school. Median family income for all respondents was $11,440. Eight per cent of the respondents had an annual family income of less than $4,000, while 20 per cent had an annual income of at least $20,000. In addition to assessing points of demographic and socioeconomic difference between donors and nondonors, the questionnaire also asked for information about the respondents I ) knowledge about blood donation, 2) access to information about donating, and 3) motivation to donate. It was felt that differences between donors and nondonors along these dimensions would serve as clues to those items which are of concern in making the decision to donate.
Results The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Table 1. The data indicate that while donors are older than nondonors, those who have donated within the last year average nearly six years younger than do those who had made donations but not within the past year. An examination of the respondents’ educational level and annual income indicate that student donors are not entirely responsible for this difference. The occupational prestige rankings also provide confirmatory evidence since students were not included in this ranking procedure. It appears that the young man or woman “on the way up” is the most likely donor. Earlier studies indicated that minority groups were not donating in proportion to their In comparing representation in the pop~lation.’.~ the breakdown according to racial minorities of‘ donors in our sample to the breakdown according to the 1970 U S . Census,“ the correspondence was high (x’ for Goodness of Fit greater than .99, df = 5 ) . Given the recent increased upward social mobility of racial minorities, this finding lends
Volume I5 Number 2
167
DONORS A N D NONDONORS Table 1. Respondent Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics
N Mean age (in years) Mean educational level (in years) Median annual income (in thousands of dollars) Mean occupational prestige (NORCI rating
All Respondents
All Donors
All Nondonors
Donors Giving within Last Year
Donors Not Giving within Last Year
155 29.1 14.0
52 32.9 14.9
103 27.2 13.7
24 29.8 14.1
28 35.5 15.7
11.4
11.5
11.4
11.7
11.2
73.8
73.8
73.9
72.4
75.2
support to the notion that advancing young adults currently bear the burden of blood donations. London and Hemphill’O stated that the erroneous doubts and misinformation which donors themselves express reflect a possible educational failure on the part of blood banks. Our data indicate that this statement still holds, but that it is not knowledge of the blood donation process itself which distinguishes donors and nondonors. Although there were significant differences between donors and nondonors in terms of knowing one’s blood type (x’ significant at .OOl, df = I), no differences existed between the two groups which even approach significance on items relating to: I ) the length of time it takes to donate a pint of blood, 2) the frequency with which women, as opposed to men, can give blood, 3) the adequacy of the transfusable blood supply in the U.S., and 4) knowledge of the components of blood. The collection centers’ noticeable and perhaps most important failure is in letting the public know their location. Significant differences existed (x’ significant at .01, df = 1) between donors and nondonors in their responses to the questions concerning the blood donation location and the location of their city’s Red Cross. Our data indicate that such knowledge differences come not from lack of exposure to information about blood donation, but more probably, from the ineffective use of these sources in attempts to recruit donors. Significant differences existed between donors and nondonors according to whether or not they had personally dealt with the Red Cross (x’ significant .001, df = I). Donors and nondonors did not differ with regard to the mass media sources to which they were exposed which asked people to donate. Over 60 per cent of all respondents had talked with other individuals about donating blood. Interestingly, proportionally more nondonors had done so than donors, although differences were not significant. Such interpersonal transactions may play a key role in motivating an individual to donate. This appears to be especially true for those donors who had given within the past year.
Although no significant difference existed between donors and nondonors in terms of the proportion of respondents who had been personally encouraged to donate, the difference between donors who gave this year and those who did not was significant (x2 significant .01, df = 1). Furthermore, 46 per cent of donors indicated that personal encouragement to donate resulted in a donation at least some of the time. In addition to providing encouragement, friends may also function as models for the potential donor. For example, over 38 per cent of those who donated in the last year made their donation with one or more friends. Only 19 per cent of the nondonors indicated that at least five of their friends donate blood, while this was the case for 40 per cent of all donors, (for 54 per cent of those donating within the past year, and for only 24 per cent of those donors who had not given in the last year). Both the difference between donors and nondonors (x’ significant .01, df = 1) and between this year’s donors and past year’s donors (x’ significant .05, df = 1) reveal the important role to be played by personal sources in the recruitment of donors. In contrast to several studie~,’.~ donor motivation was assessed using an open-ended question rather than one in which response categories are provided. This methodological difference showed that while humanitarianism/worthy cause was the modal response, it was cited by only 27 per cent of the donors as a reason for donating. This indicates that while it is an important donor motivation, humanitarianism may not be as generally important as has been suggested. There were a number of other responses, each of which accounted for between 5 and 8 per cent of the donations. These were: need by a family member or friend, replacement and assurance programs, some monetary reward (either actual payment or time off work), and social pressure. While humanitarianism does not appear to be a necessary cause for donating, in some instances it is sufficient. For example, all respondents whose health allowed indicated a willingness to donate if a child were in need of blood.
168
Transfusion
BETTINGHAUS A N D MILKOVICH
Discussion The young adult climbing the socioeconomic ladder is primarily responsible for recent donations. The nondonor has as much access to information about blood donation conveyed by the mass media and obtains more information about it from interpersonal contacts than the donor does. The nondonor lacks basic information such as the location of a blood collection center. It appears that humanitarianism is an effective donation motivation. Other motivations also merit consideration in persuasive recruitment messages. Further, these messages can be effectively transmitted by individuals as well as by the mass media. In several instances, our findings conflict with those of earlier studies. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that no study we have examined, including this one, employed a random sample of donors. While we feel that the present sample is representative on socioeconomic and demographic grounds, it is not as large as some of those employed in other investigations. However, this was the only sample taken from more than one region of the United States. These findings do provide information which can be useful in developing persuasive messages for donor recruitment campaigns. It is suggested that messages are needed which appeal to individuals who are neither young adults nor individuals advancing socioeconomically. This holds not only for an audience comprised of those who have never made a donation but also for one consisting of those who have donated but no longer do so. The findings also suggest that effective recruitment messages can be based on motivations other than humanitarianism. The media have been and will continue to be an important tool for donor recruitment campaigns. However, an examination of the motivations isolated in this study indicate that they could easily be incorporated in both mass media and interper-
Mar.-Apr. 1975
sonal messages. Given the indicated effectiveness of interpersonal messages in recruiting donors, the latter strategy deserves serious con sideration. In spite of the important information which has been gathered in donor studies, we are a long way from providing a solution to the problem of inadequate supplies of transfusable blood. The expense involved in the development and implementation of donor recruitment campaigns can only be justified if we can be reasonably assured that they will be effective. Such assurances have to be based on an intimate knowledge of the audiences to whom the messages are directed. The findings of this study suggest several areas which should be considered in future research. First, attempts must be made to isolate those items which have high motivation potential for those who have never made a donation. Second, an in-depth examination of the interpersonal transactions which result in donations must be made if we are to identify those aspects of the transaction which are critical in bringing about a donation. Third, an examination of the recruitment systems currently in use must be made in order to determine how new donor recruitment campaigns can be implemented within the existing recruitment framework. We must conclude by saying that the problems of donor recruitment have not been solved. However, these studies indicate that substantial progress toward solutions is being made.
References Boe, G. P., and J. M. Timmens: A study of blood donor motivation. Milit. Med. 131:447, 1966. 2. Committee on Component Therapy, National Academy of Sciences: An Evaluation of the Utilization of Human Blood Resources in the United States, Washington, D.C., Component Therapy Institute, 1970. 3. Condie, S.: The social psychology of blood donor behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1969. 1.
Volume 15 Number 1
DONORS A N D NONDONORS
4. -,
and N. Maxwell: Social psychology of blood donors. Transfusion 10:79, 1970. 5. -, and N. Maxwell: Comparative demographic profiles voluntary and paid blood donors. Transfusion 10:84, 1970b. 6. Ford, G. T.,and E. L. Wallace: Appendix A: Metropolitan Buffalo Blood Donor Study. In An Analysis and Design of a Model Regional Blood System-A Summary Report, by E. L. Wallace and C. C. Pegels, The Management Systems Groups, School of Management, S U N Y at Buffalo, 1972. 7. Galton, L.: 6,000,000 pints of blood is not enough. New York Times Magazine, 29 March: 28, 1964. 8. J N M A (Editoral): Give your blood: a duty of the modern citizen. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 61:76, 1969. 9. Korzekwa, F. F., W. Q. Jordon, and J. B. Alsever: The blood donor: 1. Who are our blood donors:
An analysis of social and other characteristics of 12,759 donors. Am. J. Med. Sci. 240:36, 1960.
169
London, P., and B. M. Hemphill: The motivations of blood donors. Transfusion 5559, 1965. 11. Morse, E. E.: Survey of blood use in Baltimore. MarylandState Med. J. 1757, 1967. 12. Reiss, A..J., Jr., with 0. D. Duncan, P. K. Hatt, C . C. North: Occupations and Social Status. New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Appendix B. 13. Silver, H.:Blood procurement programs for the hospital blood bank. Missouri Med. 67:81 I , 10.
14.
1970. U.S. Bureau of Census: Census of population: 1970 characteristics of population, Vol. 1. Washington, D. C., US. Government Printing
Office.
E. P. Bettinghaus, Department Chairman and Professor of Communication, Michigan State University. M. B. Milkovich, doctoral student in Communication at Michigan State University.
seems reason to improve donor procurement practices. In many areas of the United States, increasing the amount of blood collected depends on the development and utilization of better communication with donors and potential donors. Effective communication campaigns would improve blood collection efforts by broadening the present donor pool and/or increasing collections within the present donor pool. The effectiveness of such campaigns, however, is highly dependent upon an intimate knowledge of the audiences to whom messages are directed. A review of the literature revealed that research strategies which could be important INCREASINGEFFORTS have been made to in providing information about donors and more effectively utilize this nation’s blood potential donors have been used sparingly. resources. Such efforts are essential if the Only one study was found, for example, demands for blood and blood products are which systematically compared donors and to be met in the years ahead. A task force nondonors. Ford and Wallace: as part of a sponsored by the Component Therapy Inlarger study on news media usage, asked restitute and conducted through the services of spondents if they had donated, how many the National Academy of Sciences reported times they had donated, and when they last that the therapeutic benefits derived from did so. While limited in the amount of data the human blood collected in the United collected pertaining to differences between States falls short of its potential value to the donors and nondonors, some of their findpatient population .2 ings were interesting in the light of other Silver13 noted that six million units of donor studies. For example, while London blood are collected each year from only 2 to and Hemphilllo reported that it was the 183 per cent of the one hundred million Amerito 20-year-olds who gave blood in the cans who are able to give blood. Given that greatest numbers, Ford and Wallace’se re1) the amount of blood collected annually spondents were remarkably consistent in from volunteer donors does not meet prestheir dispersion across age groups. ent needs,’ 2) the need for whole blood is The Ford and Wallace finding on age steadily increasing,* and 3) a dramatic indiffered not only from that of London and crease in the need for specialized blood Hemphill but also from that of virtually products is currently taking place,” there every other study found in the literature. Such inconsistency could be the result of a variety of factors, two of which seem highly Received for publication April 19, 1974; accepted September 3, 1974. probable. First, all other studies had 165Donors and nondonors from six states were surveyed to determine differences in: 1 ) socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, 2) knowledge about blood donation, 3) arc= to information about donating, and 4) motivation to donate. The findings indicate that the present donor pool consists largely of socioeconomically advancing young adults. There was little difference between donors’ and nondonors’ knowledge of the donating process and access to mass mediadisseminated information about blood donation. Nondonors receive more information about donating from friends than do donors and interpersonal influence is an effective means of donor recruitment. The use of motivators other than humanitarianism may also be useful for inducing volunteer donations. Nondonors do lack knowledge about the location of local collection facilities. The present sample is socioeconomically and demographically representative of the U S . adult population. A s such, it provides information useful for developing effective donor recruitment strategies.
Transfusion Mar.-Apr. 1975
Volume IS Number 2
166
Transfusion
BETTINGHAUS A N D MlLKOVlCH
gathered data at a single blood collection site or, at different facilities operated by a single blood collection agency.9 Second, no two studies had been completed in the same area of the US. Other attempts have been made to study the nondonor and, in particular, his knowledge of the donating process. London and Hemphill’O were unsuccessful in their attempt, a situation they attributed to the respondent’s unwillingness to be identified as a nondonor. These authors were forced to suggest that the relative knowledge level of the actual donor be taken as the probable upper limit of the nondonors’ knowledge. Condie3 attempted indirectly to assess nondonor knowledge when he compared first-time and veteran donors. He reasoned that if the questionnaire were to have been administered some months earlier, first-time donors would indeed have been nondonors. His data did indicate a difference between the two groups in terms of a “knowledge factor.” To resolve these problems and implement an effective means of donor recruitment, a comprehensive research program is needed to: 1) identify the factors of concern to current donors in their decision to make a donation, 2) identify potential audiences within the nondonor population and isolate those factors which might prove effective in recruiting new donors, and 3) develop persuasive donor recruitment messages which will appeal to the particular groups we wish to recruit. These are complex and difficult tasks. The present study was conducted to distinguish between donors and nondonors on the basis of variables frequently used in persuasion research: socioeconomic, demographic, and knowledge levels. Materials and Methods The data were collected by means of a 69-item questionnaire completed by a nonrandom sample of 155 respondents. In order to assure a response by a geographic cross-section of the U.S., the questionnaire was distributed in six states: California, Michigan, Montana, New York, Ohio,
Mar.-Apr. 1975
and Utah. A past hoc examination of the sample was made to be sure it was representative. The occupational prestige of the respondents according to the NORC scale ranged from a low of 47 to a high of 89. Thirdy-five individuals who were employed had donated blood; 56 had not. The remaining 64 respondents were unemployed (this includes housewives), retired individuals, or students. Overall, 56 had donated blood at some time in the past; 103 respondents indicated that they had never made a donation. Respondent ages encompassed the entire range allowable for making donations, that is, from 18 to 69 and over. The sample consisted of whites, blacks, Latin Americans, American Indians, and Orientals. All respondents had completed at least eight years of school. Median family income for all respondents was $11,440. Eight per cent of the respondents had an annual family income of less than $4,000, while 20 per cent had an annual income of at least $20,000. In addition to assessing points of demographic and socioeconomic difference between donors and nondonors, the questionnaire also asked for information about the respondents I ) knowledge about blood donation, 2) access to information about donating, and 3) motivation to donate. It was felt that differences between donors and nondonors along these dimensions would serve as clues to those items which are of concern in making the decision to donate.
Results The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Table 1. The data indicate that while donors are older than nondonors, those who have donated within the last year average nearly six years younger than do those who had made donations but not within the past year. An examination of the respondents’ educational level and annual income indicate that student donors are not entirely responsible for this difference. The occupational prestige rankings also provide confirmatory evidence since students were not included in this ranking procedure. It appears that the young man or woman “on the way up” is the most likely donor. Earlier studies indicated that minority groups were not donating in proportion to their In comparing representation in the pop~lation.’.~ the breakdown according to racial minorities of‘ donors in our sample to the breakdown according to the 1970 U S . Census,“ the correspondence was high (x’ for Goodness of Fit greater than .99, df = 5 ) . Given the recent increased upward social mobility of racial minorities, this finding lends
Volume I5 Number 2
167
DONORS A N D NONDONORS Table 1. Respondent Socioeconomic and Demographic Characteristics
N Mean age (in years) Mean educational level (in years) Median annual income (in thousands of dollars) Mean occupational prestige (NORCI rating
All Respondents
All Donors
All Nondonors
Donors Giving within Last Year
Donors Not Giving within Last Year
155 29.1 14.0
52 32.9 14.9
103 27.2 13.7
24 29.8 14.1
28 35.5 15.7
11.4
11.5
11.4
11.7
11.2
73.8
73.8
73.9
72.4
75.2
support to the notion that advancing young adults currently bear the burden of blood donations. London and Hemphill’O stated that the erroneous doubts and misinformation which donors themselves express reflect a possible educational failure on the part of blood banks. Our data indicate that this statement still holds, but that it is not knowledge of the blood donation process itself which distinguishes donors and nondonors. Although there were significant differences between donors and nondonors in terms of knowing one’s blood type (x’ significant at .OOl, df = I), no differences existed between the two groups which even approach significance on items relating to: I ) the length of time it takes to donate a pint of blood, 2) the frequency with which women, as opposed to men, can give blood, 3) the adequacy of the transfusable blood supply in the U.S., and 4) knowledge of the components of blood. The collection centers’ noticeable and perhaps most important failure is in letting the public know their location. Significant differences existed (x’ significant at .01, df = 1) between donors and nondonors in their responses to the questions concerning the blood donation location and the location of their city’s Red Cross. Our data indicate that such knowledge differences come not from lack of exposure to information about blood donation, but more probably, from the ineffective use of these sources in attempts to recruit donors. Significant differences existed between donors and nondonors according to whether or not they had personally dealt with the Red Cross (x’ significant .001, df = I). Donors and nondonors did not differ with regard to the mass media sources to which they were exposed which asked people to donate. Over 60 per cent of all respondents had talked with other individuals about donating blood. Interestingly, proportionally more nondonors had done so than donors, although differences were not significant. Such interpersonal transactions may play a key role in motivating an individual to donate. This appears to be especially true for those donors who had given within the past year.
Although no significant difference existed between donors and nondonors in terms of the proportion of respondents who had been personally encouraged to donate, the difference between donors who gave this year and those who did not was significant (x2 significant .01, df = 1). Furthermore, 46 per cent of donors indicated that personal encouragement to donate resulted in a donation at least some of the time. In addition to providing encouragement, friends may also function as models for the potential donor. For example, over 38 per cent of those who donated in the last year made their donation with one or more friends. Only 19 per cent of the nondonors indicated that at least five of their friends donate blood, while this was the case for 40 per cent of all donors, (for 54 per cent of those donating within the past year, and for only 24 per cent of those donors who had not given in the last year). Both the difference between donors and nondonors (x’ significant .01, df = 1) and between this year’s donors and past year’s donors (x’ significant .05, df = 1) reveal the important role to be played by personal sources in the recruitment of donors. In contrast to several studie~,’.~ donor motivation was assessed using an open-ended question rather than one in which response categories are provided. This methodological difference showed that while humanitarianism/worthy cause was the modal response, it was cited by only 27 per cent of the donors as a reason for donating. This indicates that while it is an important donor motivation, humanitarianism may not be as generally important as has been suggested. There were a number of other responses, each of which accounted for between 5 and 8 per cent of the donations. These were: need by a family member or friend, replacement and assurance programs, some monetary reward (either actual payment or time off work), and social pressure. While humanitarianism does not appear to be a necessary cause for donating, in some instances it is sufficient. For example, all respondents whose health allowed indicated a willingness to donate if a child were in need of blood.
168
Transfusion
BETTINGHAUS A N D MILKOVICH
Discussion The young adult climbing the socioeconomic ladder is primarily responsible for recent donations. The nondonor has as much access to information about blood donation conveyed by the mass media and obtains more information about it from interpersonal contacts than the donor does. The nondonor lacks basic information such as the location of a blood collection center. It appears that humanitarianism is an effective donation motivation. Other motivations also merit consideration in persuasive recruitment messages. Further, these messages can be effectively transmitted by individuals as well as by the mass media. In several instances, our findings conflict with those of earlier studies. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is that no study we have examined, including this one, employed a random sample of donors. While we feel that the present sample is representative on socioeconomic and demographic grounds, it is not as large as some of those employed in other investigations. However, this was the only sample taken from more than one region of the United States. These findings do provide information which can be useful in developing persuasive messages for donor recruitment campaigns. It is suggested that messages are needed which appeal to individuals who are neither young adults nor individuals advancing socioeconomically. This holds not only for an audience comprised of those who have never made a donation but also for one consisting of those who have donated but no longer do so. The findings also suggest that effective recruitment messages can be based on motivations other than humanitarianism. The media have been and will continue to be an important tool for donor recruitment campaigns. However, an examination of the motivations isolated in this study indicate that they could easily be incorporated in both mass media and interper-
Mar.-Apr. 1975
sonal messages. Given the indicated effectiveness of interpersonal messages in recruiting donors, the latter strategy deserves serious con sideration. In spite of the important information which has been gathered in donor studies, we are a long way from providing a solution to the problem of inadequate supplies of transfusable blood. The expense involved in the development and implementation of donor recruitment campaigns can only be justified if we can be reasonably assured that they will be effective. Such assurances have to be based on an intimate knowledge of the audiences to whom the messages are directed. The findings of this study suggest several areas which should be considered in future research. First, attempts must be made to isolate those items which have high motivation potential for those who have never made a donation. Second, an in-depth examination of the interpersonal transactions which result in donations must be made if we are to identify those aspects of the transaction which are critical in bringing about a donation. Third, an examination of the recruitment systems currently in use must be made in order to determine how new donor recruitment campaigns can be implemented within the existing recruitment framework. We must conclude by saying that the problems of donor recruitment have not been solved. However, these studies indicate that substantial progress toward solutions is being made.
References Boe, G. P., and J. M. Timmens: A study of blood donor motivation. Milit. Med. 131:447, 1966. 2. Committee on Component Therapy, National Academy of Sciences: An Evaluation of the Utilization of Human Blood Resources in the United States, Washington, D.C., Component Therapy Institute, 1970. 3. Condie, S.: The social psychology of blood donor behavior. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1969. 1.
Volume 15 Number 1
DONORS A N D NONDONORS
4. -,
and N. Maxwell: Social psychology of blood donors. Transfusion 10:79, 1970. 5. -, and N. Maxwell: Comparative demographic profiles voluntary and paid blood donors. Transfusion 10:84, 1970b. 6. Ford, G. T.,and E. L. Wallace: Appendix A: Metropolitan Buffalo Blood Donor Study. In An Analysis and Design of a Model Regional Blood System-A Summary Report, by E. L. Wallace and C. C. Pegels, The Management Systems Groups, School of Management, S U N Y at Buffalo, 1972. 7. Galton, L.: 6,000,000 pints of blood is not enough. New York Times Magazine, 29 March: 28, 1964. 8. J N M A (Editoral): Give your blood: a duty of the modern citizen. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 61:76, 1969. 9. Korzekwa, F. F., W. Q. Jordon, and J. B. Alsever: The blood donor: 1. Who are our blood donors:
An analysis of social and other characteristics of 12,759 donors. Am. J. Med. Sci. 240:36, 1960.
169
London, P., and B. M. Hemphill: The motivations of blood donors. Transfusion 5559, 1965. 11. Morse, E. E.: Survey of blood use in Baltimore. MarylandState Med. J. 1757, 1967. 12. Reiss, A..J., Jr., with 0. D. Duncan, P. K. Hatt, C . C. North: Occupations and Social Status. New York, The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Appendix B. 13. Silver, H.:Blood procurement programs for the hospital blood bank. Missouri Med. 67:81 I , 10.
14.
1970. U.S. Bureau of Census: Census of population: 1970 characteristics of population, Vol. 1. Washington, D. C., US. Government Printing
Office.
E. P. Bettinghaus, Department Chairman and Professor of Communication, Michigan State University. M. B. Milkovich, doctoral student in Communication at Michigan State University.
