Favoriser le don d’organes grâce à « l’intensité de la discussion » avec les proches : rôle de la superstition,du tabou de la mort et de variables de personnalité
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2015
Favoriser le don d’organes grâce à « l’intensité de la discussion » avec les proches : rôle de la superstition,du tabou de la mort et de variables de personnalité
En France, plus de 16 000 patients espèrent chaque année recevoir un don d’organes, un tiers seulement sont réellement greffés et 500 personnes décèdent avant d’être appelées pour une greffe. Or, on pourrait considérablement améliorer le nombre de dons en incitant les détenteurs de cartes de donneurs à en discuter avec leurs proches. L’objectif de cette recherche est de développer une meilleure compréhension des comportements de discussion avec les proches concernant sa décision de donner ses organes post-mortem. A cet effet, une étude quantitative auprès d’un large échantillon de 11 235 détenteurs d’une carte de « donneurs d’organes » a été réalisée. Par rapport aux travaux antérieurs, ce travail présente deux contributions principales. D’une part, il montre que l’intensité de la discussion avec les proches a un impact sur la confiance du donneur dans le respect de ses volontés. D’autre part, il montre la nécessité de prendre en compte des déterminants individuels tels que le tabou de la mort, la superstition et l’extraversion pour mieux comprendre l’intensité de la discussion entre proches. Notre recherche confirme par ailleurs l’impact de l’altruisme sur le comportement de discussion du don d’organes. A la lumière des résultats, des implications managériales sont proposées.
AfifiWAMorganSEStephensonMMorseCLongSDReichertTLongSD (2006) Examining the decision to talk with family about organ donation: a test of the theory of motivated information management. Communication Monographs73: 188–215.
2.
AfifiWAWeinerJL (2004) Toward a theory of motivated information management. Communication Theory14(2): 167–190.
3.
AjzenI (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes50: 179–211.
4.
AldridgeAGuyBS (2006) Deal breakers in the organ donation request process. Health Marketing Quarterly23(4): 17–31.
5.
AyouchT (2012) La psychanalyse: une pensée magique. Clinique Méditerranéennes, Psychanalyse et Psychopathologie Freudiennes (85): 175–194.
6.
BakerTLMeyerTChebatJC (2013) Cultural impacts on felt and expressed emotions and third party complaint relationships. Journal of Business Research66 (7): 816–822.
7.
BaluchBRandhawaGHolmesSLDuffyLJ (2001) Signing the organ donor card: the relationship between expressed attitude, the actual behavior, and personality traits. Journal of Social Psychology141(1): 124–126.
8.
BentlerPMBonnetDC (1980) Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin88(3): 588–606.
9.
BorgesA (2011) The effects of digitally enhanced photos on product evaluation and young girls’ self-esteem. Recherche et Applications en Marketing26(4): 5–22
10.
CarlsonBDMowenJCFangX (2009) Trait superstition and consumer behavior: re-conceptualization, measurement, and initial investigations. Psychology & Marketing26(8): 689–713.
11.
CosséTWeisenbergerTM (2000) Words versus actions about organ donation: a four-year tracking study of attitudes and self-reported behavior. Journal of Business Research50: 297–303.
12.
DelacroixEGuillardV (2012) La superstition: définition et mesure. Revue Française du Marketing239(4/5): 29–53.
13.
EvansGRBarwellJEcclesDMCollinsAIzattLJacobsCDonaldsonABradyAFCuthbertAHarrisonRThomasSHowellAMiedzybrodzkaZMurrayA (2014), The Angelina Jolie effect: how high celebrity profile can have a major impact on provision of cancer related services. Breast Cancer Research16(5):442. Disponible en ligne. doi:10.1186/s13058-014-0442-6
14.
FishbeinMAAjzenI (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
15.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981), Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research18(3): 382–388.
16.
FreudS (1904) Cinq leçons sur la psychanalyse. Paris: Payot (1980)
17.
FreudS (1913) Totem et tabou. Paris: Payot (1965).
18.
FreudS (1926) La question de l’analyse profane. Paris: Gallimard.
19.
FreudS (1953) La technique psychanalytique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
20.
Gallopel-MorvanK (2006) L’utilisation de la peur dans un contexte de marketing social: état de l’art, limites et voies de recherche. Recherche et Applications en Marketing21(4): 41–60.
21.
GoldbergLR (1990) An alternative description of personality: the Big Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology59: 1216–1229.
22.
GorerG (1965) Death, Grief and Mourning in Contemporary Britain. London: Cresset Press.
23.
HairJFJrAndersonRETathamRLBlackWC (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
24.
HamermanEJJoharGV (2013) Conditioned superstition: desire for control and consumer brand preferences. Journal of Consumer Research40: 428–443.
25.
HarrisonTRMorganSChewningLV (2008) The challenges of social marketing of organ donation: news and entertainment coverage of donation and transplantation. Health Marketing Quarterly25(1/2): 33–65.
26.
HortonRL (1991) Marketing the concept of becoming a potential organ donor. Journal of Health Care Marketing11(3): 36–45.
27.
HutchesonF (2003) Essai sur la nature et la conduit des passions et affections avec illustrations sur le sens moral. Paris: L’Harmattan.
28.
HydeMKWhiteKM (2009) Communication prompts donation: exploring the beliefs underlying registration and discussion of the organ donation decision. British Journal of Health Psychology14: 423–435.
29.
JolibertAJourdanP (2011) Marketing research: méthodes de recherche et d’études en marketing. Paris: Dunod.
30.
JonesSCReisSAndrewsKL (2008) Communication about organ donation intentions: formative research for a social marketing program targeting families. Partnerships, Proof and Practice – International Nonprofit and Social Marketing Conference, University of Wollongong, 15–16 July 2008.
31.
KellySPMorganGGCouleTM (2014) Celebrity altruism: the good, the bad, and the ugly in relationships with fundraising charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing19: 57–75.
32.
LacanJ (1966) La science et la vérité. tome II. Paris: Seuil.
33.
LaDuTJetTanakaJS (1989) Influence of sample size, estimation method, and model specification on goodness-of-fit assessments in structural equation models. Journal of Applied Psychology74(4): 625–635.
MaussM (1950) Sociologie et anthropologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
36.
MorganSE (2004) The power of talk: African Americans’ communication with family members about organ donation and its impact on the willingness to donate organs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships21(1): 112–124.
37.
MorganSEMillerJK (2002) Beyond the organ donor card: the effect of knowledge, attitudes, and values on willingness to communicate about organ donation to family members. Health Communication14(1): 121–134.
38.
MorganSEHarrisonTRLongSDAfifiWAStephensonMSReichertT (2005) Family discussion about organ donation: how the media influences opinions about donation decisions. Clinic Transplant19: 674–682.
39.
MorseCAffifiWAMorganSEStephensonMTReichterTHarrissonTRLongSD (2009) Religiosity, anxiety, and discussions about organ donation: understanding a complex system of associations. Health Communication24(2): 156–164.
40.
MurrayLMillerADayoubCWakefieldCHomewoodJ (2013) Communication and consent: discussion and organ donation decision for self and family. Transplantation Proceedings45(1): 10–12.
41.
PittsMJRaup-KriegerJLKundratALNussbaumJF (2009) Mapping the processes and patterns of family organ donation discussions: conversational styles and strategies in live discourse. Health Communication24: 413–425.
42.
PriceLLLawrenceFFGuskeyA (1995) Everyday market helping behavior. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing14(2): 255–266.
43.
RicardM (2013) Plaidoyer pour l’altruisme, la force de la bienveillance. Paris: NiL.
44.
RodrigueJRCornellDLKrouseJHowardRJ (2010) Family initiated discussions about organ donation at the time of death. Clinic Transplant24: 493–499.
45.
RoselJFrutosMBlancaMRuizP (1999) Discriminant variables between organ donors and nondonors: a post hoc investigation. Journal of Transplant Coordination9: 50–53.
46.
RousselPDurrieuFCampoyEetElAkermiA (2002) Méthodes d’équations structurelles:recherche et applications en gestion. Paris: Economica.
47.
SabriO (2012) Quelle cible pour les publicités tabou provocantes ?Décisions Marketing66: 9–19.
48.
SabriOManceauDPrasB (2010) Le tabou, un concept peu exploré en marketing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing25(1): 59–86.
SmithSWLindseyLLKopfmanJEYooJMorrisonK (2008) Predictors of engaging in family discussion about organ donation and getting organ donor cards witnessed. Health Communication23(2): 142–52.
51.
TrompetaJACooperBAAscherNLKoolsSMKennedyCMChenJL (2012) Asian American adolescents’ willingness to donate organs and engage in family discussion about organ donation and transplantation. Progress in Transplantation22(1): 33–41.
52.
UrienB (2003) L’anxiété face à la mort et son influence sur les comportements du consommateur. Recherche et Applications en Marketing18(4): 23–41.
53.
VerbleMWorthJ (2000) Fears and concerns expressed by families in the donation discussion. Progress in Transplantation10: 48–55.
54.
VygotskyLS (1985) Pensée et Langage. Paris: Messidor.
55.
WalterT (1991) Modern death: taboo or not taboo?Sociology25(2): 293-310.
56.
WangX (2012) The role of attitude functions and self-monitoring in predicting intentions to register as organ donors and to discuss organ donation with family. Communication Research39(1): 26–47.
57.
WittigDR (2001) Organ donation beliefs of African American women residing in small southern community. Journal of Transcultural Nursing12: 203–210.
58.
WongSH (2012–2013) Does superstition help? A study of the role of superstitions and death beliefs on death anxiety amongst Chinese undergraduates in Hong Kong. Omega65(1): 55–70.
59.
WuAMS (2008) Discussion of posthumous organ donation in Chinese families. Psychology, Health & Medicine13(1): 48–54.
60.
ZusneLJonesWH (1989) Anomalistic Psychology: A study of magical thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
