Toward a theory of persuasive hope: effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change.

Health Communication

ISSN: 1041-0236 (Print) 1532-7027 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhth20

Toward a Theory of Persuasive Hope: Effects of Cognitive Appraisals, Hope Appeals, and Hope in the Context of Climate Change Amy E. Chadwick To cite this article: Amy E. Chadwick (2015) Toward a Theory of Persuasive Hope: Effects of Cognitive Appraisals, Hope Appeals, and Hope in the Context of Climate Change, Health Communication, 30:6, 598-611, DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2014.916777 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2014.916777

Published online: 08 Oct 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 234

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hhth20 Download by: [University of Lethbridge]

Date: 05 November 2015, At: 19:48

Health Communication, 30: 598–611, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1041-0236 print / 1532-7027 online DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2014.916777

Toward a Theory of Persuasive Hope: Effects of Cognitive Appraisals, Hope Appeals, and Hope in the Context of Climate Change Amy E. Chadwick

Downloaded by [University of Lethbridge] at 19:48 05 November 2015

School of Communication Studies Ohio University

Hope has the potential to be a powerful motivator for influencing behavior. However, hope and messages that evoke hope (hope appeals) have rarely been the focus of theoretical development or empirical research. As a step toward the effective development and use of hope appeals in persuasive communication, this study conceptualized and operationalized hope appeals in the context of climate change prevention. Then, the study manipulated components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal. Specifically, the components were designed to address appraisals of the importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility of climate protection, resulting in a 2 (strong/weak importance) × 2 (strong/weak goal congruence) × 2 (strong/weak future expectation) × 2 (strong/weak possibility) between– subjects pretest–posttest factorial design. Two hundred forty-five undergraduate students were randomly assigned to one of the 16 message conditions and completed the study online. The study tested whether the four appraisals predict feelings of hope. It determined whether message components that address importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility affect appraisals, feelings of hope, and persuasion outcomes. Finally, this study tested the effects of feelings of hope on persuasion outcomes. This study takes an important step toward enabling the effective use of hope appeals in persuasive communication.

Hope has the potential to be a powerful persuasive tool for influencing behavior. Hope is a discrete, future-oriented emotion, like fear, that motivates behavior by focusing one’s thoughts on future rewards and punishments. Thoughts of future rewards and punishments are a strong driver of human behavior (Seligman, Railton, Baumeister, & Sripada, 2013). Hope capitalizes on this drive by encouraging behaviors that take advantage of opportunities to achieve rewards and avoid punishments. Despite hope’s ability to encourage behavior, communication1 scholars have not capitalized on hope’s potential as a persuasive tool (Nabi, 2002). Very few This article was presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association in Seattle, WA (2014). This article was part of the author’s dissertation research. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Amy E. Chadwick, School of Communication Studies, Ohio University, Lasher Hall, Athens, OH 45701. E-mail: [email protected] 1 Although hope has rarely received attention in communication literature, hope has been widely examined in other fields, particularly psychology (e.g., Berg, Snyder, & Hamilton, 2008; Shorey, Little, Snyder, Kluck, & Robitschek, 2007; Snyder, Lehman, Kluck, & Monsson, 2006). Nearly all of

researchers (except for Chadwick, 2010; de Mello & MacInnis, 2005) have presented theories about the components and effects of hope appeals. Recently, several empirical studies (e.g., Marmor-Lavie & Weimann, 2006; Peter & Honea, 2012; Prestin, 2013; Volkman & Parrott, 2012) have examined the effects of hope, but none of these studies indicate how to create messages that evoke hope. One recent study determined that framing climate change as a public health issue evokes more hope than does framing climate change as an environmental or national security issue (Myers, Nisbet, Maibach, & Leiserowitz, 2012); however, this research does not indicate what it is about this public health frame that evokes hope. this work treats hope as a stable personality trait, not as an emotion (Snyder, 2000, 2002). Snyder (2000) defines hope as a personality trait that manifests in beliefs about one’s capacity to initiate and sustain action toward goals (agency) and one’s ability to generate multiple ways to reach those goals (pathways). Although trait hope, such as that described by Snyder, may be a factor that affects how people respond to hope appeals, the goal of an emotional appeal is to affect the discrete emotion of hope in response to a stimulus (e.g., a message).


TOWARD A THEORY OF PERSUASIVE HOPE

In contrast, scholars have extensively theorized about fear, the components of fear appeals, and the effects of fear appeals (e.g., see de Hoog, Stroebe, & de Wit, 2007; Witte & Allen, 2000 for reviews). Although we do not have a recent review of fear and fear appeals, research on fear appeals continues at a rapid pace (e.g., Basil, Basil, Deshpande, & Lavack, 2013; Nabi, Roskos-Ewoldsen, & Carpentier, 2008). The extensive literature on fear and fear appeals demonstrates the theoretical and practical importance of future-focused emotions that motivate behavior, such as fear and hope. The lack of theory and research about hope appeals deprives communicators of a potentially powerful tool for creating persuasive messages and influencing behavior. Without a clear articulation of what a message should include to evoke hope, researchers and practitioners will not know how to create effective hope appeals. Similarly, without knowing what effects a hope appeal might have, we cannot know in what circumstances and for which topics a hope appeal is the best persuasive strategy. Given the lack of theory and research on hope appeals and the potential for hope appeals to be a powerful motivator of future-oriented behavior, it is imperative that communication scholars identify the components and effects of hope appeals. Thus, the overarching goals of this study are to (a) draw on appraisal theories to identify the appraisals that evoke hope, (b) develop components of a hope appeal to evoke those appraisals, and (c) determine the effects of the appraisals, hope appeal components, and hope.

HOPE To create hope appeals, we must first understand what causes hope. Only then can we design messages that evoke hope and subsequently test the effects of those messages. Insights from psychology and emotion researchers, particularly models of discrete emotions and appraisal theories, inform a conceptualization of hope in a persuasive context. Discrete Emotions Although there are many models of emotions, including simple bipolar affect and long-lasting mood (see Dillard & Meijnders, 2002), models of discrete emotions are the most useful for persuasion because discrete emotions occur in response to stimuli (e.g., persuasive messages) and each emotion is distinct from other emotions. According to models of discrete emotions, emotions are brief, intense, psychological, and evaluative reactions directed at stimuli (Nabi, 2002; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988). These emotions motivate behavior that enhances the survival of individuals and species (see Arnold, 1960; Lazarus, 1991; Scherer, 2001b). All discrete emotions consist of (a) appraisals (i.e., assessments about the stimulus), (b) action tendencies (i.e.,

599

what the emotion makes the person want to do), (c) physiology (i.e., neural, chemical, and other physical responses in the brain and body), (d) motor expressions (i.e., facial, vocal, and postural signals of the emotion), and (e) a subjective feeling state (i.e., how the emotion feels) (Nabi, 2002; Ortony et al., 1988). The unique patterns of appraisals, action tendencies, physiology, motor expressions, and subjective feelings are what distinguish one emotion from the others. Thus, hope as a discrete emotion is different from other discrete emotions; other affective states, such as mood, which is longer lasting and does not necessarily have a specific cause (Dillard & Meijnders, 2002); and purely cognitive definitions of hope (e.g., Snyder, 2000, 2002). Appraisal Theories Appraisal theories of emotion focus on the assessments, or appraisals, of stimuli in relation to goals, motives, wants, and needs (e.g., Lazarus, 1991; Roseman, 1991; Scherer, 2001b). Different patterns of appraisals result in different emotions (Roseman & Smith, 2001). By identifying the causes of a discrete emotion, appraisal theories give communicators insight into how to develop messages that evoke that emotion. There are many appraisal theories, and three address hope. Lazarus’s cognitive-mediation theory (1999, 2001) and Roseman’s model of emotional appraisals (1991) are both general appraisal theories that briefly address hope as one of several discrete emotions. According to Lazarus (1991), the core relational theme of hope is “fearing the worst but yearning for better” (p. 284). He argues that to feel hope, one must appraise a positive future outcome as possible (Lazarus, 1999). Additionally, although he conceives of hope as a positive emotion, Lazarus (1999, 2001) believes that hope can only arise when the current situation is threatening. According to Roseman (1991, 2001), hope is caused by appraisals of a stimulus as “not unexpected,”2 consistent with either appetitive or aversive motives, having uncertain probability, caused by circumstances, and having either high or low control potential. Although Roseman’s definition of hope may be sufficient for differentiating hope from other emotions, the definition does not provide clear guidance for which appraisals are necessary to evoke hope. In addition to these two general appraisal models, MacInnis and de Mello’s (2005) model focuses on hope in a consumer marketing context. They define hope as “a positively valenced emotion evoked in response to an uncertain but possible goal-congruent outcome” (p. 2). These theories provide some guidance about the appraisals that evoke hope, but that guidance is incomplete. All of the theories neglect the role of the importance of

2 In

Roseman’s theory, “not unexpected” is different from “expected.”

600

CHADWICK

the future outcome in evoking hope. This contradicts previous research, which indicates that individuals only feel hope for important outcomes, not trivial ones (Averill, Catlin, & Chon, 1990). In addition, only Lazarus includes expectations about the future among the appraisals that evoke hope. Expectations about what might occur in the future and how good or bad that future might be are essential to future-oriented emotions, such as hope and fear.

better or worse if the outcome occurs (Lazarus, 2001). The appraisal of future expectation involves weighing the current circumstances against possible future circumstances. To feel hope, the future outcome must be appraised as creating a better future. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1: Appraisals of importance, goal congruence, possibility, and future expectation predict subjective feelings of hope.


Defining Hope Hope is a discrete emotion that is evoked by appraisals of a future outcome as consistent with goals (goal congruence), possible but not certain (possibility), important (importance), and leading to a better future (future expectation). Goal congruence is an assessment of whether the future outcome will help an individual achieve relevant goals3 (Lazarus, 2001). This assessment helps determine a person’s motivation (Smith & Kirby, 2001). Goals may be to attain desired outcomes or rewards, or to avoid negative outcomes or punishments. Thus, to feel hope, an individual must appraise a future outcome as consistent with, or favorable to, his or her goals or motives. Importance is an assessment of how personally relevant the future outcome is. For hope to occur, the future outcome must be important or personally relevant to the individual. An appraisal of possibility involves a subjective assessment of the likelihood of the future outcome (Scherer, 2001a). To experience hope, individuals must appraise the desired outcome as possible, but not certain.4 An individual’s subjective appraisal of possibility need not be related to actual probability. People can convince themselves that the possibility of the hoped-for outcome is more likely than it actually is (Averill et al., 1990), and people often continue to hope even when an outcome becomes increasingly unlikely (Bruininks & Malle, 2005). The appraisal of possibility can be influenced by beliefs about both self-efficacy and response efficacy; however, these concepts are distinct from the appraisal of possibility.5 Future expectation is an appraisal about whether future circumstances will become 3 The term “goal” is used as shorthand for various learned and innate motivational constructs including needs, drives, instincts, motives, concerns, etc. 4 If the possibility of achieving the desired outcome is certain, individuals experience other positive emotions, such as happiness or relief, rather than hope. 5 The appraisal of possibility is distinct from self-efficacy; however, perceptions of self-efficacy may affect appraisals of possibility. The appraisal of possibility focuses on whether a future outcome might occur, whereas self-efficacy focuses on an individual’s ability to perform a specific behavior. In addition to having different foci (future outcome versus behavior), self-efficacy and possibility derive from different sources. Self-efficacy derives from personal power, whereas possibility may derive from personal power, but might also derive from outside forces. Although self-efficacy and appraisals of possibility are inherently distinct, they can influence each other. Thoughts about self-efficacy might affect appraisals of possibility. For

In addition to appraisals, the other components that are part of a definition of hope are (a) an approach action tendency that stimulates actual or preparatory action toward achieving the desired outcome, (b) physiological responses including changes in heart rate and skin conductance, (c) motor expressions including an open facial expression, heightened focus, and alert body posture, and (d) a subjective feeling state of eager attention. Like all discrete emotions, hope’s unique pattern of appraisals, action tendencies, physiology, motor expressions, and subjective feelings is what distinguishes it from other emotions. All four appraisals combine to create a perception of an opportunity to achieve a desired outcome. This sense of opportunity leads to the discrete emotion hope and is a counterpoint to the sense of threat that is evoked in a fear appeal. In a fear appeal, appraisals of severity and susceptibility combine to form a sense of threat, leading to fear. Similarly, the appraisals of goal congruence, importance, future expectation, and possibility combine to create a perception of opportunity. Feeling that there is an opportunity to achieve a desired outcome causes hope. As with threats, perceptions of opportunities may be highly rational or irrational. The perception of opportunity, along with the approach action tendency6 of hope, motivates individuals to engage in behavior that capitalizes on the opportunity and achieves the desired future outcome. Communicators can create this sense of opportunity with messages designed to address the appraisals that evoke hope.

example, beliefs about one’s self-efficacy to affect a global issue such as climate change might affect a person’s appraisal of the possibility of slowing down climate change. 6 Human behavior is motivated by approach (to gain rewards) and avoidance (to avoid punishment) tendencies. Approach and avoidance motivations are found in all organisms from humans to the single-cell amoeba (Elliott & Covington, 2001). These motivations guide survival, adaptation, and evolution (Davidson, 1992). Different researchers have called these motivational systems by slightly different names, including approach and withdrawal systems, behavioral approach and inhibition systems, and appetitive and aversive systems. No matter the name, the approach and avoidance motivational systems are distinct in the anatomy and chemistry of our brains. For example, approach behaviors are associated with activation of the left hemisphere, whereas avoidance behaviors are associated with activation of the right hemisphere (Davidson, 1992).



HOPE APPEALS The four appraisals that cause hope have clear implications for the design of hope appeals. Like other theoretical explications of emotional appeals (e.g., fear appeals as discussed by Witte, 1992; Witte & Allen, 2000), a theory of persuasive hope should define two components of hope appeals: (a) the evocation of hope through the presentation of an opportunity and (b) the presentation of recommended actions to take advantage of the opportunity and achieve the desired outcome. A message presents an opportunity and evokes hope by emphasizing that a future outcome (a) is possible, (b) is important, (c) is consistent with the receiver’s goals, and (d) will create a much better future. Then the hope appeal encourages receivers to take advantage of the opportunity and act on their hope by presenting behaviors that will help individuals achieve the desired outcome. Thus, a hope appeal is a message that creates an opportunity by evoking the appraisals that constitute hope and presents a way for receivers to take advantage of that opportunity. To enable the effective development of hope appeals, this research focuses only on the evocation of hope component of a hope appeal (i.e., it does not include the recommended actions component). We must first know how to evoke hope in our persuasive messages before we can create recommended actions that take advantage of that hope. Specifically, this research examines components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal that are designed to evoke each of the four appraisals. As recommended by O’Keefe (2003), a hope appeal is defined by its intrinsic message features rather than its effects. Thus, a hope appeal is a hope appeal because it contains elements designed to create the appraisals of hope and a perception of opportunity, not merely because a receiver feels hopeful after reading the message. By focusing on intrinsic message features, a theory of persuasive hope can provide clear guidance to message creators. It is unclear from the literature whether it is the presence, magnitude, or change in appraisals that causes emotions. Extant studies of cognitive appraisals and emotions tend to be correlational rather than experimental (see Averill et al., 1990; Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001). The correlational studies tell us that the appraisals and the emotions co-occur, but do not tell us whether it is the presence, magnitude, or change in appraisals that causes emotions. Thus, it is unclear whether a stimulus (e.g., a persuasive message) needs to simply evoke the appraisals (at any magnitude), create appraisals of a certain magnitude that are higher than some threshold, or increase the level of appraisals to cause the emotion. As a step toward understanding the specific nature of appraisals in creating emotion, this study examines whether the components designed to manipulate the appraisals actually lead to higher appraisals, as well as whether some components lead to higher feelings of hope than others. In addition, the study examines whether some of the message components

601

contribute more to creating the feeling of hope. Thus, the following hypotheses and research question are posed: H2: Components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal that are designed to evoke appraisals of importance, goal congruence, positive future expectation, and possibility will lead to higher appraisals of importance, goal congruence, positive future expectation, and possibility. H3: Components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal that are designed to evoke appraisals of importance, goal congruence, positive future expectation, and possibility will create postmessage subjective feelings of hope. RQ1: What is the relative contribution of components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal in predicting feelings of hope? Anticipated Effects of Hope Appeals By manipulating the appraisals that evoke hope and thereby inducing the subjective feeling, approach action tendency, and physiological and motor responses of hope, a hope appeal can influence a variety of persuasion outcomes. Emotions have both direct and indirect paths to persuasion (Dillard & Nabi, 2006). The likely effects of hope appeals include increased message attention, increased interest in the message topic, perceived message effectiveness, and behavioral intention. However, the effects of only the hope evocation part of a hope appeal may be weaker than the effects of a hope appeal that includes both the hope evocation and recommended action components. Message attention. The focused, eager feeling of hope should increase generalized attention. As the source of the feeling of hope, attention is also likely to be directed to the persuasive message. Attention to a persuasive hope appeal should be amplified by the extent to which receivers expect the message to help them achieve desired outcomes (Nabi, 1999). Interest. Hope also should increase generalized interest in the topic of the message. Marcus and MacKuen (1993) found that enthusiasm, which they measured using hope as one of the key items in their scale, leads to increased interest and involvement. Although hope is only one item on their enthusiasm measure, the results may hold true for hope on its own. Perceived message effectiveness. Dillard and Peck (2000) propose that emotions affect the extent to which receivers perceive a message to be effective. This perceived message effectiveness in turn positively influences attitudes toward the behavior. Thus, the evocation of hope by a hope appeal should lead to higher perceived message effectiveness.


602

CHADWICK

Behavioral intention. The hope evocation part of a hope appeal should evoke the approach tendency of hope, which stimulates actual or preparatory action toward the desired outcome. This action tendency should lead to greater intentions to perform the recommended action. However, the dominant effect of hope appeals on behavioral intention should come from the combination of evoking hope and presenting receivers with recommended actions (i.e., hope appeals that include both the hope evocation and recommended action components). This study only examines the effects of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal without the recommended actions component, so effects on behavioral intention are expected to be minimal. Based on the expected effects of the components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal on persuasion outcomes, the following hypothesis is proposed: H4: Components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal that are designed to evoke appraisals of importance, goal congruence, positive future expectation, and possibility will result in message attention, interest in the topic of climate protection, perceived message effectiveness, and behavioral intention. In addition to the effects of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal, subjective feelings of hope might have separate effects on persuasion outcomes. Thus, the following research question is posed: RQ2: Do subjective feelings of hope predict message attention, interest in the topic of climate protection, perceived message effectiveness, and behavioral intention? Summary As a step toward the effective development and use of hope appeals in persuasive communication, this study first conceptualizes and operationalizes hope and hope appeals in the

context of climate protection. Second, it tests the ability of the four identified appraisals (importance, goal congruence, positive future expectation, and possibility) to predict subjective feelings of hope (H1). Third, it determines whether components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal that address importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility affect appraisals (H2), feelings of hope (H3, RQ1), and persuasion outcomes (H4). Fourth, this study tests the effects of the subjective feelings of hope on persuasion outcomes (RQ2). Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the hypotheses and research questions. METHOD Messages As mentioned previously, hope appeals contain two parts: (a) the evocation of hope through the presentation of an opportunity and (b) recommended actions to take advantage of the opportunity and achieve the desired outcome. This study examined only the hope evocation portion of the message, systematically varying the components designed to evoke hope. Messages, methods, and measures were pilot tested prior to this study (Chadwick, 2010). This study manipulated components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal that targeted appraisals of importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility. Each of the four message components addressed one of the appraisals and each had two different versions. One version was designed to evoke a high appraisal (strong version) and the other version was designed to evoke a low appraisal (weak version). Complete messages were created using all possible combinations of the strong and weak versions of the four components. Thus, the study had a 2 (strong/weak importance) × 2 (strong/weak goal congruence) × 2 (strong/weak future expectation) × 2 (strong/weak possibility) between-subjects pretest–posttest factorial design.

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

HOPE APPEAL Inducement of Hope Message components designed to evoke appraisals of importance, goal congruence, possibility and positive future expectation

Recommended Actions Presentation of actions that allow the individual to capitalize on the opportunity. Includes components to increase self-efficacy and responseefficacy.

H2

APPRAISALS OF FUTURE OUTCOME Importance Goal Congruence Possibility

H1

Future Expectation HOPE Subjective Feeling

H3 & RQ1

H4

RQ2

PERSUASION OUTCOMES Attention Interest Perceived Message Effectiveness Behavioral Intention

FIGURE 1 Hypothesized relationships between hope appeals, appraisals, the discrete emotion hope, and persuasion outcomes.



The message component designed to affect appraisals of importance connected the climate to health and finances, two issues that formative research (Chadwick, 2010) found were relevant to college students. The goal congruence component connected protecting the climate to saving money. The future expectation component described how much better the future would be if we protected the climate. The possibility component stated how likely it is that people can make the climate better. Because climate change is a global issue that requires the effort of numerous actors, the component connected likelihood to the number of people around the world who are taking action to protect the climate. The manipulated message components are available from the author. Participants Undergraduate students from a university-representative subject pool were randomly assigned to this study. Of the 286 students assigned to the study, 257 (89.9%) participated. The final sample contained 245 students.7 Participants ranged in age from 18 to 45 years old, with 90.2% of respondents falling between the ages of 18 and 22 (M = 20.15, SD = 2.36). About half the participants were female (n = 126, 51.4%) and about half were male (n = 119, 48.6%). Most participants identified as Caucasian-American or White (n = 184, 75.1%). When asked whether they considered themselves to be environmentalists, 22.9% (n = 56) agreed or strongly agreed with this identity. Procedures and Survey Instrument After reading and agreeing to an institutional review boardapproved consent form, participants were randomly assigned to one of the 16 study conditions and completed the study entirely online. Prior to reading one of the 16 messages, participants indicated their appraisals of importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility, and indicated their subjective feelings of hope when thinking about climate protection. After reading one of the messages, participants completed manipulation checks and measures of perceived message clarity, subjective feelings of hope, appraisals, message attention, interest in climate protection, perceived message effectiveness, and behavioral intention. All measures are available from the author. Analyses showed the items and scales to be normally distributed, internally consistent, and unidimensional. Manipulation checks. Eighteen dichotomous items asked about the presence or absence of elements unique to each message appeal. For example, a manipulation check for 7 The final sample excluded two participants who did not complete any premessage subjective feeling questions, two participants who skipped nearly all questions, three participants whose data were extreme outliers on almost every measure, and five participants who experienced absolutely no premessage or postmessage subjective feelings.

603

the importance component asked whether the message stated that the climate affects your well-being in many ways. Perceived message clarity. Participants indicated the perceived clarity of the message using five 5-point semantic differential items (α = .91, M = 3.66, SD = 1.02). Example items included clear/unclear, easy to read/hard to read, and complicated/straightforward. Subjective feelings of hope. Because this research takes a discrete approach to emotions (i.e., each emotion has distinct causes, feelings, and consequences) and because there are few synonyms for hope, hope was measured using one item8 (premessage: M = 1.74, SD = 1.00, postmessage: M = 2.18, SD = 1.23). The item stated, “When I read this message, I felt hopeful.” Participants responded on a 5-point scale (1 = none of this emotion, 5 = a great deal of this emotion). Appraisal of importance. Participants indicated their appraisals of importance by responding to seven 5-point semantic differential items (premessage: α = .86, M = 4.14, SD = 0.60; postmessage: α = .93, M = 4.00, SD = 0.67). Participants rated, for example, whether protecting the climate is very important, important, neither, unimportant, or very unimportant. Appraisal of goal congruence. Participants indicated their appraisals of goal congruence by responding to seven 5-point Likert-scale items (premessage: α = .93, M = 3.28, SD = 0.84; postmessage: α = .95, M = 3.23, SD = 0.87). For example, one item asked whether protecting the climate helps participants meet their personal goals. Appraisal of future expectation. Participants indicated their appraisals of future expectation by responding to six 5-point Likert scale items (premessage: α = .83, M = 3.76, SD = 0.67; postmessage: α = .89, M = 3.45, SD = 0.80). Examples of items include “Protecting the climate will make the future wonderful” and “A better climate equals a much better future.” Appraisal of possibility. Participants indicated their appraisals of possibility by responding to six 5-point semantic differential items (premessage: α = .86, M = 3.72, SD = 0.65; postmessage: α = .89, M = 3.66, SD = 0.70). For 8 Initially, hope was measured with four items, hopeful, optimistic, positive, and encouraged. However, from a face validity standpoint, optimistic and encouraged both require a higher certainty in the future outcome than does hope. Positive is less certain than either optimistic or encouraged, but is also less specific and could describe many positive emotions. Given the differences in the level of certainty inherent in hope versus that in either optimistic or encouraged and the differences in level of specificity between hope and positive, a single-item measure was determined to have better measurement qualities than a multi-item scale that was not specific to hope. The results of the same analyses with the four-item scale are nearly identical with those of the single item. The only difference is in relationships with the appraisals, which makes sense given the differences in the levels of appraisals that cause the four emotions.

604

CHADWICK

example, participants indicated whether they thought protecting the climate is very likely, likely, neither, unlikely, or very unlikely. Message attention. Participants indicated how much attention they paid to the message by responding to five 5point Likert scale items (α = .94, M = 3.48, SD = .87). The items included “I paid close attention to the message” and “I focused on what the message said.”


Interest in climate protection. Five semantic differential items measured issue interest (α = .91, M = 3.38, SD = 0.81). For example, participants indicated whether learning about ways to protect the climate is very boring, boring, neither, interesting, or very interesting. Perceived message effectiveness. Four items on a 5-point semantic differential scale measured perceived message effectiveness (α = .91, M = 2.80, SD = 1.02). For example, participants rated whether they believed the message was not at all convincing/very convincing. Behavioral intention. Participants indicated how likely they were to engage in 11 behaviors in the next month. The stem “In the next month, I intend to . . . ” was followed by various behaviors (e.g., using compact fluorescent light bulbs, driving less, washing clothes in cold water, and adjusting thermostats by two degrees). These items are an index of climate protection behavioral intentions, not a unidimensional scale (M = 3.44, SD = 0.79). Analyses This study addresses three main issues (a) the effects of appraisals, (b) the effects of the manipulated components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal, and (c) the effects of hope. The hypotheses and research questions were tested using both regression analyses and multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs). For the regressions, results of the evaluations of assumptions indicated that there were no violations of the assumptions of normality, linearity, multicolinearity, or homoscedasticity. For the MANCOVAs, there were no violations of the assumptions of normality, linearity, homogeneity of variances, homogeneity of regression slopes, or reliable measurement of the covariate. The analyses for each hypothesis and research question are discussed in the following sections. Effects of appraisals. Hypothesis 1 tests the appraisals as predictors of subjective feelings of hope. A multiple regression analysis tested this hypothesis with the four appraisals as independent variables and hope as the dependent variable. With a sample size of 245 and four predictors, this test had the ability to detect an effect size f 2 of 0.05 (α = .05, power = .80). Effects of hope appeal components. Hypothesis 2 used a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial between-groups analysis of covariance to assess the effects on the four appraisals of

the four manipulated components (0 = weak, 1 = strong) of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal. The message components designed to manipulate appraisals of importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility were the independent variables. The dependent variables were the four appraisals of importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility. Perceived message clarity and premessage appraisals were the covariates. With a sample size of 245, 16 groups, and four response variables, this test had the ability to detect a main effect f 2 (V) of 0.03 (α = .05, power = .80). Hypothesis three also used a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial between-groups analysis of covariance to assess the effects of the manipulated components on subjective feelings of hope. The covariates were participants’ premessage subjective feelings of hope and perceived message clarity. With a sample size of 245, 16 groups, and one response variable, this test had the ability to detect a main effect f 2 (V) of 0.08 (α = .05, power = .80). To determine whether one or more of the message components played a stronger role in predicting hope than the others, research question 1 was answered with a multiple regression with each message component (0 = weak, 1 = strong), premessage hope, and message clarity as the independent variables and postmessage hope as the dependent variable. With a sample size of 245 and six predictors, this test had the ability to detect an effect size f 2 of 0.06 (α = .05, power = .80). Like hypotheses 2 and 3, hypothesis 4 used a 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial between-groups analysis of covariance to assess the effects of the manipulated components on the persuasion outcomes. The independent variables were the four strong/weak manipulated components and the covariate was perceived message clarity. The dependent variables were message attention, interest, perceived message effectiveness, and behavioral intention. With a sample size of 245, 16 groups, and four response variables, this test had the ability to detect a main effect f 2 (V) of 0.03 (α = .05, power = .80). Effects of hope. Research question 2 asked whether subjective feelings of hope predict message attention, interest in climate protection, perceived message effectiveness, and behavioral intention. To answer this research question, four regressions were conducted with postmessage hope as the independent variable and each of the persuasion outcomes as dependent variables. With a sample size of 245 and one predictor, each test had the ability to detect an effect size f 2 of 0.03 (α = .05, power = .80).

RESULTS Preliminary Analyses Manipulation checks. A series of chi-squared analyses verified that participants noticed the content of the message



that they read. A Bonferroni correction (.05/18) set the significance level to p = .003. In all cases, the strong and weak conditions were perceived to be significantly different (p < .001) and had large effect sizes ( > .50). Message clarity. Four independent-samples t-tests compared message clarity scores for each of the strong and weak manipulations. For the importance component, there was an unintended significant difference in perceived message clarity between the strong (n = 119, M = 3.87, SD = 0.87) and weak (n = 126, M = 3.47, SD = 1.12) manipulations, t(243) = –3.13, p = .002 (two-tailed, equal variances not assumed). None of the other message manipulations differed significantly in terms of message clarity. Given the unintended difference, message clarity was a covariate for all analyses that assessed effects of the importance component. Effects of Appraisals on Hope Hypothesis 1 stated that appraisals of importance, goal congruence, positive future expectation, and possibility predict subjective feelings of hope. The R for regression (R = .26) was significantly different from zero, F(4, 239) = 4.43, p = .002, with an R2 value of .07. The regression coefficient for the postmessage appraisal of future expectation (β = .28, t = 3.41, p = .001) significantly differed from zero, whereas the regression coefficients for appraisals of importance (β = –.16, t = –1.58, p = .12), goal congruence (β = .14, t = 1.75, p = .08), and possibility (β = –.04, t = –0.48, p = .63) did not. The size and direction of the relationship suggest that hope was greater among people with more positive appraisals of future expectation. Thus, hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Effects of Hope Appeal Components on Appraisals Hypothesis 2 stated that the components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal that are designed to evoke appraisals of importance, goal congruence, positive future expectation, and possibility will lead to higher appraisals. After adjusting for premessage appraisals of importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility, as well as perceived message clarity, the message component of goal congruence had a significant main effect on postmessage appraisals of importance, F(4, 221) = 3.91, p = .049, partial η2 = .02. The message component of possibility had a significant main effect on the appraisal of possibility, F(4, 221) = 17.03, p < .001, partial η2 = .07. The adjusted means indicate that people in the weak goal congruence condition (M = 4.05, SE = .04) experienced greater postmessage appraisals of importance than did people in the strong goal congruence condition (M = 3.95, SE = .05). The adjusted means also indicate that people in the strong possibility condition (M =

605

3.78, SE = .04) experienced greater postmessage appraisals of possibility than did people in the weak possibility condition (M = 3.54, SE = .04). Thus, hypothesis 2 was partially supported.

Effects of Hope Appeal Components on Hope Hypothesis 3 stated that components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal that are designed to evoke appraisals of importance, goal congruence, positive future expectation, and possibility will create postmessage subjective feelings of hope. After adjusting for premessage subjective feelings of hope and perceived message clarity, the message components of goal congruence, F(1, 223) = 8.09, p = .005, partial η2 = .04, and possibility, F(1, 223) = 7.09, p = .008, partial η2 = .03, had significant main effects on postmessage subjective feelings of hope. Main effects for the message components of importance, F(1, 223) = 3.32, p = .070, partial η2 = .02, and future expectation, F(1, 223) = 3.16, p = .077, partial η2 = .01, approached, but did not achieve, significance. The adjusted means indicate that people in the strong goal congruence condition (M = 2.37, SE = .10) experienced greater subjective feelings of hope than did people in the weak goal congruence condition (M = 1.96, SE = .10). The adjusted means also indicate that people in the strong possibility condition (M = 2.36, SE = .10) experienced greater subjective feelings of hope than did people in the weak possibility condition (M = 1.98, SE = .10). Thus, hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Relative contribution of message components in predicting hope. Research question 1 asked about the relative contribution of each of the message components in predicting feelings of hope when controlling for premessage feelings of hope and message clarity. The R for regression (R = .48) was significantly different from zero, F(6, 234) = 11.70, p < .001, with an R2 value of .23. The regression coefficients for the message components of importance (β = .12, t = 1.99, p = .048), goal congruence (β = .16, t = 2.73, p = .007), and possibility (β = .15, t = 2.53, p = .012) significantly differed from zero, whereas the regression coefficient for the message component of future expectation, approached, but did not achieve, significance (β = .10, t = 1.75, p = .082). The covariate premessage hope also significantly differed from zero (β = .40, t = 6.85, p < .001), whereas message clarity did not (β = .09, t = 1.52, p = .129). Thus, when controlling for premessage feelings of hope and message clarity, the strong message manipulations of importance, goal congruence, and possibility led to greater hope. Specifically, the regression indicates that the goal congruence manipulation contributed the most to feelings of hope, followed by the possibility manipulation, then the importance manipulation.

606

CHADWICK

Effects of Hope Appeal Components on Persuasion Outcomes


Hypothesis 4 stated that the manipulated components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal predict message attention, interest in the topic of climate protection, perceived message effectiveness, and behavioral intention. Message attention. After adjusting for perceived message clarity, the message manipulations of importance, F(1, 228) = 4.47, p = .036, partial η2 = .02, and possibility, F(1, 228) = 5.33, p = .022, partial η2 = .02, had significant main effects on message attention. There were no significant main effects of the goal congruence and future expectation manipulations. The adjusted means indicate that people in the weak importance condition (M = 3.59, SE = .08) paid more attention to the message than did people in the strong importance condition (M = 3.35, SE = .08). The adjusted means also indicate that people in the strong possibility condition (M = 3.60, SE = .08) paid more attention to the message than did people in the weak possibility condition (M = 3.34, SE = .08). Interest. After adjusting for perceived message clarity, there were no significant main effects of the message components of importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility on interest in climate protection. Perceived message effectiveness. After adjusting for perceived message clarity, the message components of goal congruence, F(1, 228) = 6.39, p = .012, partial η2 = .03, future expectation, F(1, 228) = 4.40, p = .037, partial η2 = .02, and possibility, F(1, 228) = 7.72, p = .006, partial η2 = .03, all had significant main effects on perceived message effectiveness. The message component of importance approached, but did not achieve, significance, F(1, 228) = 3.23, p = .074, partial η2 = .01. The adjusted means indicate that people in the strong goal congruence condition (M = 2.94, SE = .08) perceived the message to be more effective than did people in the weak goal congruence condition (M = 2.65, SE = .08). The adjusted means also indicate that people in the strong future expectation condition (M = 2.91, SE = .08) perceived the message to be more effective than did people in the weak future expectation condition (M = 2.68, SE = .08). In addition, the adjusted means indicate that people in the strong possibility condition (M = 2.95, SE = .08) perceived the message to be more effective than did people in the weak possibility condition (M = 2.64, SE = .08). Behavioral intention. After adjusting for perceived message clarity, there were no significant main effects of the manipulated message components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal on behavioral intention. Thus, hypothesis 4 was only supported for message attention and perceived message effectiveness.

Effects of Hope on Persuasion Outcomes The second research question asked whether subjective feelings of hope predict message attention, interest in climate protection, perceived message effectiveness, and behavioral intention. Interest. The R for regression (R = .14) was significantly different from zero, F(1, 242) = 4.70, p = .031, with an R2 value of .02. The regression coefficient for subjective feelings of hope (β = .14, t = 2.17, p = .031) significantly differed from zero. The relationship suggests that greater feelings of hope led to greater interest in climate protection. Perceived message effectiveness. The R for regression (R = .28) was significantly different from zero, F(1, 242) = 20.37, p < .001, with an R2 value of .08. The regression coefficient for hope (β = .28, t = 4.51, p < .001) significantly differed from zero. The relationship suggests that greater feelings of hope led to greater perceptions of message effectiveness. Message attention and behavioral intention. Subjective feelings of hope did not significantly predict either message attention or behavioral intention. Thus, the answer to research question 2 is that subjective feelings of hope do predict interest and perceived message effectiveness, but do not predict message attention or behavioral intention.

DISCUSSION As a step toward the effective development and use of hope appeals in persuasive communication, this study (a) conceptualized and operationalized the components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal, (b) assessed appraisals as predictors of hope, (c) determined the effects of message components on hope, appraisals, and persuasion outcomes, and (d) assessed the effects of hope on persuasion outcomes. Although there is still much theoretical and empirical work needed to augment this study, it nevertheless takes us one step closer to creating hope appeals and understanding their effects. Effects of Appraisals on Hope Based on existing appraisal theories (Lazarus, 1991, 2001; MacInnis & de Mello, 2005; Roseman, 1991, 2001), appraisals of importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility were expected to predict subjective feelings of hope in response to a message about climate change. However, only the appraisal of future expectation significantly predicted subjective feelings of hope. There are two likely explanations for this finding. First, this analysis examines the effects of the magnitude of the appraisals on hope, but it may be changes in appraisals that affect feelings of hope. It was anticipated



that the higher the appraisals of importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility were, the higher the subjective feelings of hope would be. This was true for future expectation, but not for the other appraisals. It may be the case that a change in an appraisal is what causes hope, such that if a stimulus makes a future outcome seem more important, goal congruent, and possible than it seemed previously, then an individual would feel hope in response to that stimulus. Thus, future research should examine both change in appraisals and magnitude of appraisals as predictors of feelings of hope. A Solomon Four design (Solomon, 1949) would be most effective for testing this explanation given that it would separate out testing effects from message effects and would allow for the calculation of change scores (Campbell, 1957). Second, the focus of the study was on message manipulations, and the design may have inadvertently suppressed variance in hope, making it harder to detect appraisal–hope relationships. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the manipulations of message components designed to address all four appraisals. As such, the 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design resulted in messages that (except for two messages) contained some strong and some weak manipulations. Thus, a message might have stated that preventing climate change was very important, was not very goal congruent, would result in a much better future, and was not very possible. It was anticipated that both the appraisals and the hope felt in response to these messages would vary with the number of strong manipulations, such that most participants would have low to moderate hope because they received mixed weak and strong manipulations. Indeed, a post hoc analysis of the effects of the 16 messages on hope showed a significant relationship between messages and hope despite the low power of such a test, F(15, 228) = 1.71, p = .05, partial η2 = .10. The message with all four strong manipulations resulted in the highest hope (M = 2.94, SE = .30) and the message with all four weak manipulations resulted in the lowest hope (M = 1.56, SE = .30), even though the Tukey HSD test between these two conditions was not significant (p = .10). The messages with mixed strong and weak manipulations may have suppressed the variance of both subjective feelings of hope and the four appraisals, making it harder for them to correlate with each other. Future research should examine appraisal– hope relationships in response to hope evocation messages that are internally consistent (i.e., all strong or all weak manipulations).

Effects of Hope Appeal Components on Hope As recommended by O’Keefe (2003), the hope evocation part of hope appeals was defined by intrinsic message features rather than the appeal’s effects. Thus, the hope evocation part of a hope appeal is a hope evocation message because it contains elements designed to create the appraisals of hope, not merely because a receiver feels hopeful after

607

reading it. That said, the hope evocation part of hope appeals should generate subjective feelings of hope. The data provided support for the message components of importance, goal congruence, and possibility as determinants of subjective feelings of hope, but did not provide support for the future expectation component. The analysis of covariance results indicated that the message components of goal congruence and possibility had main effects on hope, whereas the components of importance and future expectation only approached, but did not achieve, significance. The regression results indicate that the importance, goal congruence, and possibility message components all predict subjective feelings of hope, whereas the future expectation component approached, but did not achieve, significance. Previous qualitative research (Chadwick, 2010) found that college students expressed pessimism about the effects of climate change on the future as well as feelings of hopelessness and helplessness about their (or anyone’s) ability to prevent significant effects from climate change (Chadwick, 2010). Thus, determining that the message components of importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility affect feelings of hope is an important step toward making people feel more hopeful about their ability to address climate change. Effects of Hope Appeal Components on Appraisals The possibility message component affected appraisals of possibility, whereas the goal congruence component affected appraisals of importance. The other message components did not affect appraisals. All four appraisals were predicted most substantially by the related premessage appraisal (e.g., the premessage appraisal of importance strongly predicted the postmessage appraisal of importance). Because the message components evoked hope, but did not affect appraisals, the hope evocation part of hope appeals may not need to increase appraisals above their premessage levels to evoke hope, but instead they may only need to reinforce preexisting appraisals. As mentioned previously, college students predominantly think preventing climate change is important, goal congruent, and, if possible, would make the future better; however, they feel hopeless about the possibility (Chadwick, 2010). Thus, participants may have started with weaker appraisals of possibility, making them more vulnerable to persuasive influence as predicted by social judgment theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1967). As mentioned previously, future research should further examine whether it is changes in appraisals, the magnitude of appraisals, the magnitude of appraisals over a certain threshold, or a combination of changes and magnitude of appraisals that is necessary to evoke hope. Effects of Hope Appeal Components on Persuasion Outcomes Message attention. There were main effects for the possibility and importance manipulations such that the


608

CHADWICK

strong possibility manipulation and the weak importance manipulation each led to higher message attention. There were no main effects for the goal congruence and future expectation manipulations. In general, two key drivers of attention to a message are interest in the topic (Petty, Goldman, & Cacioppo, 1981) and novelty of the message (Parrott, 1995). The significant findings cannot be explained by differences in interest because the results revealed no differences in interest based on message condition. Previous research (Chadwick, 2010) indicates that college students believe that climate change is an important issue, but do not believe that it is possible for them do anything about climate change. Similarly, most messages in the media about climate change indicate that climate change is important, but rarely address how an individual can effect change. Thus, a message that stated that climate change is not very important as well as a message that indicated that individuals can make a difference may have seemed novel to participants, engendering greater attention. Similarly, because previous research (Chadwick, 2010) indicates that students feel cynical about the possibility of protecting the climate, the strong possibility message manipulation may have also violated expectations, leading to greater message attention. To parse out these effects, future research should examine expectations of the messages and perceptions of novelty.

Effects of Hope on Persuasion Outcomes Interest. Subjective feelings of hope predict interest in climate protection. This supports Marcus and MacKuen’s (1993) findings that enthusiasm (measured with hope as an item) increases interest. Given our tendency to defensively ignore things that cause us fear or guilt, the fact that feeling hope increased interest in the message topic has important implications for persuasion. For topics such as climate protection that require continuous, sustained effort to achieve desired outcomes, the increase in interest caused by hope may facilitate the sustained attention and effort necessary to address complex problems such as climate change. Perceived message effectiveness. Not surprisingly, subjective feelings of hope predicted perceived message effectiveness, which supports findings of Dillard and Peck (2001), who demonstrated that messages that evoke emotions are perceived to be effective. Dillard and Peck also demonstrated that perceived message effectiveness in turn positively influences attitudes toward the recommended behaviors. By increasing perceived message effectiveness, feelings of hope may also lead to more positive attitudes toward recommended behavior, which in turn predict behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Fishbein & Capella, 2006). Effect Sizes

Perceived message effectiveness. Not surprisingly, messages that contained the strong goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility manipulations had significant main effects on perceived message effectiveness. Again, students likely expected the message to persuade them that climate change is an important problem about which they need to do something. Thus, when the message met those expectations, it was rated as effective. Behavioral intention. The manipulated message components of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal did not have main effects on behavioral intention. This finding is not surprising, given that the messages contained only the hope evocation part of a hope appeal and did not contain the recommended action component. The recommended action component provides information about behaviors that will enable the reader to take advantage of the opportunity presented in the hope evocation component. The recommended action component also provides information designed to raise self-efficacy and response efficacy. The recommended action component may be necessary to elicit behavioral intentions. However, it is still important to know that the hope evocation part of a hope appeal by itself did not increase behavioral intentions. The next step toward enabling the effective use of hope appeals in persuasive communication is to test hope appeals that combine the hope evocation component with the recommended action component.

Often, researchers use guidelines such as those offered by Cohen (1988) to classify effects as small, medium, or large. Under Cohen’s guidelines, the effects reported in this study are “small.” However, this does not mean that the effects lack practical significance. Considering that persuasion and social influence campaigns, such as those used in public health and environmental communication, often use multiple message and reach audiences of millions, a small effect from a single message translates into a substantial practical impact. The message effects found in this study are even more practically significant despite their small size because they are effects of a single paragraph within a four-paragraph message. When these paragraphs are combined into full messages, their combined effect is likely to be larger than the effect of any single paragraph. In addition, this study tested only the hope evocation part of a hope appeal. It did not test messages with the recommended action component, which should boost effect sizes even further. Nonsignificant Results There are several hypothesized relationships and differences that were nonsignificant in this study. As with all nonsignificant results, we cannot rule out that the actual population effect might be zero. However, we also cannot conclude that the population effect is zero (O’Keefe, 2007). This study had the sensitivity to detect fairly small


effect sizes; however, as described earlier, a single paragraph within a four-paragraph message is likely to have a much smaller effect than a single message as a whole. Future research should attempt to have even greater power than the current study.


Strengths and Limitations The results from this research are contextualized by its strengths and limitations. The greatest strength of the 2 (strong/weak importance) × 2 (strong/weak goal congruence) × 2 (strong/weak future expectation) × 2 (strong/weak possibility) factorial design is that it allowed for the separate examination of the effects of the message components. However, this study’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. In most cases, participants read messages that contained some strong and some weak manipulations. Only 16 participants received a message that had all four strong message manipulations (ns for the messages ranged from 12 to 17). The resulting inconsistent messages may have attenuated or obscured relationships between the message components and appraisals, hope, and persuasion outcomes. In addition, a strength of this study is its indepth examination of the hope evocation part of a hope appeal. However, the messages did not include the second required component of a hope appeal—the recommended action component. Thus, when interpreting the results from this research, it is important to remember that the results reflect only on the hope evocation portion of a hope appeal, rather than hope appeals in general. This is a first step toward the development of complete, effective hope appeals. Future research should test full messages that include the recommended action component. Future Directions This study takes an important step toward enabling the effective use of hope appeals in persuasive communication. To continue progress toward the effective use of hope appeals, empirical studies should use a variety of message manipulations to assess the effects of hope appeals. For example, research should test the effects of hope appeals that are internally consistent (e.g., all strong manipulations), test the effects of hope appeals that include the recommended behavior component, and test the components designed to address importance, goal congruence, future expectation, and possibility separately from each other to more clearly understand their individual impacts. In addition, researchers should examine whether changes in appraisals or magnitudes of appraisals are more important to understanding how to evoke hope. Future research also should compare the effectiveness of hope appeals to other message strategies, such as fear and guilt appeals. In addition, researchers should assess additional individual characteristics that may affect

609

responses to hope appeals, such as trait optimism, trait anxiety, and issue knowledge. Finally, we should assess effects of different message contexts on the effectiveness of hope appeals. The effectiveness of hope appeals may be influenced by whether the message focuses on (a) performing or avoiding a behavior and (b) achieving a desired outcome or avoiding a negative outcome. Because the action tendency of hope is an approach tendency that encourages people to take action that will lead to the desired outcome, hope appeals are likely to be most effective for encouraging people to perform behaviors (e.g., walking, biking, or using mass transit) rather than encouraging them to avoid behaviors (e.g., not driving). In addition, there may be differences in the effectiveness of hope appeals depending on whether the recommended actions help individuals achieve a desired outcome or avoid a negative outcome. However, these differences may be topic specific and inconsistent like the effects of gain/loss framing (see O’Keefe & Jensen, 2006). When developing hope appeals, communicators should consider how the context of the message might influence responses to, and the overall effectiveness of, the message. Final Thoughts Hope appeals have the potential to be an effective strategy for motivating behavior. As a step toward the effective use of hope appeals in persuasive messages, this study identified the appraisals that evoke hope, the implications of these appraisals for the design of messages, and the effects of the hope evocation part of hope appeals on feelings of hope, appraisals, and persuasion outcomes. The results provide guidance for the use and design of hope appeals in health communication. Although there is much more to be done regarding hope appeals, we are one step closer to adding a potentially powerful strategy to our persuasive communication toolbox that, unlike much of persuasive communication, focuses on positive, rather than negative, emotions.

FUNDING The author acknowledges the support of the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program during the data collection and early preparation of this article.

REFERENCES Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Averill, J. R., Catlin, G., & Chon, K. K. (1990). The rules of hope. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.


610

CHADWICK

Basil, M., Basil, D., Deshpande, S., & Lavack, A. M. (2013). Applying the extended parallel process model to workplace safety messages. Health Communication, 28, 29–39. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.708632 Berg, C. J., Snyder, C. R., & Hamilton, N. (2008). The effectiveness of a hope intervention in coping with cold pressor pain. Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 804–809. doi:10.1177/1359105308093864 Bruininks, P., & Malle, B. F. (2005). Distinguishing hope from optimism and related affective states. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 327–355. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9010-4 Campbell, D. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiences in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54, 297–312. Chadwick, A. E. (2010). Persuasive hope theory and hope appeals in messages about climate change mitigation and seasonal influenza prevention. PhD dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA. Cohen, J. W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davidson, R. J. (1992). Prolegomenon to the structure of emotion: Gleanings from neuropsychology. Cognition and Emotion, 6, 245–268. de Hoog, N., Stroebe, W., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2007). The impact of vulnerability to and severity of a health risk on processing and acceptance of fear-arousing communications: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 11, 258–285. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.11.3.258 de Mello, G., & MacInnis, D. J. (2005). Why and how consumers hope: Motivated reasoning and the marketplace. In S. Ratneshwar & D. G. Mick (Eds.), Inside consumption: Consumer motives, goals, and desires (pp. 44–66). New York, NY: Routledge. Dillard, J. P., & Meijnders, A. (2002). Persuasion and the structure of affect. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 309–327). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dillard, J. P., & Nabi, R. L. (2006). The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. Journal of Communication, 56, S123–S139. 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. Elliott, A. J., & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 73–92. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fishbein, M., & Capella, J. N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health communications. Journal of Communication, 56, S1–S17. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Hope: An emotion and a vital coping resource against despair. Social Research, 66, 653–678. Lazarus, R. S. (2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 37–67). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. MacInnis, D. J., & de Mello, G. E. (2005). The concept of hope and its relevance to product evaluation and choice. Journal of Marketing, 69, 1–14. Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87, 672–685. Marmor-Lavie, G., & Weimann, G. (2006). Measuring emotional appeals in Israeli election campaigns. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 318–339. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh108 Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113, 1105–1112. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6

Nabi, R. L. (1999). A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory, 9, 292–320. Nabi, R. L. (2002). Discrete emotions and persuasion. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 289–308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nabi, R. L., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Carpentier, F. D. (2008). Subjective knowledge and fear appeal effectiveness: Implications for message design. Health Communication, 23, 191–201. O’Keefe, D. J. (2003). Message properties, mediating states, and manipulation checks: Claims, evidence, and data analysis in experimental persuasive message effects research. Communication Theory, 13, 251–274. O’Keefe, D. J. (2007). Post hoc power, observed power, a priori power, retrospective power, prospective power, achieved power: Sorting out appropriate uses of statistical power analyses. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 291–299. doi:10.1080/19312450701641375 O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Communication Yearbook, 30, 1–43. Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Parrott, R. L. (1995). Motivation to attend to health messages: Presentation of content and linguistic considerations. In E. Maibach & R. L. Parrott (Eds.), Designing health messages: Approaches from communication theory and public health practice (pp. 7–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Peter, P. C., & Honea, H. (2012). Targeting social messages with emotions of change: The call for optimism. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31, 269–283. doi:10.1509/jppm.11.098 Petty, R. E., Goldman, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 847–855. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.41.5.847 Prestin, A. (2013). The pursuit of hopefulness: Operationalizing hope in entertainment media narratives. Media Psychology, 16, 318–346. doi:10.1080/15213269.2013.773494 Roseman, I. J. (1991). Appraisal determinants of discrete emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 5, 161–200. Roseman, I. J. (2001). A model of appraisal in the emotion system: Integrating theory, research, and applications. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 68–91). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Roseman, I. J., & Smith, C. A. (2001). Appraisal theory: Overview, assumptions, varieties, controversies. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Scherer, K. R. (2001a). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 92–120). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Scherer, K. R. (2001b). The nature and study of appraisal: A review of the issues. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 369–391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Scherer, K. R., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada, C. (2013). Navigating into the future or driven by the past. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8, 119–141. doi:10.1177/1745691612474317 Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1967). Attitude as the individual’s own categories: The social judgment-involvement approach to attitude and attitude change. In C. W. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement, and change (pp. 105–139). New York, NY: Wiley. Shorey, H. S., Little, T. D., Snyder, C. R., Kluck, B., & Robitschek, C. (2007). Hope and personal growth initiative: A comparison of positive,



future-oriented constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1917–1926. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.011 Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. D. (2001). Toward delivering on the promise of appraisal theory. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research (pp. 121– 138). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Snyder, C. R. (2000). The handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249–275. Snyder, C. R., Lehman, K. A., Kluck, B., & Monsson, Y. (2006). Hope for rehabilitation and vice versa. Rehabilitation Psychology, 51, 89–112. doi:10.1037/0090-5550.51.2.89

611

Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 46, 137–150. Volkman, J. E., & Parrott, R. L. (2012). Expressing emotions as evidence in osteoporosis narratives: Effects on message processing and intentions. Human Communication Research, 38, 429–458. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2012.01433.x Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The Extended Parallel Process Model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329–349. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591–615.

Hope.

Hope.

Hope.

"Hope that is seen is no hope at all:" theological constructions of hope in psychotherapy.

A ray of hope.

The Anatomy of Hope.

An anatomy of hope.

Hope in a mouse.

Hope and Hopelessness: The Role of Hope in Buffering the Impact of Hopelessness on Suicidal Ideation.

Hope, optimism and delusion.

The hope for KEEPS.

The difference is hope.

Disaster, hope, help, reality.

Faith, hope, and suicide.

Letter: Some hope remains.

New hope in acne.

Effectiveness of Hope Therapy Protocol on Depression and Hope in Amphetamine Users.

The quality of hope for the amputee.

Give patients and relatives hope.

Hope for haloperidol in delirium.

Reflections: of hope and of concern.

Palliative care = hope.

The abolition of infection: hope or illusion?

From hope to hope: the experience of older Chinese people with advanced cancer.