This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi] On: 23 January 2015, At: 02:50 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Health Communication Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhth20

Inoculating Against Reactance to Persuasive Health Messages a

b

Adam S. Richards & John A. Banas a

Department of Communication Studies, Texas Christian University

b

Department of Communication, University of Oklahoma Published online: 27 Jun 2014.

Click for updates To cite this article: Adam S. Richards & John A. Banas (2014): Inoculating Against Reactance to Persuasive Health Messages, Health Communication, DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2013.867005 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.867005

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Health Communication, 1–10, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1041-0236 print / 1532-7027 online DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2013.867005

Inoculating Against Reactance to Persuasive Health Messages Adam S. Richards Department of Communication Studies Texas Christian University

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

John A. Banas Department of Communication University of Oklahoma

This investigation examined the possibility of decreasing psychological reactance to health campaigns through the use of inoculation messages. It was hypothesized that an inoculation message, which forewarned of the potential of subsequent reactance, would decrease participants’ likelihood of reacting negatively to a freedom-threatening message aimed to reduce excessive alcohol consumption. Participants (N = 275) who were inoculated against potential reactance felt less threatened and experienced less reactance compared to those who did not read an inoculation message. Structural equation modeling showed that inoculation indirectly predicted lower intention to drink alcohol via the theorized mediated reactance process. This research suggests that it is possible to inoculate against self-generated cognitions that might otherwise lead toward negative health behaviors.

Many public health campaigns have been ineffective in causing change that results in healthful behaviors (Fishbein, Hall-Jamieson, Zimmer, von Haeften, & Nabi, 2002; Noar, 2009; Snyder e]et al., 2004). In some instances, health messages even cause the behaviors that they try to prevent (Guttman, Kegler, & McLeroy, 1996; Hornik, 2002). Researchers and campaign designers have aimed to better understand this phenomenon and consequently prevent these negative behavioral effects from occurring (for a review see Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, & Voulodakis, 2002). Such boomerang effects happen in a variety of health contexts but have consistently been shown to take place in response to messages intended to reduce excessive alcohol consumption among college students. Due to the overwhelming prevalence of alcohol abuse among students (Caetano & Babor, 2006; Engs, Diebold, & Hanson, 1997; Licciardone, 2003), the prevention of this behavior has been the topic of social marketing campaigns (Jung, 2003; Pilling & Brannon, 2007) in almost half of colleges and universities in the United States (Wechsler et al., 2003). Yet there is a large body of

Correspondence should be addressed to Adam S. Richards, Department of Communication Studies, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129. E-mail: [email protected]

evidence to suggest that campaigns targeting college students actually increase drinking behaviors and pro-drinking perceptions (Perkins, Haines, & Rice, 2005; Wechsler et al., 2003; Werch et al., 2000). Psychological reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) serves to explain why campaigns generally intended to promote health, and specifically aimed to reduce binge drinking among college students, can bring about the behaviors they are designed to discourage. When faced with messages that limit their freedom, people experience anger and negative cognitions that motivate them to behave in ways aimed to restore that freedom (Brehm, 1966; Dillard & Shen, 2005). Campaigns often directly discourage unhealthful behaviors, and those that encourage healthful behaviors, by implication, simultaneously discourage unhealthful ones. This discouragement may be perceived as freedom threatening, thereby eliciting unhealthful behavior aimed towards freedom restoration (Brehm & Brehm, 1981). Researchers have begun to investigate how to decrease audience perceptions of threat to freedom in the context of promotional health messages (Campbell & Babrow, 2004; Miller, Lane, Deatrick, Young, & Potts, 2007; Shen, 2010). Inoculation theory provides reason to believe that it is possible to temper the effects of reactance toward health

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

2

RICHARDS AND BANAS

promotion messages. Inoculation theory explains the process of creating resistance to persuasion (McGuire, 1961). People become inoculated against persuasive messages when they receive a warning of the forthcoming persuasive appeal (i.e., a forewarning of threat) as well as information that is used to refute the appeal and reinforce existing attitudes (i.e., refutational preemption; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961; Pfau, 1996). Scholars have shown that it is possible to inoculate against negative health messages (Banas & Rains, 2010; Banerjee & Greene, 2007; Duryea, 2009; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961; Pfau, Van Bockern, & Kang, 1992; Pfau et al., 1997), thereby promoting healthful behavior. This study examines the possibility of inoculating against reactance to a health campaign message aimed to reduce excessive alcohol consumption, an issue of both theoretical and practical importance. Theoretically, applying inoculation to a largely involuntary response like psychological reactance addresses the boundary conditions of the theory. The consistent ability of inoculation to buffer persuasion in various topics and situations (Banas & Rains, 2010; Szabo & Pfau, 2002) has led scholars to question the conditions under which it is not successful (Compton & Pfau, 2005). Here, we seek to extend inoculation theory and test a potential boundary condition. Inoculation is typically applied to preexisting attitudinal positions on matters of public policy (e.g., censorship of television violence) via the forewarning and refuting of subsequent external messages. By using inoculation to target reactance, we apply the theory to the forewarning of subsequent internal messages—self-generated negative cognitions that prompt irrational behaviors intended to restore freedom—rather than external ones. Practically, this study should inform health message designers on the feasibility of using inoculation as a message strategy to reduce reactance and increase the likelihood of message acceptance and adaptive behavioral outcomes. This is a novel extension, as researchers have used inoculation to decrease the effect of a persuasive appeal by creating resistance to another party’s impending communication, but we attempt to use inoculation to increase the effect of a persuasive appeal by creating resistance to one’s own impending cognitions. Another practical purpose of this study is to test a message strategy with the potential to improve the efficacy of interventions designed to prevent alcohol abuse among college students. Most messages that universities design to encourage responsible drinking behaviors are ineffective (Perkins et al., 2005; Wechsler et al., 2003; Werch et al., 2000). To explain this effect, many studies have specifically applied psychological reactance theory to study the effect of messages aimed to prevent alcohol abuse (Allen, Sprenkel, & Vitale, 1994; Bensley & Wu, 1991; Engs & Hanson, 1989; Ringold, 2002). With overwhelming consistency, reactance-inducing messages increase pro-drinking attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. It is perhaps understandable why such reliable reactance effects occur in response

to campaigns to reduce alcohol consumption: Such messages typically use controlling (Bensley & Wu, 1991) and freedom-limiting (Ringold, 2002) language. Were inoculation effective in reducing reactance, the presentation of such messages before an intervention would serve as a simple tactic to improve the persuasiveness of campaigns designed to promote responsible drinking.

REDUCING REACTANCE The theory of psychological reactance has been used to understand individuals’ reactions to persuasive messages. Reactance occurs when messages threaten people’s freedom to choose how to behave, which motivates people to engage in efforts to restore freedom (Brehm, 1966). Research indicates that people primarily attempt to restore freedom by participating in the discouraged act (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Dillard & Shen, 2005). In a health context, reactant behaviors reduce the desired outcomes of health campaigns. Recent work on reactance has aimed to determine whether reactant health behaviors are caused primarily by negative cognitions or felt anger. Scholars concur that an intertwined combination of cognitions and emotions best explains the reactance process (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Quick & Stephenson, 2007; Rains & Turner, 2007). These studies indicate that reactance is not a product of a poorly constructed public health campaign. Instead, reactance is an outcome that stems from perceptions and feelings that are activated by messages. It is plausible that individuals cognitively and affectively process similar messages in different ways. That is, a message that motivates some people to respond in ways beneficial to their health may motivate others to react in ways that are harmful to their health. All promotional health messages, even those that do not overtly threaten freedom, are capable of causing reactance that results in unhealthful behaviors aimed toward the restoration of freedom. Because of the possibility of reactance, it is understandable that scholars and health practitioners are interested in reducing perceived threats to freedom, and the negative cognitions and emotions that subsequently occur, in response to promotional messages. Shen (2010) emphasized this point by stating that “while understanding the nature of psychological reactance is important to persuasion, equally critical is the knowledge of how we can reduce psychological reactance and overcome resistance to persuasion” (p. 413). Brehm (1966), in his original conceptualization of reactance, suggested that strategies aimed toward restoring perceptions of freedom could buffer undesirable behavioral responses caused by perceived freedom threats. If one is able to successfully restore freedom, one may then successfully reduce reactance. Miller et al. (2007) conducted an experiment to determine the possibility of reducing reactance through the use of restoration postscript

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

INOCULATING REACTANCE

messages. In their study, participants were first exposed to messages designed to threaten freedoms and then exposed to a message designed to restore those freedoms. Miller et al. found that the inclusion of a restoration postscript significantly decreased the degree to which threats to freedom were perceived. In this way, reactance was buffered by messages that restored freedom after freedom was threatened. However, the researchers did not report whether felt anger or negative cognitions were also restrained as a product of a restorative postscript. Bessarabova, Fink, and Turner (2013) followed up the work of Miller et al. and found that restorative postscripts decreased reactance effects when highly freedom-threatening messages were used. Other researchers have investigated the possibility of increasing persuasion by reducing reactance through means other than by restoring freedom after the fact. Shen (2010) found that it is possible to inhibit reactance by eliciting empathy in persuasive messages. Campbell and Babrow (2004) similarly showed that empathy could be used to decrease resistance to health prevention messages. These studies provide reason to think that means other than freedom restoration can be used to limit the degree to which reactance is experienced during exposure to a freedomthreatening message.

INOCULATING AGAINST REACTANCE Inoculation messages may serve as an additional way for message designers to limit the degree to which audiences perceive threats to freedom. Such messages may also decrease the degree to which negative cognitions and anger are felt, as these responses are thought to occur as a result of perceiving freedom threats (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Dillard & Shen, 2005). Messages that aim to prevent perceptions of freedom threats may even be more effective in decreasing reactance when compared to restoration postscripts, which aim to change existing perceptions of freedom threats. Messages that forewarn individuals against the potential of perceiving freedom threats might prevent individuals from perceiving threats, experiencing negative cognitions, and feeling angry. Inoculation theory proposes that people become resistant to persuasion if they are forewarned of an ensuing persuasive attempt and preemptively given refutational information (Banas & Rains, 2010; McGuire, 1961; Pfau et al., 2005; Wood, 2007). Refutational preemptions allow individuals to prepare for and counterargue against persuasive messages that are subsequently encountered, which prepares them to resist subsequent persuasion (Compton & Pfau, 2005; McGuire, 1961). Such a technique might also induce resistance to subsequent reactance that results from persuasive health appeals. Previous research findings suggest that a relationship exists between reactance and inoculation processes.

3

Although the inoculation process has been theorized to operate through mediators like perceived threat, counterarguing, increased involvement, and increased attitude certainty, Pfau et al. (2005) noted that causal models in several studies of Pfau and colleagues (1997, 2001, 2004) “have repeatedly revealed a sizable, direct, and unexplained path from inoculation to resistance that operates independent of the specific mechanisms” associated with inoculation theory (p. 434). This led the authors to question whether additional mechanisms not explained by inoculation aid in the resistance process. Banas and Miller (2013) argued that one possible explanation for this direct path from inoculation to resistance is psychological reactance simultaneously functioning to affect attitudes and behaviors. In their study, an inoculation treatment was used against another inoculation treatment (i.e., meta-inoculation). Relevant to this study, the metainoculation treatment was devoid of any refutations of the arguments provided in the inoculation treatment, so the resistance conferred by the meta-inoculation was thought to occur through a more heuristic process analogous to psychological reactance. Due to the freedom-threatening language present in many inoculation treatments that have been used in previous studies, it is possible to see how reactance may be present in the inoculation process. One example of this type of language can be found in the Pfau et al. (2005) study, in which the inoculation treatments about censorship of television violence contained language that could be perceived to frame the issue as protecting against threats to freedom, thereby inadvertently employing reactance as part of the inoculation process. In the study, one of the threat elements of the treatments reads, “There is an intense campaign underway to thwart government efforts to curb television violence. Some arguments are persuasive and they may cause you to rethink your position on this issue.”1 Further, the treatment ends with the sentence, “The campaign to thwart government efforts to control television violence is led by misinformed people who are threatening to take away parents’ ability to protect young children.” This language literally describes attempts to take away freedoms and even includes the term “threatening” to describe those efforts. In addition to the cognitive mechanisms typically associated with the inoculation process, there appears to be the possibility that psychological reactance is involved as well. Although this discussion suggests that reactance plays a role in the inoculation process, only a few isolated studies have examined the phenomena in concert (Miller et al., 2013; Sims, 2008; Szabo & Pfau, 2001). Although these experiments make a worthwhile contribution to the literature regarding inoculation and reactance, none focus on using inoculation to reduce reactance in a manner analogous to the

1 The manipulations used in the Pfau et al. (2005) experiment were obtained from the first author of the article.

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

4

RICHARDS AND BANAS

present study. Indeed, Miller et al. used freedom-threatening language to enhance inoculation effects, which is essentially the exact opposite of the approach proposed here. More in line with our study, research that specifically addresses the effect of inoculation on reactance has been inconclusive. Sims (2008) found no support for inoculation having an effect on reactance. Szabo and Pfau (2001) found that the effect of inoculation on reactance was significant for some, but not all, participants and unexpectedly differed based on various antismoking message strategies. However, the inoculation manipulations used in these studies were not specific to an impending reactance threat, but only to a subsequent persuasive appeal. Given these inductions, it is perhaps not surprising that there were inconsistent effects on reactance. In conjunction with inoculation theory, two requisites should be present in an inoculation message in order to create resistance against the impending urge to react negatively toward a message. First, the audience must be forewarned about the threat of reactance rather than the threat of a subsequent persuasive appeal. In this case, the threat must indicate that the impending message might lead people to perceive that their freedom to make their own health decisions is being limited. Second, the audience must receive refutational preemption suggesting reasons to not feel reactant, rather than suggesting counterarguments to the impending appeal. That is, information that directs message targets as to why they should not perceive their freedom as being limited must be communicated before the actual freedom-limiting persuasive appeal. When these inoculative elements are presented before a freedom-threatening appeal, we expect that people will perceive less threat to freedom compared to those who do not receive the inoculation message, bolstering their resistance to reactance. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed about how inoculation affects the markers of reactance: H1: Inoculation messages will be negatively associated with a perceived threat to freedom.2 H2: Perceived threat to freedom will be positively associated with psychological reactance. Once inoculation reduces perceived threat, which indirectly reduces reactance, it follows that the behavioral outcomes that individuals use to restore freedom will differ for those exposed to an inoculation message. Consistent with reactance theory, we predict that people who experience less reactance will express an increased likelihood of intentions to behave according to the advocated position in a message. Thus: 2 To be clear, all references to inoculation are shorthand for treatments that precede the persuasive message about reducing binge drinking. So this same hypothesis can be thought of as “Inoculation before receiving a persuasive message will reduce perceived threat to freedom from that persuasive message.”

H3: Psychological reactance will be negatively associated with behavioral intention to drink alcohol.

METHOD Participants Participants were recruited from undergraduate communication classes at a large Mid-Atlantic university. They received a small amount of course credit for their voluntary participation in this study. The 275 participants had a mean age of 19.66 (SD = 1.37). Approximately 38% were male and 62% were female. Caucasian participants accounted for 64% of the sample, followed by Asian (16.5%), Hispanic (8.5%), and African American (8%) participants, whereas 3% self-responded as other. Seventy-four percent of participants were not of legal drinking age at the time of this study. Design and Procedure The investigation employed a between-subjects experimental design in which participants were randomly assigned to an inoculation manipulation (i.e., treatment or no treatment control).3 After participants enrolled to participate in the study, they were directed to an Internet website where they participated in the experiment. After giving informed consent and being ensured of confidentiality, participants were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions. Participants were told that they were to read an informational brochure about binge drinking. Before reading the brochure, participants read either an inoculation message or a control message and answered questions about that message. They then proceeded to read information about how binge drinking among college students is harmful to their health. After reading this message, participants answered a series of items on a questionnaire. They were then thanked and debriefed upon completion of the questionnaire.

3 The initial experimental design also included a second manipulation to replicate Dillard and Shen’s (2005) threat-to-freedom elicitation, whereby participants were randomly assigned to a message at the end of the binge-drinking brochure aimed to create high or low amounts of reactance. However, in our study, this manipulation did not significantly affect reactance: No differences were found between participants in the high and low conditions in perceived threat to freedom, F(1, 267) = 2.27, p = ns, anger, F(1, 264) = 0.24, p = ns, or unsupportive thoughts, F(1, 238) = 1.02, p = ns. The manipulation neither resulted in main effects on other dependent variables, nor interacted with the inoculation manipulation. Given that this manipulation did not directly inform our hypotheses and that the evidence suggests it had no effect on reactance or other dependent variables, we discuss the design in terms of only the inoculation manipulation.

INOCULATING REACTANCE

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

Materials A brochure was used that recounted the problems of binge drinking at the particular university where the study took place and the potential detriments to individuals’ health. Information about binge drinking as a threat to health was identical for all participants. This procedure is a replication of previous research on reactance in the context of binge drinking (Dillard & Shen, 2005), and the only changes made were altering the university-related information to match that of the participants’ institution and altering the dates of the citations to make the studies that were cited appear more current. Inoculation was manipulated by exposing participants to a message before they read the brochure about binge drinking. The inoculation treatment specifically mentioned that participants might feel like their freedom would be threatened by the impending message (i.e., the forewarning of threat), as well as giving information that suggested why they should not feel threatened (i.e., refutational preemption). The message read: You are about to read information from the [name of university] Health Center that has to do with alcohol use among college students. After reading through the information, you might feel that your freedom to choose how you will consume alcohol is being threatened. However, the facts about binge drinking that are reported are pretty powerful when you think about them, and the suggestions that are proposed about drinking responsibly actually make a lot of sense in light of what is known about alcohol consumption among college students.

A control message gave a short history of sushi in place of the inoculation treatment. This control message has been used in a number of inoculation studies (e.g., Banas & Miller, 2013). Measures Inoculation manipulation check. Inoculation threat was measured by six semantic differential items in which participants indicated whether they perceived the ideas in the previous message as safe/dangerous, nonthreatening/ threatening, calm/anxious, unintimidating/ intimidating, not harmful/harmful, and not risky/risky on a 7-point scale. This measure has long been used to assess attitudes in research regarding resistance to persuasion (Burgoon, Cohen, Miller, & Montgomery, 1978). The scale was reliable (M = 3.26, SD = 1.36, α = .95). Perceived threat-to-freedom. Four items (e.g., The message threatened my freedom to choose” and “The message tried to make a decision for me”) were used to assess perceived threat to freedom on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The scale was reliable (M = 2.53, SD = 1.04, α = .83).

5

Anger. Anger was measured by four items that have been validated in past studies (Dillard & Peck, 2000; Dillard & Shen, 2005) on a 5-point scale (0 = none of this feeling, 4 = a great deal of this feeling). The items of irritated, angry, annoyed, and aggravated (M = 0.91, SD = 0.89) had an alpha reliability of .87. Negative cognitions. Participants recorded any thoughts that came to mind as they read the message. Reports were coded by two independent coders on two variables: relevant/irrelevant (Scott’s pi = .77) and positive/neutral/ negative (Scott’s pi = .70). Thoughts were considered supportive (M = 1.35, SD = 1.71) if they were relevant and positive, and unsupportive (M = 0.82, SD = 1.54) if they were relevant and negative. Behavioral intention to drink alcohol. Intent to drink alcohol was measured with a single-item 100-point probability estimate of participants’ likelihood of drinking alcohol within the following week (M = 62.39, SD = 40.01).

RESULTS Inoculation Manipulation The effect of the inoculation message on perceived inoculation threat was not significantly greater for those who received an inoculation message (M = 3.13, SD = 1.30) than for those who received a control message (M = 3.37, SD = 1.41), t(273) = 1.51, p = ns. This result suggests that the inoculation manipulation was not successful. Although this may seem undesirable, O’Keefe (2003) made a compelling argument against the necessity of manipulation checks to assess elicited psychological states when using inductions that vary in message features. Instead, manipulations should be defined by the features of the message, rather than the psychological effects they elicit. The features of the message stimuli are clear in this study, with the elements of a forewarning of threat and refutational preemption appearing in the inoculation message but not in the control message. Thus, despite an insignificant manipulation check, further analysis of inoculation was justified. Model Construction and Testing Structural equation modeling using LISREL 8.80 was used to test the hypothesized model. Individual items served as indicators for latent variables in the measurement model. The exogenous variable, inoculation condition, was dummy coded so that 1 equaled the presence of the inoculation message and 0 equaled the absence of the inoculation message. For latent variables with single indicators (i.e., inoculation message, negative cognitions, and behavioral intention), error variances of the indicators were fixed to zero. Consistent with previous research on the intertwined model

6

RICHARDS AND BANAS

(Dillard & Shen, 2005; Quick & Stephenson, 2007; Rains & Turner, 2007), reactance served as a higher order latent variable comprised of the latent constructs of anger and negative cognitions. Hu and Benter’s (1999) recommendations for fit statistics were used to assess model fit. The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed good model fit, χ 2 (40) = 95.54, p < .001, RMSEA = .073, 90% CI = (.054, .092), CFI = .96, SRMR = .055, as did the structural model, χ 2 (42) = 97.31, p < .001, RMSEA = .071, 90% CI = (.053, .090), CFI = .96, SRMR = .052. Modification indices suggested no additional structural paths between latent constructs. The structural model is shown in Figure 1. Bivariate correlations among composite variables and latent correlations among latent factors are shown in Table 1.

Specifically, it was predicted that an inoculation message forewarning of the potential for psychological reactance would increase the persuasiveness of a health message about binge drinking by reducing subsequent reactance to the health message. An experiment was conducted in which people read inoculation or control messages before exposure to an anti-binge-drinking brochure. The inoculation message significantly decreased perceptions of threat to freedom and reactance experienced by reading the promotional health information. The theoretical sequence tested here also showed that inoculation was significantly associated with lower intention to drink alcohol via the mediated paths of threat to freedom and reactance. These results suggest that inoculation messages can successfully reduce reactance.4 This study joins a small group of others (Bessarabova et al., 2013; Campbell & Babrow, 2004; Miller et al., 2007; Shen, 2010) that explore communication interventions intended to reduce negative behavioral outcomes caused by reactance. Although other strategies for reducing reactance effects attempt to restore perceived freedom after it has been threatened (Bessarabova et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2007), our results suggest that reactance can be mitigated before it is experienced by forewarning people about the possibility of its occurrence. This strategy is perhaps preferable since it prevents reactance from occurring altogether, rather than attempting to assuage already reactant people with restorations of freedom. This research also expands the use of inoculation into a new domain, thereby further extending the boundary conditions of the theory (Compton & Pfau, 2005). Inoculation theory is known for working across a wide variety of topics (Banas & Rains, 2010; Szabo & Pfau, 2002), but tests of the theory consist of attempts to inoculate people against impending external communications. This study deviates from the others by testing the possibility of inoculating against subsequent self-cognized internal communications (e.g., “This brochure threatens my freedom, and I won’t have

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

Hypothesis Testing We first predicted that the inoculation message would cause less perceived threat to freedom (H1). This hypothesis was supported (β = –.23, p < .01). Perceived threat to freedom was expected to positively associate with reactance (H2), and this hypothesis was supported (β = .58, p < .001). Reactance was expected to positively associate with behavioral intention to drink alcohol (H3), and this hypothesis was supported (β = .27, p < .01). Further evidence supports the role of inoculation in reducing reactance and intentions to drink alcohol. Inoculation condition and reactance shared a significant latent correlation (r = –.14), which suggests that inoculation directly reduced reactance. Further, inoculation shared a significant indirect association with reactance via perceived threat to freedom (β = –.13, p < .01) in the theoretical model. Although the correlation between inoculation and behavioral intention was not significant (r = .06)—inoculation did not directly influence intention to drink alcohol—behavioral intention was indirectly predicted by inoculation through the mediation of perceived threat to freedom and reactance (β = –.04, p < .01).

4 An alternative explanation for the effect of the inoculation treatment is that participants were subject to greater attitude change via exposure to more persuasive content, whereby the inoculation message served as an additional persuasive message against binge drinking, rather than a forewarning and refutation of potential reactance.

DISCUSSION This study is the first to examine inoculation as a communication strategy to reduce psychological reactance.

Anger

Negative Cognitions

.55** Inoculation Condition

–.23*

FIGURE 1 Structural model (∗ p < .01, estimates are standardized.

∗∗ p

Threat to Freedom

.63**

.58**

.27* Reactance

Intention to Drink Alcohol

< .001). Inoculation condition was coded so that 0 = control and 1 = treatment. Note: All parameter

INOCULATING REACTANCE

7

TABLE 1 Correlations Among Composite and Latent Variables

conditiona

1. Inoculation 2. Perceived threat-to-freedom 3. Anger 4. Negative cognitions 5. Intention to drink alcohol Inoculation manipulation check

1

2

3

4

5

Reactance

— −.22 −.12 −.05 .06 −.09

−.23 — .37 .27 .11 .19

−.08 .35 — .30 .14 .22

−.09 .36 .38 — .20 −.00

.06 .13 .19 .20 — .03

−.14 .58 .60 .63 .31 —

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

Note. Bivariate correlations among composite variables (below the diagonal) stronger than ±.13 are significant at p < .05. Latent correlations (above the diagonal) stronger than ±.10 are significant at p < .05. a Inoculation condition was coded so that 0 = control and 1 = treatment.

it!”). That is, inoculation has been known as an effective strategy to limit the influence of another source, whereas this research shows that inoculation can serve as an effective strategy to limit self-influence. Self-persuasion occurs when people are motivated to change their own attitudes or behaviors independent of outside communications (Aronson, 1999). Here, we posit that people were inoculated against impending self-generated persuasive thoughts about feeling threatened. For these participants, freedom-threatening language was not interpreted as threatening because they were equipped with an awareness about the suggestions actually being reasonable and beneficial. Thus, cognitions that would otherwise lead toward perceptions of threatened freedom (e.g., “This brochure can’t tell me how to live my life!”) are met with counterarguments (e.g., “These arguments are good points that should not make me feel threatened.”). Situating psychological reactance as a specific instance of self-persuasion is a novel step toward understanding why people react to negative cognitions and anger by engaging in behaviors that are known to be destructive. Indeed, the inoculation treatment in this study was qualitatively different from those used in previous research, which are typically cognitively focused refutations of arguments against a message recipient’s initial position (Banas & Rains, 2010; Compton & Pfau, 2005). In this study, the inoculation treatment was not designed to prevent persuasion of an external message; rather, the inoculation was designed to prevent internal psychological reactance, thereby increasing persuasion from the message. As such, the refutational preemptions did not present information that refuted the arguments in the message but rather attempted to persuade participants to overcome cognitions associated with psychological reactance in order to appreciate the sensible recommendations suggested about binge drinking. Such refutational preemption appears to ultimately relate to the effectiveness of messages encountered subsequently. Future research should investigate whether issue involvement or emotional reactivity to health topics, which was likely high for college students in regard to binge drinking, leads to similar inoculation effects.

The focus on preempting negative self-influence may have advantages over other manners of reducing reactance. For example, Miller and colleagues (2013) were able to increase the effectiveness of inoculation by generating reactance and attributing it to the source of the persuasive message. Yet this strategy may not be effective if the message’s source is also its recipient, as is the case in selfpersuasion. Such a strategy may generate self-derogation or self-directed anger, or may negatively impact self-esteem, which would not be ideal in self-persuasion situations. The tactic used in this study takes a different approach by using inoculation to enhance persuasion, not resistance. This novel strategy could be potentially quite useful in health campaigns designed to reduce undesirable behaviors that typically elicit reactance. Ironically, where Miller et al. (2013) used reactance to enhance resistance (opposite of what most campaigns do), the present study used inoculation to increase persuasion (opposite of what inoculation is generally used for). Practically, these results suggest a new avenue for health campaigns in general and those that encourage responsible alcohol consumption in particular. Although health messages should typically avoid direct recommendations that may lead toward perceptions of threatened freedom, inoculation messages about reactance given before exposure to the health message may allow health communicators to convey straightforward directives without eliciting negative behaviors that are intended to restore freedom. By inoculating against the problem of potential reactance at the onset of communication, it may be possible for health messages that typically elicit perceptions of freedom threats to be used to promote behavior without the negative effects typically associated with reactance. This point is particularly important to the context of binge-drinking messages on college campus, which have frequently been found to result in boomerang effects (Perkins et al., 2005; Ringold, 2002; Wechsler et al., 2003; Werch et al., 2000). However, although there was evidence consistent with a protective effect of inoculation on intention to consume alcohol, this effect was small. Thus, it is possible for an inoculated message target to still be susceptible to behavioral boomerangs, and future research should

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

8

RICHARDS AND BANAS

investigate the features of inoculation messages that boost their efficacy in regard to buffering behavioral manifestations of reactance. In addition, it is possible that preventing reactance from occurring is a strategy superior to attempting to reduce the effects of reactance after they occur, as is the case with the restorative postscript research program (e.g., Bessarabova et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2013). This is an interesting empirical question for future research to address. Future studies might also consider how different arguments used as refutational preemption in inoculation messages function to reduce reactance. The preemptive counterargument we used implied that the ensuing persuasive message was not worthy of threating freedom and the experience of reactance was therefore unwarranted. We found this reason to successfully reduce reactance. However, a number of other counterarguments about why not to experience reactance may also elicit reductions in reactance. For example, a forewarning that primes people of the dangers of reactance by refuting its possible benefits (e.g., catharsis associated with reestablishment of freedom) by countering with its potential drawbacks (e.g., the experience of harmful behaviors) may also serve as reasons to avoid reactant feelings. Studying the effect of such reasons in isolation and in combination with other reasons is a worthwhile direction for investigations that examine the inoculation of reactance. As in all research, there are limitations to this study. One limitation is the nonsignificant manipulation check between those exposed to the inoculation message and control message. The inoculation message did not bring a greater awareness of threat before the health message was encountered. However, the model clearly shows that inoculation affected perceived threat to freedom and reactance experienced after encountering the health message. Perhaps an awareness of anxiety that comes from the nature of the questions themselves applies to testing effects among the sample. Another possibility, given the clear effect the inoculation treatment had on perceived threat to freedom, is that the extant method of assessing inoculation inadequately assesses the desire to defend attitudes from an impending threat. For example, the typical scale used to operationalize threat, which was used here, may itself prime participants and act as a forewarning, thereby providing motivation for defense building (Compton & Ivanov, 2012). Thus, even participants who were not inoculated could report greater threat during the manipulation check so that no differences are found. Were this the case, alternative manipulation checks for inoculation should be explored. Despite an apparent failed manipulation, the fact that the inoculation manipulation demonstrated significant direct effects on perceived threat to freedom and latent reactance provides validity of a successful experimental induction. Another potential limitation to the present study was the ambiguous wording used to measure intention to drink alcohol. The measure of behavioral intention assessed the likelihood of alcohol consumption, not the likelihood of

excessive alcohol consumption. On the one hand, college students may perceive drinking and binge drinking as different behaviors, and this mismatch may account for the reduced likelihood of inoculation effects: Although there was evidence of an indirect relationship between inoculation and drinking behavior, it was quite small. On the other hand, it is possible that the sample did equate alcohol consumption with binge drinking. Studies show that among college students who consume alcohol, around half of them do it through binge drinking (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2013). Further, binge drinking is more prevalent among underage students (Engs et al., 1997), who predominated (74%) in our sample. To avoid such uncertainty, future studies should elect to use more direct measurements of alcohol abuse. This study comports with a growing body of research (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Quick, 2012; Quick, Scott, & Ledbetter, 2011) that models psychological reactance as a theoretical causal process, whereby messages cause perceived freedom threats, which cause reactance (i.e., a latent construct that accounts for anger and negative cognitions), which causes attitudes and behaviors. Here, model fit and associations between constructs support this theoretical process of reactance. However, a limitation to this method is the testing of the causal sequence between perceived threat to freedom, reactance, and behavioral intention with cross-sectional data. It is appropriate to treat the manipulation as antecedent to dependent variables, but we also attributed causal relationships among the posttest measures. Although longitudinal data would be ideal, we have replicated results about the theoretical reactance process by using a common method used in studies of reactance in health communication (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Quick, 2012; Quick & Bates, 2010; Quick et al., 2011; Quick & Stephenson, 2007, 2008). However, it is possible that other theoretical structures might be equally supported by these data. Thus, results of this nature are useful in testing theoretical assumptions in health communication research (Stephenson, Holbert, & Zimmerman, 2006), but ought to be interpreted cautiously given the lack of temporal order. The present study extends two prominent theories of persuasion—psychological reactance and inoculation—in the context of a health intervention to reduce alcohol abuse among college students. First, this research identifies a new method for reducing behavioral reactance effects by preventing reactance from occurring via forewarning of its potential occurrence. Second, these findings widen the boundary conditions of inoculation theory by suggesting that, in addition to inoculating against subsequent external messages intended to influence behavior, it is possible to inoculate against subsequent self-generated cognitions that influence behavior. Finally, this research shows that the efficacy of persuasive health messages may be improved by simply warning audiences about the possibility of negative reactions to such messages.

INOCULATING REACTANCE

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

REFERENCES Allen, D. N., Sprenkel, D. G., & Vitale, P. A. (1994). Reactance theory and alcohol consumption laws: Further confirmation among collegiate alcohol consumers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 34–40. Aronson, E. (1999). The power of self-persuasion. American Psychologist, 54, 875–884. Banas, J. A., & Miller, G. (2013). Inducing resistance to conspiracy theory propaganda: Testing inoculation and meta-inoculation strategies. Human Communication Research, 40, 1–24. Banas, J., & Rains, S. (2010). A meta-analysis of research on inoculation theory. Communication Monographs, 77, 281–311. Banerjee, S. C., & Greene, K. (2007). Antismoking initiatives: Effects of analysis versus production media literacy interventions on smokingrelated attitude, norm, and behavioral intention. Health Communication, 22, 37–48. Bensley, L. S., & Wu, R. (1991). The role of psychological reactance in drinking following alcohol prevention messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1111–1124. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991. tb00461.x Bessarabova, E., Fink, E. L., & Turner, M. (2013). Reactance, restoration, and cognitive structures: Comparative statics. Human Communication Research, 39, 339–364. doi:10.1111/hcre.12007 Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press. Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Voloudakis, M. (2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 213–232). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Burgoon, M., Cohen, M., Miller, M. D., & Montgomery, C. L. (1978). An empirical test of a model of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 5, 27–39. Caetano, R., & Babor, T. F. (2006). Diagnosis of alcohol dependence in epidemiological surveys: An epidemic of youthful alcohol dependence or a case of measurement error? Addiction, 101, 111–114. doi:10.1111/j. 1360-0443.2006.01599.x Campbell, R., & Babrow, A. (2004). The role of empathy in responses to persuasive risk communication: Overcoming resistance to HIV prevention messages. Health Communication, 16, 159–182. Compton, J., & Ivanov, B. (2012). Untangling threat during inoculationconferred resistance to influence. Communication Reports, 25, 1–13. doi:0.1080/08934215.2012.661018 Compton, J., & Pfau, M. (2005). Inoculation theory of resistance to influence at maturity: Recent progress in theory development and application and suggestions for future research. In P. Kalbfleisch (Ed.,), Communication yearbook 29 (pp. 97–145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2000). Affect and persuasion: Emotional responses to public service announcements. Communication Research, 27, 461–495. Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168. Duryea, E. J. (2009). Utilizing tents of inoculation theory to develop and evaluate a preventive alcohol education intervention. Journal of School Health, 53, 250–256. Engs, R. C., Diebold, B. A., & Hanson, D. J. (1997). The drinking patterns and problems of a national sample of college students, 1994. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 41, 13–33. Engs, R., & Hanson, D. J. (1989). Reactance theory: A test with collegiate drinking. Psychological Reports, 64, 1083–1086. doi:10.2466/pr0.1989. 64.3c.1083

9

Fishbein, M., Hall-Jamieson, K., Zimmer, E., von Haeften, I., & Nabi, R. (2002). Avoiding the boomerang: Testing the relative effectiveness of antidrug public service announcements before a national campaign. American Journal of Public Health, 92, 238–245. Guttman, N., Kegler, M., & McLeroy, K. R. (1996). Health promotion paradoxes, antinomies, and conundrums. Health Education Research, Theory, and Practice, 11, i–xiii. Hornik, R. (2002). Public health communication: Making sense of the evidence. In R. Hornik (Ed.), Public health communication (pp. 1–19). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Jung, J. R. (2003). Changing the focus of college alcohol prevention programs. Journal of American College Health, 52, 92–95. doi:10.1080/ 07448480309595730 Licciardone, J. C. (2003). Perceptions of drinking and related findings from the nationwide campuses study. Journal of American College Health, 51, 238–245. doi:10.1080/07448480309596356 McGuire, W. J. (1961). The effectiveness of supportive and refutational defenses in immunizing and restoring beliefs against persuasion. Sociometry, 24, 184–197. McGuire, W. J., & Papageorgis, D. (1961). The relative efficacy of various types of prior belief- defense in producing immunity against persuasion. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 327–337. Miller, C. H., Ivanov, B., Sims, J. D., Compton, J., Harrison, K. J., Parker, K. A., . . . Averbeck, J. A. (2013). Boosting the potency of resistance: Combining the motivational forces of inoculation and psychological reactance. Human Communication Research, 39, 127–155. Miller, C. H., Lane, L. T., Deatrick, L. M., Young, A. M., & Potts, K. A. (2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33, 219–240. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health. (2013). College drinking. Retrieved from http://www.niaaa.nih. gov/alcohol-health/special-populations-co-occurring-disorders/collegedrinking Noar, S. M. (2009). Challenges in evaluating health communication campaigns: Defining the issues. Communication Methods and Measures, 1 & 2, 1–11. 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. Perkins, H. W., Haines, M. P., & Rice, R. (2005). Misperceiving the college drinking norm and related problems: A nationwide study of exposure to prevention information, perceived norms and student alcohol misuse. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, 470–478. Pfau, M. (1996). Inoculation model of resistance to influence. In F. J. Boster & G. Barnett (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 12, pp. 133–171). Norwood, NJ: Abex. Pfau, M., Compton, J., Parker, K. A., Wittenberg, E. M., An, C., Ferguson, M., . . . Malyshev, Y. (2004). The traditional explanation for resistance versus attitude accessibility: Do they trigger distinct or overlapping processes of resistance? Human Communication Research, 30, 329–360. Pfau, M., Ivanov, B., Houston, B., Haigh, M., Sims, J., Gilchrist, E., . . . Richert, N. (2005). Inoculation and mental processing: The instrumental role of associative networks in the process of resistance to counterattitudinal influence. Communication Monographs, 72, 414–441. Pfau, M., Szabo, E. A., Anderson, J., Morrill, J., Zubric, J., & Wan, H. H. (2001). The role and impact of affect in the process of resistance to persuasion. Human Communication Research, 27, 216–252. Pfau, M., Tusing, K. J., Koerner, A. F., Lee, W., Godbold, L. C., Penaloza, L. J., . . . Hong, Y. (1997). Enriching the inoculation construct: The role of

Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 02:51 23 January 2015

10

RICHARDS AND BANAS

critical components in the process of resistance. Human Communication Research, 24, 187–215. Pfau, M., Van Bockern, S., & Kang, J. G. (1992). Use of inoculation to promote resistance to smoking initiation among adolescents. Communication Monographs, 59, 213–130. Pilling, V. K., & Brannon, L. A. (2007). Assessing college students’ attitudes toward responsible drinking messages to identify promising binge drinking intervention strategies. Health Communication, 22, 265–276. doi:10.1080/10410230701708121 Quick, B. L. (2012). What is the best measure of psychological reactance? An empirical test of two measures. Health Communication, 27, 1–9. Quick, B. L., & Bates, B. R. (2010). The use of gain- or loss-frame messages and efficacy appeals to dissuade excessive alcohol consumption among college students: A test of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 603–628. Quick, B. L., Scott, A. M., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2011). A close examination of trait reactance and issue involvement as moderators of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 16, 660–679. Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2007). Further evidence that psychological reactance can be modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions. Communication Research, 34, 255–276. Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). Examining the role of treat reactance and sensation seeking on perceived threat, state reactance, and reactance restoration. Human Communication Research, 24, 448–476. Rains, S., & Turner, M. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33, 241–269. Ringold, D. J. (2002). Boomerang effects in response to public health interventions: Some unintended consequences in the alcoholic beverage market. Journal of Consumer Policy, 25, 27–63. doi:10.1023/A: 1014588126336

Shen, L. (2010). Mitigating psychological reactance: The role of messageinduced empathy in persuasion. Human Communication Research, 36, 397–422. Sims, J. D. (2008). Communicating value-in-diversity campaigns: The role of reactance and inoculation in accomplishing organization aims. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. Snyder, L. B., Hamilton, M. A., Mitchell, E. W., Kiwanuka-Tondo, J., Fleming-Milici, F., & Proctor, D. (2004). A meta-analysis of the effect of mediated health communication campaigns on behavior change in the United States. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 71–96. Stephenson, M. T., Holbert, R. L., & Zimmerman, R. S. (2006). On the use of structural equation modeling in health communication research. Health Communication, 20, 159–167. doi:10.1207/s15327027hc2002_7 Szabo, E. A., & Pfau, M. (2001, November). Reactance as a response to antismoking messages. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Atlanta, GA. Szabo, E. A., & Pfau, M. (2002). Nuances in inoculation: Theory and applications. In J. P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Theory and practice (pp. 233–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wechsler, H., Nelson, T., Lee, J. E., Seiberg, M., Lewis, C., & Keeling, R. (2003). Perception and reality: A national evaluation of social norms marketing interventions to reduce college students’ heavy alcohol use. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 484–494. Werch, C. E., Pappas, D. M., Carlson, J. M., DiClemente, C. C., Chally, P. M., & Sinder, J. S. (2000). Results of a social norm intervention to prevent binge drinking among first-year residential college students. Journal of American College Health, 49, 85–92. Wood, M. L. M. (2007). Rethinking the inoculation analogy: Effects on subjects with differing preexisting attitudes. Human Communication Research, 33, 357–378.