|
This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and
Mass Communication in San Antonio, Texas August 2005.
If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
rakyat [ at ] eparker.org. For an explanation of the subject line,
send email to
[log in to unmask] with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Feb 2006)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
====================================================================
Effects of Positive vs. Negative Self-Efficacy Statements in Humorous
Anti-Alcohol Abuse Ads
By
Myiah Hutchens Hively, MA Student, Washington State University
Moon J. Lee, Assistant Professor, Washington State University
Yi-Chun "Yvonnes" Chen, Doctoral Student, Washington State University
Edward R. Murrow School of Communication
Washington State University
PO Box 642520
Pullman, WA 99164
(509) 432-1540
[log in to unmask]
Running head: Self-Efficacy Statements Within Anti-Alcohol Abuse Messages
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of self-efficacy statements in
different types (positive vs. negative) of taglines in humorous
anti-alcohol abuse advertisements based on individuals' sensation
seeking tendency. An experiment was conducted with 114 college
students. Results indicate that positively reinforced messages
consistently demonstrated better results than the negatively
reinforced advertisements; however, results were mixed for the
effects of self-efficacy statements. Implications, limitations and
directions for future research are discussed.
College students' heavy drinking problems have been identified as
one of the serious health hazards (Wechsler, Dowdall, Maener,
Gledhill-Hoyt, & Lee, 1998), concerning many parents, educators,
health campaign practitioners and government officials (Lee &
Bichard, in press; Lee & Chen, 2004). In fact, according to a study
done by the Washington State Department of Health in 2002, 18 to 24
years old are the most likely age group to abuse alcohol. One study
estimates that approximately 40 percent of college students have more
than 4 drinks for women and 5 drinks for men in a single sitting
(Wechsler, et al., 1998).
There have been multiple research efforts to tackle this problem
(Skuttle, 1999; Dorsey, Miller & Scherer, 1999; Oei & Burrow, 2000,
Hasking & Oei, 2002; Blume, Schmaling & Marlatt, 2003). However,
finding effective ways to persuade this group, especially those who
are at risk, to change their risky behaviors has turned out to be a
major challenge.
Previous studies have investigated how to effectively target messages
to at-risk individuals (Lee & Ferguson, 2002; Lee et al., 2002; Lee,
2003; Lee et al., 2004; Lee & Hively, unpublished). However, although
several types of messages were identified as promising for targeting
at-risk individuals, the effort to identify effective messages to
achieve the desired results – i.e. an increased intention to modify
their drinking behaviors– has only recently shown promise.
Lee et al. (2002) found that high risk-takers responded better to
humorous messages than messages that utilized fear appeals in
anti-tobacco advertisements. A follow up study (Lee, 2003) again
found similar results in anti-alcohol abuse messages. However, one
of the major challenges for campaign designers is to design messages
to reach desired outcomes (i.e. increasing intention to change
behavior) and at the same time reduce a possibility of setting off a
target audience member's defensive reactions.
Research has shown that individuals' self-efficacy, self-beliefs
about their ability to control their own behaviors (Bandura, 1994),
is negatively correlated with drinking problems (Blume, Schmaling &
Marlatt, 2003; Oei & Morawska, 2004; Skuttle, 1999). Furthermore,
increasing self-efficacy in alcohol treatment facilities has shown to
be successful in reducing drinking problems (Hasking & Oei,
2002). Based on the review of self-efficacy literature, it was
suspected that messages containing self-efficacy statements may
provide a new way to target this group, particularly individuals at
risk. Lee and Hively's (unpublished) study followed an experiment
conducted by Lee and Chen (2004) which examined the effects of
positive and negative reinforcements within anti-substance abuse ads
and determined that heavy drinkers indicated higher levels of
interest in the negatively reinforced ads, but higher risk
perceptions in the positively reinforced condition.
Therefore, in this study, the effects of self-efficacy statements
were further investigated within the context of positive and negative
reinforcements (e.g. taglines) in humorous anti-alcohol abuse
ads. In addition, individuals' sensation seeking tendency, their
tendency to seek novel stimuli (Zuckerman, 1994), was considered in
terms of their reactions to different types of reinforcements (e.g.
taglines) in the ads. An experiment was conducted with 114 college
students. It was suspected that sensation seekers would respond to
positively reinforced messages (particularly with self-efficacy
statements) better than negatively reinforced messages.
Drinking and Sensation Seeking
If message designers hope to effectively target messages to high
risk individuals, designers need to understand how risk-taker's
decision-making processes work. Researchers have concluded that
individuals' risk-taking tendencies in addition to their sensation
seeking tendencies help to create a clearer picture of how they make
decisions (Ferguson et al., 1991; Lee et al., 2002; Moore & Gullone,
1996; Zuckerman, 1979).
The notion of the sensation-seeking tendencies was first introduced
by Zuckerman in 1964. Zuckerman defined sensation seeking as a
personality trait and the focus of sensation seeking is on individual
differences in terms of optimal levels of arousal or stimulation
(Zuckerman, 1994; Zuckerman, 1979; Zuckerman, Kolin, Price, & Zoob,
1964). Throughout recent revisions, he defined sensation seeking as a
"trait defined by the seeking of varied, novel, complex, and intense
situations and experiences, and the willingness to take physical,
social and financial risks for the sake of such experience"
(Zuckerman, 1994, p.27). Sensation seekers, in comparison with
non-sensation seekers, are more attracted to novel and intense
activities, including engaging in risky behaviors (Zuckerman, 1994,
pp. 154-155).
The concept of sensation seeking has been widely applied to studies
in relation to positive risky behaviors such as climbing, kayaking
and scuba diving (e.g., Zuckerman 1983c; Rowland, Franken, &
Harrison, 1986), and negative risky behaviors such as substance use
and addictive behaviors (e.g., Hansen & Breivik, 2001; Zuckerman,
1994). Among these behavior studies, sensation seeking has
consistently shown a high correlation with risk-taking behaviors
(Hansen et al., 2001; Zuckerman, 1979, 1994). Zuckerman has further
reiterated that high sensation seekers are more likely to engage in
substance abuse than low sensation seekers and that sensation-seeking
tendencies are highly correlated with smoking, drinking, sexual
behavior and drug use (1979).
Zuckerman refined his sensation seeking scale through creating four
factors; Boredom Susceptibility, Adventure Seeking, Experience
Seeking, and Disinhibition. It has been found that two of the factors
tend to predict risky behaviors more than the others; Experience
Seeking and Disinhibition. In particular, Disinhibition has shown to
be the sub-scale with the highest correlation to risk-taking
behaviors (Zuckerman, 1994; Pedersen, Clausen, & Lavil, 1988;
Schwarz, Burkhart, & Green, 1978).
Effective Message Design: Humor Appeals
Researchers suggested that effective health campaign efforts should
target specific audiences in terms of their individual
characteristics (Austin & Meili, 1994; Lee et al., 2002). One such
characteristic is an individual's risk-taking tendencies. Risk-taking
tendencies have been examined by some researchers as the behavioral
counterpart to sensation seeking (Lee et al, 2002). Studies have
shown that adolescents have higher risk-taking tendencies than those
in younger or older age groups (Ferguson et al., 1991; Lee et al., 2002)
An approach that has received some support for effectively targeting
risk-takers is using humorous appeals as opposed to fear appeals.
Humor appeals have been defined as messages which use humor to gain
attention and portray light consequences in order to deter risky
behavior (Lee et al., 2004; Lee & Hively, unpublished); whereas fear
appeals are defined as persuasive messages which emphasize the
harmful physical or social consequences of failing to comply with the
messages' recommendations, and are commonly used in health
communication PSAs (Hale & Dillard, 1995).
Traditionally, humor appeals are more frequently used in promotional
messages such as alcohol advertisements rather than in health
campaign messages (Monahan, 1995). Humor is found to be effective in
drawing attention (Madden & Weinberg, 1984; Monahan, 1995; Weinberger
& Gulas, 1992), and gaining attention is often cited as the first
step in many behavior changing theories (Austin et al., 1994;
Bandura, 2002).
A consensus on how effective humor is as a persuasive tool can not be
found. Although there is some evidence that humor enhances persuasion
(Batra & Ray, 1986; Lee et al, 2002; Lee, 2003; Weinberger et al.,
1992), the effects of humor appeals do not seem to last long since
humor tends to elicit heuristic information processing rather than
thoughtful and elaborated information processing (Monahan, 1995).
However, some researchers have posited that this heuristic
information processing of humor appeals can be a benefit not a boone
because it reduces the threatening feelings presented in the messages
and can potentially lead to further information processing (Monahan,
1995; Conway & Dube, 2002). Conway and Dube (2002) determined that
humor was an effective way to foster behavior change when dealing
with threatening topics. Humor appeals, therefore, can provide a way
to reduce a target audience's defensive mechanisms and enhance their
susceptibility of a recommended action in health communication
messages, which is especially necessary when targeting high-risk
individuals (Monahan, 1995; Lee et al., 2002).
Recent research determined that risk-takers tend to react negatively
to fear appeals, which have been commonly used in anti-substance
abuse messages (Lee et al., 2002). In fact, high risk-takers exposed
to fear appeal messages often indicate lower intentions to change
their risky behaviors if exposed to fear appeals messages (Lee et
al., 2002); however, when humor was used to relay the message, the
negative correlation between individuals' rebellious tendencies and
their intentions to change their behaviors was not present. Lee et
al., (2002) speculated that messages which use fear leads to
defensive reactions, which hinders further acceptance of a
recommended action. They concluded that message designers need to
tailor their messages to target this particular public in a manner
that diminishes their defensive reactions by looking at how to
minimize possible defensive reactions to the given messages.
Positive and Negative Reinforcements
Lee (2003) found that heavy drinkers who watched the humor ads
reported higher levels of intention to change their drinking
behaviors than those who watched the fear ads as well as those who
were in the control group. A subsequent study examined if heavy
drinkers would react more positively to humor messages that were
reinforced with positive or negative slogans (Lee et al., 2004).
Recent research has shown that individuals tend to remember messages
with positive statements more than messages with negative statements
(Butler & Berry, 2002). In addition, McGuire (1999) concluded that
positive messages lead to greater recall.
Positive reinforcement was classified as messages that contained
positive verbs such as do, can or be; and negative reinforcement was
classified as messages that contained negative verbs such as don't or
can't. Lee et al., (2004) determined that heavy drinkers had higher
perceptions of the risk associated with alcohol abuse and felt the
messages had a higher perceived risk of excessive drinking portrayed
in the messages that utilized positive reinforcement. However, heavy
drinkers demonstrated a lower level of interest in the advertisements
that were positively reinforced and their intent to change their
drinking behavior was not influenced by either type of reinforcement;
therefore, it appears that humorous, positively reinforced messages
tend to be most beneficial for high risk-takers.
Self-Efficacy and Drinking Behavior
Albert Bandura's Social Cognitive Theory, which includes the concept
of self-efficacy, has been widely applied in health research as well
as clinical practices. Research has consistently shown that an
individuals' self-efficacy can have a direct impact on their drinking
behavior (Dorsey, Miller & Scherer, 1999; Blume, Schmaling & Marlatt,
2003). Bandura (1994) defines self-efficacy as "people's beliefs
about their capabilities to produce designated levels of performance
that exercise influence over events that affect their lives" (p. 71).
Many behavior-changing theories utilized in health communication rely
on self-efficacy as a crucial element that should be included in the
health message (Fishbein & Yzer, 2003; Witte & Allen, 2000). Fishbein
and Yzer (2003) propose that combining Janz & Becker's (1984) Health
Belief Model, Bandura's (1997) Social Cognitive Theory and Fishbein &
Ajzen's (1975) Theory of Reasoned Action leads to the three critical
determinates of behavior change; attitudes towards the behavior,
norms surrounding the behavior, and self-efficacy.
According to Bandura's theory, self-efficacy can have an effect
on multiple dimensions of peoples' lives including their health.
Bandura (1995, 1997) posits that perceived self-efficacy is an
important determinant of people's beliefs in their ability to cope
with and their execution of direct control over health-impairing
habits such as cigarette smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, and
sexually transmitted diseases.
Many health researchers have used Bandura's concept to help explain
problematic drinking behaviors and how to treat them using clinical,
college, and community samples (Oei & Morawsak 2004; Blume, Schmaling
& Marlatt 2003; Hasking & Oei 2002; Oei & Burrow 2000; Dorsey, Miller
& Scherer 1999; Skuttle 1999; Annis & Davis 1988).
Skuttle (1999) discovered that self-efficacy scores were negatively
correlated with perceived benefits from drinking and amounts of abuse
within a sample obtained from an all-male treatment facility. In
other words, the lower self-efficacy scores individuals had, the
higher perceived benefits from drinking as well as the higher amounts
of abuse they exhibited. Similar results can also be observed when
utilizing college students as the experimental sample (Dorsey, Miller
& Scherer, 1999; Blume, Schmaling & Marlatt, 2003). It was
discovered that the students' self-efficacy had a strong effect on
their drinking behaviors, and those with high self-efficacy were less
likely to engage in binge-drinking.
Oei & Burrow (2000) further examined drinking refusal self-efficacy
to assure that drinking refusal self-efficacy was measuring
self-efficacy regarding drinking behaviors rather than other types of
substance abuses such as smoking or caffeine consumption. Their
research once again indicated that self-efficacy was a critical
factor in alcohol consumption. Of the four variables they measured;
alcohol expectancy, smoking refusal self-efficacy, automatic thoughts
and drinking refusal self-efficacy, only drinking refusal
self-efficacy was significantly correlated with alcohol
consumption. A follow-up study (Oei & Morawsak, 2004) found that
self-efficacy was indeed a better predictor than alcohol expectancies
for alcohol consumption. Self-efficacy predicted both amount and
frequency of consumption while alcohol expectancies only predicted
whether or not they would drink at all.
Lee et al. (unpublished) examined the effects of self-efficacy within
positively reinforced anti-alcohol abuse messages on rebellious
individuals and obtained fairly promising results. Results indicated
that rebellious individuals in the self-efficacy condition indicated
lower alcohol expectancies and higher intentions to change their
drinking behavior than individuals in the non-self-efficacy
condition. A result that was not expected was that rebellious
individuals in the self-efficacy condition indicated lower levels of
drinking-refusal self-efficacy than individuals in the
non-self-efficacy condition. The researchers propose that the
self-efficacy statements lead individual's to further process the
message and become more realistic about their own refusal abilities.
Hypotheses
The purpose of this study was to further investigate the effects of
self-efficacy statements in humorous, positively and negatively
reinforced anti-alcohol abuse messages based on individuals'
sensation seeking tendencies. Based on the existing literature, it
was suspected that high sensation seekers would exhibit less
defensive reactions to the messages with self-efficacy statements and
greater intentions to change their drinking behaviors than to the
messages without self-efficacy statements. It was also expected that
high sensation seekers in the negative reinforcement condition would
react more defensively, thereby indicating less liking and less
intention to change their behavior than individuals in the positive
condition with no self-efficacy component.
H1: High sensation seekers in the positive condition and the positive
with self-efficacy condition will indicate higher levels of perceived
humor portrayed in the ads than the negative with self-efficacy condition.
H2: High sensation seekers in the positive with self-efficacy
condition will indicate higher risk perceptions of drinking than high
sensation seekers in the positive condition and negative with
self-efficacy condition while no differences are expected among low
sensation seekers.
H3: High sensation seekers in the positive with self-efficacy
condition will indicate higher alcohol expectancies than high
sensation seekers in the positive condition and negative with
self-efficacy condition.
H4: High sensation seekers in the negative with self-efficacy
condition will indicate lower levels of liking than high sensation
seekers in the positive condition and positive with self-efficacy condition.
H5: High sensation seekers in the positive with self-efficacy
condition will exhibit higher levels of intention to change their
drinking behavior than those in the positive condition and those in
the negative with self-efficacy condition will exhibit the lowest
levels of intention in comparison.
Method
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of
self-efficacy statements within positively and negatively reinforced
anti-substance abuse advertisements on rebellious individuals. The
experiment utilized a 2 x 3 post-test only design. The three
conditions were positive, positive with self-efficacy, and negative
with self-efficacy conditions. A total of 115 college students from a
large Northwestern university participated in the study for extra
credit in a communication course.
Developing the Stimuli
Six ads that had been used in a previous study (Lee et al.,
unpublished) were used. The ads had been previously coded by three
trained coders and in analysis of Lee et al.'s (unpublished) study
were found to have high perceived levels of humor. The six ads are
titled "Slash," "Pit Crew," "Drink Responsibly," "Guys in the
Desert," "You Know When to Stop," and "Responsibility Matters." In
the positive condition, the ads were not altered at all from how they
appeared on television and all included positive reinforcement,
meaning they all included statements which utilized positive verbs
such as "do" or "can". In the positive with self-efficacy condition a
self-efficacy statement was added, and in the negative self-efficacy
condition any positive statements in the voice-overs were removed and
a negative reinforcement and self-efficacy statement were added.
Positive with Self-Efficacy Manipulation
The messages used in the positive with self-efficacy condition were
manipulated in include a visual self-efficacy statement. The
statements were added onto the existing ad instead of on a separate
screen so they would appear as realistic as possible. The statements
used were as follows: "Only You Control the Situation," "You Can
Break The Myth," "Drink Responsibly, You Can Change," "You Can Make a
Better Choice," "You Can Make a Difference Too," and "You're in Charge."
"Only You Control the Situation" was used in the "You Know When to
Stop" ad and was preceded by a graphic which read "Knowing When to
Stop is a Good Thing." "You Can Break the Myth" was used with the
"Guys in the Desert" ad and was preceded by a graphic which read
"Alcohol, it's Not as Cool as You Think." "Drink Responsibly, You Can
Change" was used with the "Drink Responsibly" ad and had no other
writing with it. "You Can Make a Better Choice" was used with "Slash"
and was preceded by a graphic that read "Drink Intelligently." "You
Can Make a Difference Too" was used with the "Responsibility Matters"
ad and was preceded by a graphic which read "We All Make a
Difference." "You're in Charge" was used with the "Pit Crew" ad and
was preceded by a graphic which read "Drink Intelligently."
Voice-overs in "Drink Responsibly," "Slash," and "Pit Crew" all
contained additional responsible drinking messages.
Negative with Self-Efficacy Manipulation
The same ads were used in the negative with self-efficacy condition,
but the responsible drinking voice-overs and graphics were removed
and self-efficacy statements and negative reinforcements were added.
Negative reinforcement is defined as statements that contain negative
verbs such as "don't." As with the positive with self-efficacy
condition, the statements and reinforcements were added directly onto
the ads so they would appear to be as realistic as possible.
"Don't Drink – Only You Control the Situation" was used with "You
know When to Stop" which was preceded by a graphic which read
"Knowing When to Stop is a Good Thing." "Don't be Fooled – You Can
Break The Myth" was used with "Guys in the Desert" which was preceded
with a graphic which read "Alcohol, It's Not as Cool as You Think."
"Don't Drink Too Much – You Can Change" was used with "Drink
Responsibly" and had no other writing with it. "Don't Drink – You Can
Make a Better Choice" was used with "Slash" and the "Drink
Intelligently" tagline and responsible drinking voice-over was
removed. "Don't Be That Guy – You Can Make a Difference" was used
with "Responsibility Matters" and was preceded with a graphic that
read "We All Make a Difference." "Don't Drink – You're in Charge" was
used with "Pit Crew" and the "Drink Intelligently" tagline and drink
responsibly voice-over was removed.
Experimental Procedure
Upon arrival, students were greeted and randomly assigned to one of
the conditions. At the beginning of the experiment, the participants
were given a survey designed to measure their risk-taking tendencies
(Ferguson et al, 1991; Lee et al, 2002), their general self-efficacy
(Schwarzer & Fuchs, 1995), and drinking refusal self-efficacy (Young
& Oei, 1996). After completing the pretest survey, the participants
were asked to watch either the tape with the positive reinforcements
which had not been altered, n = 39, the tape with the positive
reinforcements and self-efficacy statements, n = 37, or the tape with
the negative reinforcements and self-efficacy statements, n = 37.
After watching the ads, participants were asked to answer Likert
scale questions (on a scale of 0 to 9) regarding their drinking
refusal self-efficacy, fear of drinking portrayed in the ads, risk
perceptions involved with drinking, alcohol expectancies, liking of
the ads, and intention to change their drinking behaviors.
Data Analysis
Creating the Sensation Seeking Scale
Five items from Zuckerman's (1979) Disinhibition sub-scale of
sensation seeking which loaded onto one factor was use to measure
participant's sensation seeking tendencies. The items included: "I
like people who are partiers," "Having alcohol is the key to having a
really good party," "I am rebellious," "I like wild parties," and
"I'm likely to do drugs when I party." The Cronbach's alpha score for
the five items is .76, 52% of variance explained. Participants with
sensation seeking factor scores in the top 40 percent of all
participants were classified as high sensation seekers and
participants in the lowest 40 percent of all participants were
classified as low rebellious. Participants with scores in the middle
20 percent were not used in the analysis in order to be able to
examine the more extreme cases.
Dependant variables
Participants were asked several Likert scale (0 to 9) questions to
assess participants drinking refusal self-efficacy, fear perceptions,
risk perceptions, alcohol expectancies, liking and intention to
change their drinking behavior. A factor analysis was conducted and a
summed factor score was used to measure each dependant variable.
Perceptions of Fear
Five items loaded onto one factor was used to measure perceptions of
fear in the post test survey. The items included; "These ads made me
think a great deal about the dangers of drinking," "These ads scare
me about the dangers of drinking," "I found myself feeling very
frightened when I watched these ads," "Ads like these truly make me
afraid to drink," and "These ads remind me of how risky it is to
drink." The Cronbach's alpha score for the five items was .79, with
46% of variance explained.
Risk Perceptions
Four items loaded onto one factor was used to measure perceptions of
risk in the post test survey. The items included; ; "I consider
myself to be at risk of becoming an alcoholic," "I drink too much,"
"I consider myself to be at risk of getting in an automobile accident
due to my drinking," and "I consider myself to be at risk of getting
alcohol-related injuries." The Cronbach's alpha score for the four
items was .72 with 41% of variance explained.
Alcohol Expectancies
Five items loaded onto one factor was used to measure alcohol
expectancies in that post test survey. The items included; "Drinking
helps people fit in better in social occasions," "Drinking helps
people relax in social occasions," "Drinking makes people relaxed,"
"People who enjoy drinking are relaxed, easy-going people," and
"Drinking makes people happy." The Cronbach's alpha score for the
five items was .82 with 49% of variance explained.
Liking
Five items loaded onto one factor was used to measure liking of the
ads in the post test survey. The items included; "I like these ads
very much," "These ads are cool," "I can relate myself to the ads,"
"The portrayals in the ads are possible," and "I had a strong
emotional reaction to these ads." The Cronbach's alpha score for
these items was .79 with 45% of variance explained.
Intention to Change Behavior
Four items loaded onto one factor was used to measure intention to
change their drinking behavior in the post test survey. The items
included; "I drink too much," "People I care about are upset that I
drink a lot," "My drinking behavior concerns those who care about
me," and "I plan on changing my drinking habits very soon." The
Cronbach's alpha score for the four items was .72 with 58% of
variance explained.
Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy
Drinking refusal self-efficacy was measured in the pretest through
five items from Young & Oei's (1996) drinking refusal self-efficacy
scale which was slightly modified by a communication professor and
three graduate students. The five items loaded onto one factor and
included the items: "I can control how much I drink at a party," "I
have control over my drinking behavior," "I can stop drinking
whenever I want," "I can control how much I drink more than the
average person," and "I can stop drinking even if my friends insist
that I drink." The Cronbach's alpha score for the five items is .75,
with 40% of variance explained.
Results
The General linear model was used to test the hypotheses. The
participants' drinking refusal self-efficacy scores were
statistically controlled through out the hypothesis testing.
H1: High sensation seekers in the positive condition and the positive
with self-efficacy condition will indicate higher levels of perceived
humor portrayed in the ads than the negative with self-efficacy condition.
There was a significant condition effect, F (1, 82) = 55.07, p <
.01, for perceived humor, regardless of their levels of sensation
seeking tendency. Further analysis using simple t-tests confirmed
that the participants who were in the positive condition, n = 16, M =
.38, S.D. = -.93, as well as the positive with self-efficacy
condition, n = 15, M = .31, S.D. = .76, exhibited higher levels of
perceived humor than those who were in the negative with
self-efficacy condition, n = 13, M = -.28, S.D. = .92, t (27) = 1.9,
p < .05. Therefore, this hypothesis was supported. In addition, it
was found that the high sensation seekers, n = 44, M = .16, S.D. =
.90, perceived humor more than the low sensation seekers, n = 45, M =
-.22, S.D. =.98, F(1, 82) = 41.82, p < .01, regardless of the condition.
H2: High sensation seekers in the positive with self-efficacy
condition will indicate higher risk perceptions of drinking than
those high sensation seekers in the positive condition and negative
with self-efficacy condition while no differences are expected among
low sensation seekers.
There was a significant condition effect, F (1, 67) = 18.43, p = .01
for risk perceptions of drinking. A simple t-test indicated a
significant condition effect, t (29) = 1.98, p < .05, in that high
sensation seekers in the positive condition, n = 15, M = .71, S.D. =
.99, indicated higher risk perceptions than high sensation seekers in
the positive with self-efficacy condition, n= 16, M = .10, S.D. =
.69, which was the opposite of what was predicted. There were no
significant t-test results between high sensation seekers in the
positive with self-efficacy condition and the negative with
self-efficacy condition, t (26) = -1.06, p = .15. Simple t-test
results indicate that there was no significant difference between low
sensation seekers in the positive condition and the negative with
self-efficacy condition, t (17) = .63, p = .27, or the positive with
self-efficacy condition and the negative with self-efficacy
condition, t (23) = -.93, p = .18, or the positive condition and the
positive with self-efficacy condition, t (18) = 1.52, p = .07.
Therefore this hypothesis was partially supported. Again, it was
found that the high sensation seekers, n = 42, M = .44, S.D. = .91,
perceived more risks of drinking than the low sensation seekers, n =
32, M = -.30, S.D. = .63, F(1, 67) = 82.36, p < .01, regardless of
the condition.
-- Insert Figure 1 Here --
H3: High sensation seekers in the positive with self-efficacy
condition will indicate higher alcohol expectancies than high
sensation seekers in the positive condition and negative with
self-efficacy condition.
There was no significant condition effect, F(1, 83) = .65, p = .30
for alcohol expectancies, therefore this hypothesis was not
supported; however there was a significant sensation seeking effect,
F (1, 83) = 24.51, p < .05. Further analysis using simple t-tests
revealed a significant difference between high and low sensation
seekers, t (89) = -4.70, p < .01. Results indicate that high
sensation seekers, n = 46, M = .44, S.D. = .75, indicated higher
alcohol expectancies than low sensation seekers, n = 45, M = -.43,
S.D. = 1.00.
H4: High sensation seekers in the negative with self-efficacy
condition will indicate lower levels of liking than high sensation
seekers in the positive condition and positive with self-efficacy condition.
There was not a significant condition effect, F(1, 80) = 4.86, p =
.14, for liking of the ads, therefore this hypothesis was not
supported; however, post hoc analysis revealed a significant , p <
.05, difference between the high sensation seekers in the positive
with self-efficacy condition, n = 15, M = .30, S.D. = .94, and high
sensation seekers in the negative with self-efficacy condition, n =
13, M = -.43, S.D. = .97. No significant sensation seeking effect was
found, F (1,80) = .95, p = .42.
H5: High sensation seekers in the positive with self-efficacy
condition will exhibit higher levels of intention to change their
drinking behavior than those in the positive condition and those in
the negative with self-efficacy condition will exhibit the lowest
levels of intention in comparison.
There was a significant condition effect, F (1, 67) = 15.32, p < .05
for intention to change their drinking behavior. However it should be
noted that a simple t-test indicated a near significant condition
effect, t (25) = 1.41, p = .08 between high sensation seekers in the
positive condition, n = 15, M = .61, S.D. = .99, and high sensation
seekers in the negative with self-efficacy condition, n = 12, M =
.03, S.D. = 1.13. T-test results between low sensation seekers in the
positive condition, n = 7, M =.06, S.D. = .78, and the low sensation
seekers in the positive with self-efficacy condition, n = 13, M =
-.49, S.D. = .57, indicated significant differences, t (18) = 1.80, p
<.05. There were also significant differences, t (17) = 2.91, p =
.01, between low sensation seekers in the positive condition, n = 15,
M = .61, S.D. = .99, and low sensation seekers in the negative with
self-efficacy condition, n = 12, M = -.73, S.D. = .41. Therefore this
hypothesis was partially supported.
--Insert Figure 2 Here --
Discussion
This study examined the effects of self-efficacy statements within
positively and negatively reinforced humorous anti-abuse messages,
and results show that manipulating self-efficacy statements within
the taglines in the ads influence how individuals processes humorous
anti-alcohol abuse messages. The most consistent result appeared to
be the participants' preference for the positively reinforced
messages as opposed to the negatively reinforced messages. The
participants perceived the positively reinforced messages with or
without the self-efficacy statements more humorous than the
negatively reinforced messages with self-efficacy
statements. However, the participants who watched the positively
reinforced self-efficacy ads perceived risk associated with drinking
less than those who watched the negatively reinforced self-efficacy
messages or those who watched the positively reinforced messages
without the self-efficacy statements while liking the positively
reinforced messages with the self-efficacy statements more than the
negatively reinforced self-efficacy messages. In fact, the
participants who watched the positively reinforced messages without
the self-efficacy statements exhibited higher levels of intention to
change their behaviors than those who watched the other two types. In
addition, the high sensation seekers were more likely to like the ad
messages, perceived risk associated with drinking, had higher alcohol
expectancy, and higher intention to change behavior than the low
sensation seekers.
The findings suggest that message designers need to focus on the use
of positive reinforcements in humorous anti-alcohol abuse messages
when trying to reach college students, particularly high sensation
seekers. This may be because sensation seekers tend to respond
better to positive stimuli than negative stimuli in that the negative
reinforcements such as "Don't' drink" or "Don't be stupid" may
trigger their defensive reactions.
However, the original assumption, based on the finding from Lee &
Hively (2004), that the self-efficacy statements in the positively
reinforced messages would exhibit significant advantages over the
positively reinforced messages without the self-efficacy statements
was not supported in this study and that fact calls for further
research in the area.
There are, however, several limitations that should be considered
with caution. First of all, the results of this study are based only
on short-term effects of the message manipulations in that the
findings should not be considered as long-term effects of the media
exposure. Therefore, a follow-up study which examines participants'
responses after a set period of time (e.g. a week later), may provide
useful insights in terms of possible residual effects of different
types of reinforcements in humorous anti-alcohol abuse media messages.
Another possible limitation is related to the artificial assignment
of participants to high and low sensation seeking tendency. Because
this study was conducted with college students, it is difficult to
generalize the results of this study to the general public because
the participants were relatively categorized as high and low based on
this sample. However, several significant findings regarding
sensation seeking tendency address this concern and indicate that
sensation seeking tendency is indeed a useful construct to identify
risk-takers. However, the fact that no interaction effects were found
in this study indicates that individuals' sensation seeking tendency
itself is not sufficient to understand how risk-takers interpret
messages differently in comparison with non-risk-takers.
Lee and Ferguson (2002) argued that individuals' different types of
risk-taking behaviors should be considered when designing messages
since different types of risk-taking tendency influence how they
perceive different media messages. In particular, individuals'
rebellious risk-taking tendency, tendency to rebel against perceived
intents or norms (Ferguson, et al., 1991), was found to be useful in
terms of understanding this target group's psychology (Lee, et al.,
2002; Lee & Chen, 2004; Lee & Shannon, in press) and information
processing. Future study in this avenue may present fruitful
insights on how to design messages effectively targeting highly
rebellious risk-takers.
In conclusion, positive reinforcements (in taglines) in humorous
anti-alcohol abuse ads appear to be more effective in convincing
sensation seekers to think of their risk-taking behaviors and
increase the susceptibility of recommended actions in media messages
than negative reinforcements. However, efforts to identify effective
ways to design messages targeting this audience should continue. Such
efforts will lead us to more effective ways to communicate with young
adults, particularly for the promotion of a healthier lifestyle.
References
Annis, H.M., & Davis, C. S. (1988). Assessment of expectancies. In
D.M. Donovan & G.A. Marlatt (Eds.). Assessment of addictive
behaviors. (pp. 84-111). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Austin, E. W., & Meili, H. K. (1994). Effects of interpretations of
televised alcohol portrayals on children's alcohol beliefs. Journal
of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38, 417-435.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachaudran (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of human behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in
changing societies. In Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing
society. Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York:
W.H. Freeman and Company.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. L. (1986). Affective responses mediating
acceptance of advertising. The Journal of Consumer Advertising, 13, 234-249.
Blume, A.W., Schmaling, K.B., Marlatt, A.G. (2003). Predictors of
change in binge drinking over a 3-month period. Addictive Behaviors,
28(5), 1007-1012.
Butler, L. T., & Berry, D. C. (2002). The influence of affective
statements on performance on implicit and explicit memory tasks.
Applied Cognitive bPsychology, 16, 829-843.
Conway, M. & Dube, L. (2002). Humor in persuasion on threatening
topics: Effectiveness is a function of audience sex role
orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(7), 863-873.
Donohew, L., Hoyle, R. H., Clayton, R. R., Skinner, W. F., Colon, S.
E., & Rice, R. E. (1999). Sensation seeking and drug use by
adolescents and their friends: Models for marijuana and alcohol.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 60(5), 622-631.
Donohew, L., Palmgreen, P., & Lorch, E.P. (1994). Attention, need for
sensation, and health communication campaigns. American Behavioral
Scientist, 38(2), 310- 323.
Dorsey, A.M., Miller, K.I., Scherer, C.W. (1999). Communication, Risk
Behavior, and Perceptions of Threat and Efficacy: A Test of a
Reciprocal Model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 377-395.
Ferguson, M.A., Valenti, J.M., & Melwani, G. (1991). Communicating
with risk takers: a public relations perspective. Public Relations
Research Annual, 3, 195-224.
Fishbein, M. & Yzer, M.C. (2003). Using theory to design effective
health behavior interventions. Communication Theory, 13(2), 164 – 183.
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behavior: An Introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hale, J.L. & Dillard, J.P. (1995). Fear appeals in health promotion
campaigns: Too much, too little or just right? In E. Maibach & R.L.
Parrot (Eds.) Designing Health Messages (pp: 65-80). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hansen, E. B., & Breivik, G. (2001). Sensation seeking as a predictor
of positive and
negative risk behaviour among adolescents. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30, 627-640.
Hasking, P.A., Oei, T.P.S. (2002). The differential role of alcohol
expectancies, drinking refusal self-efficacy and coping resources in
predicting alcohol consumption in community and clinical samples.
Addiction Research and Theory, 10(5), 465- 494.
Janz, N.K. & Becker, M.H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade
later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 99-107.
Johnson, T. J., & Cropsey, K. L. (2000). Sensation seeking and
drinking game participation in heavy-drinking college students.
Addictive Behaviors, 25(1), 109-116.
Jonah, B.A. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving: a review and
synthesis of the literature. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29 (5), 651-665.
Kraft. P., & Rise, J. (1994). The relationship between sensation
seeking and smoking, alcohol consumption and sexual behavior among
Norwegian adolescents. Health Education Research. 9(2), 193-200.
Lee, M. J. (2003). Effects of Emotional Appeals Targeting College
Students for the Prevention of Binge-drinking: Humor Works.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Lee, M. J. & Bichard, S. (2002). Effective message design targeting
college students for the prevention of binge-drinking: Are they
rebels? Paper presented at International Communication Association,
2002 Annual Convention, South Korea.
Lee, M. J. & Ferguson, M. A. (2002). The effects of anti-tobacco
advertisements based on risk-taking tendencies: Realistic fear ads
versus gross humor ads. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
79 (4), 945-963.
Lee M. J. & Chen, Y. (2004). Effectiveness of positive and negative
reinforcements in humor advertisements targeting heavy and moderate
drinkers. May, 2004, International Communication Association, New Orleans.
Lee, M.J. & Hively, M.H. (unpublished). The effects of
self-efficacy statements in humorous anti-alcohol abuse
advertisements among college students: Who is in charge? Submitted
to Health Communication November, 2004.
Madden, T. J., & Weinberg, M. G. (1984). Humor in advertising: A
practioner view. Journal of Marketing Advertising Research, 24 (4), 23-79
McGuire, W. J., (1999). Constructing Social Psychology: Creative and
critical processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Monahan, J. L. (1995). Thinking positively: Using positive affect
when designing health messages. In E. Maibach & R.L. Parrott
(Eds.), Designing Health Messages (pp. 81-98). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moore, S. & Gullone, E. (1996). Predicting adolescent risk behavior
using a personalized cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 25(3), 343-359.
Oei, T.P.S., & Baldwin, A.R. (1994). Expectancy theory: A two-process
model of alcohol use and abuse. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 525-534.
Oei, T.P.S., & Burrow, T. (2000). Alcohol expectancy and drinking
refusal self-efficacy: A test of specificity theory. Addictive
Behaviors, 25(4), 499-507.
Oei, T. P. S.,& Morawska, A. (2004). A cognitive model of binge
drinking: The influence of alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal
self-efficacy. Addictive Behaviors, 29(1), 159-179.
Pedersen, W., Clausen, S. E., & Lavik, N. J. (1988). Patterns of drug
use and sensation
seeking among adolescent sin Norway. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia, 79, 386-
390.
Rowland, G. L., Franken, R. E., & Harrison, K. (1986). Sensation seeking and
participating in sporting activities. Journal of Sport Psychology, 8, 212-220.
Schwarz, R. M., Burkhart, B. R., & Green, B. (1978). Turning on or
turning off:
Sensation seeking or tension reduction as motivational determinants of alcohol
use. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1144-1145.
Schwarzer, R. & Fuchs, R. (1995). Changing risk behaviors and
adopting health behaviors: The role of self-efficacy beliefs. In A.
Bandura (Eds.) Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies (pp: 259-288).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skuttle, A. (1999). The relationship among self-efficacy
expectancies, severity of alcohol abuse, and psychological benefits
from drinking. Addictive Behaviors, 24 (1), 87- 98.
Wechsler, H., Dowdall, G. W., Maener, G., Gledhill-Hoyt, J., & Lee,
H. (1998). Changes in binge-drinking and related problems among
American college students between 1993 and 1997: Results of the
Harvard School of Public Health college alcohol study. Journal of
American College Health, 47(2), 57-69.
Weinberger, M., & Gulas, C. (1992). The impact of humor in
advertising: a review. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35-59.
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals:
Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education
& Behavior, 27(5), 591-615.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of
arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zuckerman, M. (1983c). Sensation seeking and sports. Personality and
Individual
Differences, 4, 285-292.
Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of
sensation seeking.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M., Kolin, E. A., Price, L., & Zoob, I. (1964).
Development of a Sensation
Seeking Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 447-482.
Figure 1
Risk perceptions by condition and sensation seeking
Figure 2
Intention to change behavior by condition and sensation seeking
|
