Reactance and Public Health Messages: The Unintended Dangers of Anti-tobacco PSAs

Abstract

This study examined smokers' reactions to antismoking messages that emphasized either the harms of secondhand smoke or vulnerability to smoking addiction and framed the need for smoking cessation using either gain or loss message frames. One hundred fifty-four college smokers participated in a study that used a 2 x 2 factorial design crossing message type (secondhand smoke appeals, smoking addiction appeals) and message frame (gain, loss) with the addition of a control group. The primary outcomes assessed were participants' intentions to quit smoking and psychological reactance. Secondhand smoke appeals paired with a loss-framed smoking cessation message yielded greater reactance and lower intentions to quit compared to smoking addiction PSAs paired with a gain-framed smoking cessation message. Overall, loss framed smoking cessation messages elicited greater message reactance compared to gain framed smoking cessation messages.

Characterizing Reactance in Communication Research: A Review of Conceptual and Operational Approaches

“…Message evaluation. Some studies employ broad "cognitive evaluation" or "message evaluation" scales that are positively or neutrally valenced, with lower scores used to represent cognitive reactance (e.g., Wong et al, 2015). These are based on approaches from Grandpre et al (2003), who used a semantic differential scale assessing whether participants found a message "good/bad," "valuable/worthless," and so forth, and Miller et al (2007), who used a cognitive evaluation scale to assess whether respondents found a message to be fair, interesting, and relevant to them.…”

“…Such scales often capture both global criticism and refutation of specific points. For example, variations of the Silvia scale asked “Did you criticize the message you just saw while you were reading it?” ( global ; Gardner & Leshner, 2016, p. 743) and “I came up with specific responses to the arguments made in the message” ( specific ; Wong, Harrison, & Harvell, 2015, p. 77). Niederdeppe et al (2011) used thought listing to capture counterarguing, but took a unique approach: Rather than treat counterarguing as a solely cognitive response, they distinguished between cognitively and emotionally reactive counterarguments.…”

“…Some narrative persuasion studies follow this approach (e.g., Quintero Johnson & Sangalang, 2017; Tukachinsky & Sangalang, 2016), whereas others use counterarguing scales to capture cognitive reactance (e.g., Kim & So, 2018). Meanwhile, some researchers use separate measures for counterarguing and negative cognitions but consider both to capture reactance (e.g., Miller et al, 2013; Wong et al, 2015). Criteria for coding negative thoughts also typically extend beyond counterarguing (e.g., to include intentions; Dillard & Shen, 2005; Shen, Seung, Andersen, & McNeal, 2017).…”

Effects of Fear and Humor Appeals in Public Service Announcements (PSAs) on Intentions to Purchase Medications via Social Media

“…Past research showed that exposure to messages the attempt to persuade individuals to refrain from risky behaviors, such as smoking, marijuana use, and consuming sugarsweetened beverages activated psychological reactance, especially when the PSAs included a fear appeal [56][57][58][59][60]. Dillard, Kim, and Li found that the persuasiveness of anti-sugarsweetened beverage PSA messages calling for policy change using fear appeal could have been improved by 17% if reactance was eliminated [60].…”

When Increasing the Strength of the Argument Becomes Counterproductive: The Role of Argumentative Markers in the Arousal of the Psychological Reactance

“…W. Brehm’s (1966) and S. S. Brehm and Brehm’s (1981) psychological reactance process has been offered as an important cause for these unfortunate outcomes and remains a relevant theoretical framework for research on persuasive health communication (Dillard & Shen, 2005; Erceg-Hurn & Steed, 2011; Quick & Bates, 2010; Wagner, Howland, & Mann, 2015; Wong, Harrison, & Harvell, 2015).…”