The moderating role of aggressiveness in response to campaigns and interventions promoting anti‐violence attitudes

Abstract

This research indicates that a critical factor for understanding the success or failure of anti-violence campaigns is the aggressiveness of the target audience. We propose that person and situation interact in predicting post-intervention attitudes toward violence, fighting expectations, and intentions to learn how to use real guns. Across two studies conducted in different countries and with different age populations, we found that anti-violence campaigns were effective, only for those for whom the message was already pro-attitudinal (low trait aggressiveness). In contrast, for individuals with relatively higher scores in trait aggressiveness, there was no difference in attitudes toward violence between those who received the anti-violence intervention and those assigned to the control group. In fact, the anti-violence messages resulted in a boomerang effect, increasing the favorability of attitudes toward violence in one of the studies. Aggr. Behav. 42:471-482, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Sexual assault interventions may be doing more harm than good with high-risk males

“…We have reviewed here considerable data suggesting that boomerang effects among the 30% or so of men who are at relatively higher risk for committing sexual assault are very possible with current sexual violence interventions on university campuses. To reiterate, data showing boomerang effects for interventions specifically focusing on aspects of reducing violence (e.g., Byrne & Hart, 2016;Ellis, 2017;Wilson et al, 1992;Keller et al, 2010;Cardaba et al, 2016) as well as in various other areas, such as safe sex messages (e.g., Witte, 1992) and anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns (see Prince, Reid, Carey, & Neighbors, 2014) support this conclusion. Moreover, as discussed herein, there is considerable research examining the intertwined hostile cognitive and emotional mediating mechanisms that appear very likely to be activated by didactic intervention programs.…”

Women’s Empowerment Campaigns: Helpful or Harmful to the Workplace?

“…Lastly, in summarizing the literature on interventions on college campuses to reduce sexual violence and aggression, Malamuth et al (2018) noted that many such programs fail with men at high risk for sexual aggression who are a key target of such interventions because such programs are likely to generate "hostility reactance" (p. 20), one of the key causes of both sexual violence itself and the unintended adverse effects of the interventions. Thus, data showing reactance effects for interventions specifically focusing on aspects of reducing male violence (Cardaba et al, 2016) as well as in various other areas, such as safe sex messages (e.g., Witte, 1992) and anti-smoking and anti-drinking campaigns (Prince, Reid, Carey, & Neighbors, 2014) support this conclusion. It seems that there is significant evidence for reactance effects that target men's hostile behavior.…”

Global Empathic Consciousness Development: Mass Communication Hope?

“…Of course there will be resistance to prosocial change efforts within the violence entertainment establishment, not only within the industry but among those consumers habituated to, or craving of, violent media imagery (mediated visually and/or aurally). In one recent study for instance [65] those most opposed to nonviolent prosocial interventions were those highest in aggression themselves. A "boomerang effect" is to be expected.…”