Uncertainty orientation and protection motivation theory: The role of individual differences in health compliance.

Abstract

The experiment was designed to determine the influence of uncertainty orientation (R. M. Sorrentino, J. C. Short, 1986) on compliance with a diagnostic health behavior. Ss (N= 155) read 1 version of an education essay on a disease and diagnostic response. Threat and efficacy information were manipulated. Consistent with protection motivation theory (R. W Rogers, 1983), uncertaintyoriented Ss sought more health-related information as threat and efficacy increased. Certaintyoriented Ss, however, sought more health-related information as threat or efficacy, but not both, increased. Individual differences were also found on adaptive measures and ineffective alternative responses.Since the early research applying drive reduction models to communications in health compliance (e.g., Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953), researchers have grappled with the problem of identifying the precise message characteristics of a health appeal and the precise conditions that lead to the greatest compliance. Protection motivation theorists (Rogers, 1983) have attempted to provide a comprehensive framework to account for these issues. Although promising, support for this theory is not without its inconsistencies. It is the contention of this article that predictions from this theory can be more precise if one considers important individual differences in the way people are likely to process potentially threatening information. The important individual-difference variable is what Sorrentino and Short (1986) have called uncertainty orientation. Following a brief review of research related to protection motivation theory, the importance of this variable for the theory is discussed.

Who's afraid of that ad? Applying segmentation to the protection motivation model

“…Severity of Harm. As previously mentioned, most studies have rejected the curvilinear model and argued that the relationship between varying levels of severity of harm portrayed and persuasion is positive and linear (e.g., Bagozzi & Moore, 1994;Brouwers & Sorrentino, 1993;LaTour & Rotfeld, 1997;LaTour et al, 1996;Quinn et al, 1992;Rippetoe & Rogers, 1987). For example, in an empirical study regarding tetanus inoculations, Dabbs and Leventhal (1966) found that the higher the severity of the harm depicted, the more persuasive the stimulus.…”

A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for effective Public Health Campaigns

“…D'une manière générale, les études ont montré que le sexe, l'âge, l'appartenance ethnique ou l'appartenance à un groupe n'ont aucun effet sur l'acceptation des recommandations d'un message générant de la peur (Insko, Arkoff, Insko, 1965 ;Kirscht, Becker, Haefner, Maiman, 1978 ;Leventhal, Jones, Trembly, 1996 ;Rhodes, Wolitski, 1990). Cependant, au moins deux études ont constaté des effets significatifs entre le besoin de cognition et l'intensité de l'appel à la peur (Stout, Sego, 1994) et entre le sentiment d'incertitude et l'appel à la peur (Brouwers, Sorrentino, 1993). Le plus souvent, cependant, les variables individuelles influent directement sur la persuasion sans interagir avec le niveau d'appel à la peur (Burnett, 1981 ;Horowitz, 1969 ;Horowitz, Gumenik, 1970).…”

On the one hand, and on the other: The effect of embodying balance and uncertainty orientation on the confirmation bias

“…Therefore UOs should be less likely to seek out only congruent information and less biased assimilation. Previous research has shown that UOs are more likely to seek out threatening and efficacious information (Brouwers & Sorrentino, 1993) and engage in more systematic processing when confronting incongruent arguments (Sorrentino et al, 1988;Shuper & Sorrentino, 2004). COs, on the other hand, will be more likely to seek out certain and predictable situations and will be less engaged by uncertain situations, typically circumventing uncertainty, either by choosing environments that limit uncertainty (Sorrentino & Hewitt, 1984;Sorrentino et al, 1992) or by using heuristics (Sorrentino et al, 1988).…”