THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS OF PERSUASION AND FEAR APPEALS
22
drinker vs. no-coffee drinker). After viewing a fear appeal, the high threat group induced greater motivation to reduce caffeine intake. However, high relevance subjects agreed less with the high threat message than low relevance subjects, but agreed more with the low threat message. High relevance subjects reported expending more effort reading the article than low relevance subjects. Thus, the defensive reaction resulted from biased systematic processing (see Das, De Wit & Stroebe, 2003) rather than defensive inattention. Liberman and Chaiken (1992) suggest that under high relevance and high levels of fear heuristic cues such as source likeability, expertise or consensus information could increase overall persuasiveness. Nevertheless, the conclusion remains that high personal relevance can result in defensively biased systematic processing. Hoeken and Geurts (2005) performed a study with 149 students who were presented a case example about the dangers of internet addiction. In one version, a student succeeded in cutting down internet use, and did not suffer the negative (physical, social, and professional) consequences of internet addiction. In the other version, a student did not succeed in reducing internet use, and experienced negative consequences of the internet behaviour. Empirical results showed that after reading the version in which the student succeeded in halting the addiction, participants held a more positive view on their own ability to cut down internet use and were more inclined to use the internet sparingly (Z = 6.53; p < 0.001). After reading the version in which the student failed and kept addicted, participants held a more negative view of their own ability to stop using the internet excessively (Z = 4.41; p < 0.01). The second part of the hypothesis about defense mechanisms argued that self-affirmation could increase fear appeal effectiveness. When the self is threatened given the persuasion triangle defensive mechanisms occur. Sherman, Nelson and Steele (2000) tested whether self-affirmation techniques can increase fear appeal effectiveness. The first study (see Liberman & Chaiken, 1992) investigated whether affirmed coffee-drinkers accepted the content of a high-threatening message more than nonaffirmed drinkers. The research followed a 2x2 between-subjects factorial design with relevance (coffee-drinker versus non-coffee-drinker) and affirmation as independent variables. First, affirmed participant felt better about themselves than non-affirmed individuals (F = 4.64, p < 0.05). A two-way ANOVA revealed a main effect where affirmed participants accepted the health message more than non-affirmed participants (F = 8.04, p < 0.01). Further, there was a significant interaction between affirmation and relevance (F = 16.44, p < 0.001). In the nonaffirmed condition, coffee-drinkers were less accepting the message than non-coffeedrinkers (F = 5.85, p < 0.05). In the high relevance group, affirmation lead to a greater intentions to reduce caffeine consumption than no affirmation (F = 25.89, p < 0.001). Affirmed coffee-drinkers accepted the message more than affirmed non-coffee-drinkers. Thus, for the relevant group affirmation had beneficial effects and made the appeal more effective. Therefore, affirmation reduces defensive processing of threatening messages and is more persuasive in reducing future caffeine consumption. Study two examined whether self-affirmed students who saw an AIDS education video perceived themselves at greater risk than nonaffirmed students. Again, self-affirmed participants viewed themselves as being at greater risk for HIV than nonaffirmed participants (F = 6.62, p < 0.05). In addition, in the
M.A. BOERMANS (2007) â&#x20AC;&#x201C; BACHELOR THESIS COMMUNICATION SCIENCE