Role and Impact of Involvement and Enhanced Threat in Resistance

Abstract

This study examined the relative impact of outcome-relevant (OR), value-relevant (VR), and impression-relevant (IR) involvement on resistance to influence and whether it is possible to enhance elicited threat levels and, if so, to what effect on resistance to counterattitudinal attacks. An experiment was conducted featuring 281 participants. Results indicated that both OR and VR involvement functioned similarly. They both bypassed threat and counterarguing, instead exerting direct impacts on elicited anger, attitude strength, and resistance. There were no statistically significant results for IR involvement. Results concerning standard and enhanced threat revealed that both manipulations functioned similarly: They enhanced elicited threat, boosted the number and strength of cognitive responses to counterarguments, increased elicited anger, enhanced attitude strength, and contributed to resistance. However, the only booster effect for enhanced threat involved greater attitude certainty.

Keywords:

• Inoculation
• Involvement
• Threat

We thank instructors in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma who provided participants for this study.

Notes

Note. Elicited threat, strength of cognitive responses to counterarguments, elicited anger, attitude accessibility, attitude strength, and attitude toward (resistance to) persuasive attacks were gauged using 7-point scales, whereas attitude certainty was measured using a 0 to 100-point scale. Higher scores indicate greater elicited threat, strength of responses to counterarguments, elicited anger, attitude accessibility, attitude certainty, attitude strength, and influence of (less resistance to) counterattitudinal attacks. Number of cognitive response to counterarguments was assessed using thought-listing. Higher scores signify more cognitive responses to counterarguments. CAs = counterarguments.

^a Significant compared to no inoculation control condition at p < .01.

^b Significant compared to no inoculation control condition at p < .05.

^c Significant compared to normal threat inoculation condition at p < .01.

^dSignificant compared to enhanced threat inoculation condition at p < .01.

Note. Threat manipulation was operationalized as (a) normal threat manipulation and (b) enhanced threat manipulation. Phase 2 threat, Phase 2 strength of cognitive responses to counterarguments, Phase 3 attitude strength, and Phase 3 attitude toward counterattitudinal attacks were measured using 7-point scales; and attitude certainty was assessed using a 100-point scale. Higher scores indicate greater initial attitude, outcome-relevant involvement, value-relevant involvement, impression-relevant involvement, threat, strength of cognitive responses to counterarguments, attitude strength, influence of (less resistance to) counterattitudinal attacks, and attitude certainty. Phase 2 cognitive responses to counterarguments were assessed using thought-listing. Higher scores signify greater number of cognitive responses to counterarguments. Phase 3 elicited anger in response to the counterattitudinal attack message was measured using 0 to 6 interval scales. Higher scores indicate greater emotional response. OR = outcome-relevant; VR = value-relevant; IR = impression-relevant. *p < .05.

The issues of restricting banning handguns and legalizing marijuana scored 7.63 and 6.28, respectively, on a three-item, 10-interval involvement measure, which was based on a tool originally developed by Traylor (1981). Scores on involvement across the 16 issues ranged from 5.33 to 7.63. The distribution of opinion—for, against, and neutral–no opinion—was as follows: for banning handguns: 25%, 55%, and 19%; and for legalizing marijuana: 31%, 49%, and 19%.

Researchers employed a traditional measure of issue involvement for the purpose of assigning participants to conditions. This measure of issue involvement has been used for more than 10 years in resistance research. It operationalizes issue involvement as the importance or salience of the issue and measures it using an abbreviated version of Zaichkowsky's (1985) Personal Involvement Inventory (PII). Six items of the PII, appropriate for policy issues, were employed in this study, including insignificant–significant, unimportant–important, of no concern–of much concern, means nothing–means a lot, irrelevant–relevant, and doesn't–does matter to me. Reliability rating of the issue involvement scale was .97 (n = 281).

The results of a principle component factor analysis with varimax rotation revealed a three-factor solution (each with eigenvalues >1) with items configuring as predicted, which accounted for 79% of variance.

Results of a principle components factor analysis revealed that the six threat scale items loaded on a single dimension with an eigenvalue of 4.58, accounting for 76% of total variance.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael Pfau

Michael Pfau (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1987), who passed away on March 12, 2009, was professor and chair of the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma.

John Banas

John Banas (Ph.D., University of Texas, 2005) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma.

Shane M. Semmler

Shane M. Semmler (M. A., University of South Dakota, 2004) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of South Dakota.

Leslie Deatrick

Leslie Deatrick (M. A., Michigan State University, 2004) is a lecturer in the Department of Communication at the University of Tennessee.

Lindsay Lane

Lindsay Lane (M. S., Radford University, 2005) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma.

Alicia Mason

Alicia Mason (M. A., Pittsburg State University, 2006) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Pittsburg State University.

Elizabeth Craig

Elizabeth Craig (PhD, University of Oklahoma, 2007) is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at North Carolina State University.

Gwen Nisbett

Gwen Nisbett (M.Sc., London School of Economics, 2002) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication at the University of Oklahoma.

Jill Underhill

Jill Underhill (M. A., University of Maryland, 2006) is a doctoral student in the Department of Communication at the University of Maryland.