More on Inoculating Against Reactance to Persuasive Health Messages: The Paradox of Threat

ABSTRACT

This research examined the efficacy of inoculation as a strategy to mitigate psychological reactance based on the level of threat communicated in the forewarning and subsequent persuasive health appeal. Two 2 (inoculation) × 2 (freedom-threatening language) experiments were conducted. The first (N = 181) used elaborated inoculation designed to enhance the threat of impending reactance to a message advocating for responsible alcohol consumption. The second (N = 159) used limited inoculation designed to minimize the threat of impending reactance to a message advocating for responsible soft drink consumption. Results showed that elaborated inoculation increased reactance, whereas limited inoculation decreased reactance but only when the subsequent appeal used less freedom-threatening language. These findings suggest that inoculation has the potential to facilitate or buffer reactance depending on the level of threat communicated in inoculation forewarnings and in subsequent persuasive health appeals.

Notes

¹ With the exception of H2, all hypotheses supported in Experiment 1 were also significant with two-tailed tests. Follow-up analyses were conducted in PROCESS (Hayes, 2013) to assess the one-tailed effect. Using 1000 bootstrap samples and 90% bias correct confidence intervals, a significant direct effect was found for perceived inoculation threat on perceived threat to freedom (B = 0.12, SE = 0.07, CI[.01, .23]), and a significant indirect effect was found for the inoculation manipulation on perceived threat to freedom through perceived inoculation threat (B = 0.12, SE = 0.08, CI[.02, .28]). These results provide further support for H2 and for the indirect effect of inoculation on perceived threat to freedom.

² Due to the directional nature of these predictions, one-tailed tests are reported. Perceived threat to freedom was measured using the same four items used in Experiment 1 (M = 2.72, SD = 1.11, α = .92). Anger was measured using the same four items used in Experiment 1 (M = 3.30, SD = 1.47, α = .92).

³ Due to the directional nature of these predictions, one-tailed tests are reported. Perceived threat to freedom was measured using the same four items used in Experiment 1 (M = 2.70, SD = 1.70, α = .88). Anger was measured using the same four items used in Experiment 1 (M = 2.38, SD = 1.51, α = .91).