![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
The present study applies psychological reactance theory (PRT) to examine the effectiveness of a 2 (frame: gain, loss) × 2 (efficacy: present, not present) experiment to determine best practices in dissuading excessive alcohol consumption among college students. Results from the structural model revealed no association between a perceived threat to choose and message frame or efficacy appeals. As anticipated, a perceived threat to freedom was positively associated with state reactance, which in turn was positively associated with a boomerang effect and negatively associated with favorable source appraisal. State reactance was not associated with favorable attitudes toward preventing the overconsumption of alcohol. In addition to main effects, interactions between message frame and efficacy appeal with four person factors (participant age, trait reactance, perceived health risk, and alcohol consumption) were examined. Individuals perceiving health risk to be low would benefit from gain-frame messages, whereas loss-frame messages would be most effective for heavy drinkers. Finally, when communicating to underage drinkers, our results support using efficacy appeals when accompanied by a loss-frame message.
The authors thank Adel Wang for her assistance with this project.
Notes
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
For the message frame variable, loss-frame messages were coded with a 0 and gain-frame messages were coded with a 1. For the efficacy appeal, messages without an efficacy appeal were coded with a 0 and messages with an efficacy appeal were coded with a 1.
***p < .001; *p < .05.
For the message frame variable, loss-frame messages were coded with a 0 and gain-frame messages were coded with a 1. For the efficacy appeal, messages without an efficacy appeal were coded with a 0 and messages with an efficacy appeal were coded with a 1.
***p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.
For the message frame variable, loss-frame messages were coded with a 0 and gain-frame messages were coded with a 1. For the efficacy appeal, messages without an efficacy appeal were coded with a 0 and messages with an efficacy appeal were coded with a 1.
*p < .05.
For the message frame variable, loss-frame messages were coded with a 0 and gain-frame messages were coded with a 1. For the efficacy appeal, messages without an efficacy appeal were coded with a 0 and messages with an efficacy appeal were coded with a 1.
***p < .001; *p < .05.
For the message frame variable, loss-frame messages were coded with a 0 and gain-frame messages were coded with a 1. For the efficacy appeal, messages without an efficacy appeal were coded with a 0 and messages with an efficacy appeal were coded with a 1.
***p < .001; **p < .01.
For the message frame variable, loss-frame messages were coded with a 0 and gain-frame messages were coded with a 1. For the efficacy appeal, messages without an efficacy appeal were coded with a 0 and messages with an efficacy appeal were coded with a 1.
***p < .001; **p < .01.
For the message frame variable, loss-frame messages were coded with a 0 and gain-frame messages were coded with a 1. For the efficacy appeal, messages without an efficacy appeal were coded with a 0 and messages with an efficacy appeal were coded with a 1.
**p < .01; *p < .05.
For the message frame variable, loss-frame messages were coded with a 0 and gain-frame messages were coded with a 1. For the efficacy appeal, messages without an efficacy appeal were coded with a 0 and messages with an efficacy appeal were coded with a 1.
1The plotted interactions are available by contacting the first author.