All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Risk and Efficacy as Motivators of Change: Test of the Risk Perception Attitude (RPA) Framework
Unformatted Document Text:  The RPA Framework 15 Responses to the six items, all scored on 7-point Likert scales, were standardized and averaged into an index (alpha = .76). T-tests revealed that those in the high-efficacy condition (M = 5.4, SD = .9) perceived greater efficacy (t = 4.7, p < .0001) than those in the low-efficacy condition (M = 4.6, SD = 1.1). Hence, this manipulation was successful. Cross-over Effects. Those in the high-risk (M = 5.1, SD = 1.0) and those in the low-risk (M = 4.8, SD = 1.3) conditions did not differ significantly (t = 1.1, p > .1) on their efficacy beliefs. Similarly, those in the high-efficacy (M = 4.1, SD = 1.7) and those in the low-efficacy (M = 4.4, SD = 1.7) conditions did not differ significantly (t = 1.1, p > .1) on their risk perceptions. Hence, the risk manipulation seems not to have affected efficacy beliefs, and vice versa. Statistical Analyses All tests were conducted with analysis of variance (ANOVA) models in which the predictors were experimental manipulations of risk perception, efficacy beliefs, and their interaction term. When significant covariates emerged, we used them as controls to run analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) models; otherwise, ANOVA models were run. Results Effects on Self-Protective Motivation The overall ANCOVA model with self-protective motivation as the dependent variable was significant, F(4, 127) = 7.73, p < .0001, R 2 = .20. Prior involvement, the covariate in the model, was significantly associated with self-protective motivation, F(1, 127) = 7.86, p < .01. The main effect of risk perception, F(1, 127) = 13.3, p < .0001, was significant; the main effect of efficacy beliefs was not significant, F(1, 127) = 3.3, p > .05; and the risk perception X efficacy

Authors: Rimal, Rajiv., Morrison, Dan. and Mitchell, Monique.
first   previous   Page 15 of 27   next   last



background image
The RPA Framework
15
Responses to the six items, all scored on 7-point Likert scales, were standardized and averaged
into an index (alpha = .76). T-tests revealed that those in the high-efficacy condition (M = 5.4,
SD = .9) perceived greater efficacy (t = 4.7, p < .0001) than those in the low-efficacy condition
(M = 4.6, SD = 1.1). Hence, this manipulation was successful.
Cross-over Effects. Those in the high-risk (M = 5.1, SD = 1.0) and those in the low-risk
(M = 4.8, SD = 1.3) conditions did not differ significantly (t = 1.1, p > .1) on their efficacy
beliefs. Similarly, those in the high-efficacy (M = 4.1, SD = 1.7) and those in the low-efficacy
(M = 4.4, SD = 1.7) conditions did not differ significantly (t = 1.1, p > .1) on their risk
perceptions. Hence, the risk manipulation seems not to have affected efficacy beliefs, and vice
versa.
Statistical Analyses
All tests were conducted with analysis of variance (ANOVA) models in which the
predictors were experimental manipulations of risk perception, efficacy beliefs, and their
interaction term. When significant covariates emerged, we used them as controls to run analysis
of covariance (ANCOVA) models; otherwise, ANOVA models were run.
Results
Effects on Self-Protective Motivation
The overall ANCOVA model with self-protective motivation as the dependent variable
was significant, F(4, 127) = 7.73, p < .0001, R
2
= .20. Prior involvement, the covariate in the
model, was significantly associated with self-protective motivation, F(1, 127) = 7.86, p < .01.
The main effect of risk perception, F(1, 127) = 13.3, p < .0001, was significant; the main effect
of efficacy beliefs was not significant, F(1, 127) = 3.3, p > .05; and the risk perception
X
efficacy


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 15 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.