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 16 beliefs interaction was significant, F(1, 127) = 3.30, p < .05. Hypothesis H1A was thus supported. Planned contrasts revealed that the avoidance group (M = .28, SD = .80) did not differ significantly (p > .05) from the responsive group (M = .23, SD = .80); the proactive group (M = .02, SD = .81) expressed significantly higher levels of motivation (p < .01) than the indifference group (M = -.54, SD = .80). Hence, Hypothesis H1B was not supported, but H1C was. Means for the four groups are shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Effects on Self-Protective Motivation Perceived Risk High Low M otivation .4 .2 -.0 -.2 -.4 -.6 Efficacy Beliefs Low High Effects on Intention to Seek Information An ANCOVA model was run with intention to seek information as the dependent variable; risk perception, efficacy beliefs, and their interaction term were the predictors; and prior involvement was the covariate. The overall model was significant, F(4, 127) = 4.00, p < .01, R 2 = .11. Prior involvement was significantly correlated with the dependent variable, F(1, 127) = 7.94, p < .01, as was risk perception, F(1, 127) = 5.8, p < .05, such that those in the high- risk condition expressed greater levels of intention (M = .15, SD = .73), compared to those in the

Authors: Rimal, Rajiv., Morrison, Dan. and Mitchell, Monique.
first   previous   Page 16 of 27   next   last



background image
The RPA Framework
16
beliefs interaction was significant, F(1, 127) = 3.30, p < .05. Hypothesis H1A was thus
supported.
Planned contrasts revealed that the avoidance group (M = .28, SD = .80) did not differ
significantly (p > .05) from the responsive group (M = .23, SD = .80); the proactive group (M =
.02, SD = .81) expressed significantly higher levels of motivation (p < .01) than the indifference
group (M = -.54, SD = .80). Hence, Hypothesis H1B was not supported, but H1C was. Means
for the four groups are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Effects on Self-Protective Motivation
Perceived Risk
High
Low
M
o
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
.4
.2
-.0
-.2
-.4
-.6
Efficacy Beliefs
Low
High
Effects on Intention to Seek Information
An ANCOVA model was run with intention to seek information as the dependent
variable; risk perception, efficacy beliefs, and their interaction term were the predictors; and
prior involvement was the covariate. The overall model was significant, F(4, 127) = 4.00, p <
.01, R
2
= .11. Prior involvement was significantly correlated with the dependent variable, F(1,
127) = 7.94, p < .01, as was risk perception, F(1, 127) = 5.8, p < .05, such that those in the high-
risk condition expressed greater levels of intention (M = .15, SD = .73), compared to those in the


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
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 16 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.