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 17 low-risk condition (M = -.16, SD = .72; p < .05). The main effect of efficacy beliefs was not significant, F(1, 127) = .23, p > .05, and neither was the perceived risk X efficacy beliefs interaction term, F(1, 127) = .74, p > .05. Hence, Hypotheses H1A, H1B, and H1C were not supported. Effects on Actual Information Seeking We measured actual information seeking as the number of seconds that participants spent reading Web-site material on diabetes. The ANOVA model with actual information seeking as the dependent variable was not significant, F(3, 127) = .71, p > .05. Neither risk, F(1, 127) = 1.18, p > .05, nor efficacy beliefs, F(1, 127) = .07, p > .05, was significantly correlated with actual information seeking. The risk X efficacy beliefs interaction term was also not significant, F(1, 127) = .62, p > .05. Hence, none of the hypotheses were supported. Effects on Rate of Knowledge Acquisition Rate of knowledge acquisition was calculated as the gain in knowledge (posttest score minus the pretest score) per unit time spent reading about diabetes on the Web (this ratio was multiplied by 100 to express it in terms of a percent score). This variable was used as the dependent variable in an ANOVA model with risk perception, efficacy beliefs, and their interaction term as the predictors. The overall model was significant, F(3, 122) = 2.76, p < .05, 2 = .06. Neither the risk manipulation, F(1, 122) = 1.15, p > .05, nor the efficacy manipulation, F(1, 122) = 2.51, p > .05, was significant. However, the risk X efficacy interaction term was significant, F(1, 122) = 4.7, p < .05. Planned contrasts revealed that the responsive group acquired knowledge at a faster rate (M = 3.85, SD = 2.40) than the avoidance group (M = 2.24, SD = 2.40; p < .01). However, the difference between the indifference (M = 2.71, SD = 2.40)

Authors: Rimal, Rajiv., Morrison, Dan. and Mitchell, Monique.
first   previous   Page 17 of 27   next   last



background image
The RPA Framework
17
low-risk condition (M = -.16, SD = .72; p < .05). The main effect of efficacy beliefs was not
significant, F(1, 127) = .23, p > .05, and neither was the perceived risk
X
efficacy beliefs
interaction term, F(1, 127) = .74, p > .05. Hence, Hypotheses H1A, H1B, and H1C were not
supported.
Effects on Actual Information Seeking
We measured actual information seeking as the number of seconds that participants spent
reading Web-site material on diabetes. The ANOVA model with actual information seeking as
the dependent variable was not significant, F(3, 127) = .71, p > .05. Neither risk, F(1, 127) =
1.18, p > .05, nor efficacy beliefs, F(1, 127) = .07, p > .05, was significantly correlated with
actual information seeking. The risk
X
efficacy beliefs interaction term was also not significant,
F(1, 127) = .62, p > .05. Hence, none of the hypotheses were supported.
Effects on Rate of Knowledge Acquisition
Rate of knowledge acquisition was calculated as the gain in knowledge (posttest score
minus the pretest score) per unit time spent reading about diabetes on the Web (this ratio was
multiplied by 100 to express it in terms of a percent score). This variable was used as the
dependent variable in an ANOVA model with risk perception, efficacy beliefs, and their
interaction term as the predictors. The overall model was significant, F(3, 122) = 2.76, p < .05,
2
= .06. Neither the risk manipulation, F(1, 122) = 1.15, p > .05, nor the efficacy manipulation,
F(1, 122) = 2.51, p > .05, was significant. However, the risk
X
efficacy interaction term was
significant, F(1, 122) = 4.7, p < .05. Planned contrasts revealed that the responsive group
acquired knowledge at a faster rate (M = 3.85, SD = 2.40) than the avoidance group (M = 2.24,
SD = 2.40; p < .01). However, the difference between the indifference (M = 2.71, SD = 2.40)


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 17 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.