All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Young Smokersˇ¦ Cognitive and Affective Responses to Gain-framed and Loss-framed Antismoking Message: A Think Aloud Protocol Study
Unformatted Document Text:  Framing Antismoking Message – 8 interact multiplicatively to influence outcomes” (Witte, 1998, p. 435). EPPM argues that when individuals perceive high threat and high efficacy, they will engage in danger control, a cognitive process that elicit protection motivation to think of strategies to avert a threat. Conversely, when people perceive high threat but low efficacy, they will engage in fear control, an emotional process that elicits defensive motivation to reduce the fear (Witte, 1998). In other words, this model proposes that when the threat is perceived high, the level of efficacy decides whether it is danger control or a fear control process. If the danger control process dominates over the fear control process, the message will be accepted, and if the fear control process dominates the other, the message will be rejected. In the later modified version of EPPM, danger control responses refer to message acceptance in the form of “belief, attitude, intention and behavior changes in accordance with a message recommendations” and fear control responses refer to “defensive avoidance, denial, and reactance, including issue and message derogation and perceived manipulative intent” (Witte, 1998, p. 429). Witte (1998) borrowed the definition of fear control responses in the EPPM from the research of Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953; Janis, 1967; Janis & Feshback, 1953), who suggested three alternative reactions to fear appeals that interfered with attitude change: (a) aggression toward the communicator, (b) defensive avoidance, and (c) inattentiveness to the communication. First, aggression toward the communicator, a similar concept to reactance (Brehm, 1966; Janis & Feshbach, 1953), is a perception by the audience of manipulative intent on the communicator and/or communication, and usually leads to an outright rejection of the message or anger about the communicator’s intent. Aggression can be shown by defiance,

Authors: Cheng, I-Huei. and Cameron, Glen.
first   previous   Page 8 of 41   next   last



background image
Framing Antismoking Message –
8
interact multiplicatively to influence outcomes” (Witte, 1998, p. 435).
EPPM argues that when individuals perceive high threat and high efficacy, they will
engage in danger control, a cognitive process that elicit protection motivation to think of
strategies to avert a threat. Conversely, when people perceive high threat but low efficacy,
they will engage in fear control, an emotional process that elicits defensive motivation to
reduce the fear (Witte, 1998). In other words, this model proposes that when the threat is
perceived high, the level of efficacy decides whether it is danger control or a fear control
process. If the danger control process dominates over the fear control process, the
message will be accepted, and if the fear control process dominates the other, the message
will be rejected.
In the later modified version of EPPM, danger control responses refer to message
acceptance in the form of “belief, attitude, intention and behavior changes in accordance
with a message recommendations” and fear control responses refer to “defensive
avoidance, denial, and reactance, including issue and message derogation and perceived
manipulative intent” (Witte, 1998, p. 429). Witte (1998) borrowed the definition of fear
control responses in the EPPM from the research of Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953;
Janis, 1967; Janis & Feshback, 1953), who suggested three alternative reactions to fear
appeals that interfered with attitude change: (a) aggression toward the communicator, (b)
defensive avoidance, and (c) inattentiveness to the communication.
First, aggression toward the communicator, a similar concept to reactance (Brehm,
1966; Janis & Feshbach, 1953), is a perception by the audience of manipulative intent on
the communicator and/or communication, and usually leads to an outright rejection of the
message or anger about the communicator’s intent. Aggression can be shown by defiance,


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your 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 8 of 41   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.