Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 520–529 | Cite as

A brief measure of reactance to health warnings

  • Marissa G. HallEmail author
  • Paschal Sheeran
  • Seth M. Noar
  • Kurt M. Ribisl
  • Marcella H. Boynton
  • Noel T. Brewer
Article

Abstract

Reactance to persuasive messages involves perceived threat to freedom, anger, and counterarguing that may undermine the impact of health warnings. To understand reactance’s effects, reliable and valid assessment is critical. We sought to develop and validate a brief Reactance to Health Warnings Scale (RHWS). Two independent samples of US adults completed the brief RHWS in studies that presented warnings on cigarette packs that smokers carried with them for 4 weeks (Study 1; n = 2149) or as digital images of cigarette packs that participants viewed briefly (Study 2; n = 1413). The three-item Brief RHWS had good internal consistency and test–retest reliability. The scale correlated with higher trait reactance and exposure to pictorial warnings, supporting its convergent validity. With respect to predictive validity, the Brief RHWS predicted perceived message effectiveness, quit intentions, avoidance of the warnings, and number of cigarettes smoked per day. The Brief RHWS can serve as an efficient adjunct to the development of persuasive messages.

Keywords

Reactance Defensive processing Health warnings Tobacco control Pictorial warnings Health communication 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this publication was supported by The National Cancer Institute and FDA Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) under Award Number P30CA016086-38S2. F31CA196037 from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health supported MGH’s time writing the paper. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the Food and Drug Administration.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Marissa G. Hall, Paschal Sheeran, Seth M. Noar, Kurt M. Ribisl, Marcella H. Boynton and Noel T. Brewer declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and Informed consent

Study procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Researchers obtained informed consent from study participants.

References

  1. Bollen, K. A. (1998). Structural equation models. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Brehm, K. A. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brennan, E., Durkin, S. J., Cotter, T., Harper, T., & Wakefield, M. A. (2011). Mass media campaigns designed to support new pictorial health warnings on cigarette packets: Evidence of a complementary relationship. Tobacco Control, 20, 412–418. doi: 10.1136/tc.2010.039321 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Brewer, N. T., Hall, M. G., Lee, J. G., Peebles, K., Noar, S. M., & Ribisl, K. M. (2015). Testing warning messages on smokers’ cigarette packages: A standardised protocol. Tobacco Control. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2014-051661 Google Scholar
  6. Brewer, N. T., Hall, M. G., Noar, S. M., Parada, H., Stein-Seroussi, A., Bach, L. E., et al. (2016). Effect of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on changes in smoking behavior: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176, 905–912. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2621 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron, L. D., Pepper, J. K., & Brewer, N. T. (2015). Responses of young adults to graphic warning labels for cigarette packages. Tobacco Control, 24, e14–e22. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2012-050645 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, Y. J., Thrasher, J. F., Swayampakala, K., Yong, H. H., McKeever, R., Hammond, D., et al. (2016). Does reactance against cigarette warning labels matter? Warning label responses and downstream smoking cessation amongst adult smokers in Australia, Canada, Mexico and the United States. PLoS ONE, 11, e0159245. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159245 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, K. C., Nonnemaker, J., Duke, J., & Farrelly, M. C. (2013). Perceived effectiveness of cessation advertisements: The importance of audience reactions and practical implications for media campaign planning. Health Communication, 28, 461–472. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2012.696535 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. De Ayala, R. J. (2013). Theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Diepeveen, S., Ling, T., Suhrcke, M., Roland, M., & Marteau, T. M. (2013). Public acceptability of government intervention to change health-related behaviours: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Public Health, 13, 756. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-756 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2013). Item response theory. Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  15. Erceg-Hurn, D. M., & Steed, L. G. (2011). Does exposure to cigarette health warnings elicit psychological reactance in smokers? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 219–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00710.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gerrard, M., Gibbons, F. X., Houlihan, A. E., Stock, M. L., & Pomery, E. A. (2008). A dual-process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype willingness model. Developmental Review, 28, 29–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gollust, S. E., & Cappella, J. N. (2014). Understanding public resistance to messages about health disparities. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 493–510. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2013.821561 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall, M. G., Sheeran, P., Noar, S. M., Ribisl, K. M., Bach, L. E., & Brewer, N. T. (2016). Reactance to health warnings scale: Development and validation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 50, 736–750. doi: 10.1007/s12160-016-9799-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hong, S.-M., & Page, S. (1989). A psychological reactance scale: Development, factor structure and reliability. Psychological Reports, 64, 1323–1326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klein, W. M., Zajac, L. E., & Monin, M. M. (2009). Worry as a moderator of the association between risk perceptions and quitting intentions in young adult and adult smokers. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 38, 256–261. doi: 10.1007/s12160-009-9143-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. LaVail, K. H., Anker, A. E., Reinhart, A., & Feeley, T. H. (2010). The persuasive effects of audiovisual PSAs to promote organ donation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Studies, 61, 46–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. LaVoie, N. R., Quick, B. L., Riles, J. M., & Lambert, N. J. (2015). Are graphic cigarette warning labels an effective message strategy? A test of psychological reactance theory and source appraisal. Communication Research. doi: 10.1177/0093650215609669 Google Scholar
  23. Li, L., Borland, R., Fong, G. T., Jiang, Y., Yang, Y., Wang, L., et al. (2014). Smoking-related thoughts and microbehaviours, and their predictive power for quitting: Findings from the International Tobacco Control (ITC) China Survey. Tobacco Control. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2013-051384 Google Scholar
  24. Lindsey, L. L. M. (2005). Anticipated guilt as behavioral motivation an examination of appeals to help unknown others through bone marrow donation. Human Communication Research, 31, 453–481. doi: 10.1093/hcr/31.4.453 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCool, J., Cameron, L. D., & Robinson, E. (2011). Do parents have any influence over how young people appraise tobacco images in the media? Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 170–175. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.06.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Noar, S. M., Francis, D. B., Bridges, C., Sontag, J. M., Ribisl, K. M., & Brewer, N. T. (2016a). The impact of strengthening cigarette pack warnings: Systematic review of longitudinal observational studies. Social Science and Medicine, 164, 118–129. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.06.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Noar, S. M., Hall, M. G., Francis, D., Ribisl, K. M., Pepper, J., & Brewer, N. T. (2016b). Pictorial cigarette pack warnings: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Tobacco Control, 25, 341–354.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the turk understanding mechanical turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46, 1023–1031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health Study. (2014). PATH: Population assessment of tobacco and health. Retrieved April 3, 2014, from http://www.pathstudyinfo.nih.gov/UI/HomeMobile.aspx
  31. Quick, B. L. (2012). What is the best measure of psychological reactance? An empirical test of two measures. Health Communication, 27, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2011.567446 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2007). Further evidence that psychological reactance can be modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions. Communication Research, 34, 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rains, S. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39, 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rains, S. A., & Turner, M. M. (2007). Psychological reactance and persuasive health communication: A test and extension of the intertwined model. Human Communication Research, 33, 241–269.Google Scholar
  35. Reinhart, A. M., Marshall, H. M., Feeley, T. H., & Tutzauer, F. (2007). The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Monographs, 74, 229–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59, 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communications Monographs, 61, 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior, 27, 591–615.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Yong, H. H., Fong, G. T., Driezen, P., Borland, R., Quah, A. C., Sirirassamee, B., et al. (2013). Adult smokers’ reactions to pictorial health warning labels on cigarette packs in Thailand and moderating effects of type of cigarette smoked: Findings from the international tobacco control southeast Asia survey. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 15, 1339–1347. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nts241 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marissa G. Hall
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Paschal Sheeran
    • 2
    • 4
  • Seth M. Noar
    • 3
    • 4
  • Kurt M. Ribisl
    • 1
    • 4
  • Marcella H. Boynton
    • 1
    • 4
  • Noel T. Brewer
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public HealthUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology and NeuroscienceUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  3. 3.School of Media and JournalismUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA
  4. 4.Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer CenterUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations