MI "W“. W l WW I l 1 llWHUHWHH H I'l/ICHKIAN STATE UNNER TY i f”I“!lililH/II/II/l/I/lzli’lzillilllflllllll '1 H 3 1293 01046 1683 u x —‘ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Influence of Experience and Prior Knowledge on the Reception of Persuasive Fear Appeals: Testing the Extended Parallel Process Model presented by Kelly Morrison has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for " Masters degreein Communication Major professor DMe 7/14/94 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunin Institution 0-12771 _-———- .- ”- LIBRARY M'Chlgan State University PLACE ll RETURN BOXto monthl- Mum your record. TO AVOID FINES Mum on or him we duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE R 22009 ngBO 9 It ,Mm 972m W _ p l e - MSU I. An mam ActionlEqud Oppomnlty Institution Wmi THE INFLUENCE OF EXPERIENCE AND PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON THE RECEPTION OF PERSUASIVE FEAR APPEALS: TESTING THE EXTENDED PARALLEL PROCESS MODEL BY Kelly Morrison A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 1994 ABSTRACT THE INFLUENCE OF EXPERIENCE AND PRIOR KNOWLEDGE ON THE RECEPTION OF PERSUASIVE FEAR APPEALS: TESTING THE EXTENDED PARALLEL PROCESS MODEL BY Kelly Morrison Sexual assault against women is a problem on the Michigan State campus and on campuses nationwide. This research examines the use of a persuasive fear appeal campaign and its effectiveness in promoting women to take protective action against rape. A. pretest-posttest factorial design was utilized to explore the impact of prior knowledge about the issue of campus rape and experiences with rape on the reception of the persuasive message, and to test specific propositions suggested in Witte’s Extended Parallel Process Model (1992). Cognitive processing, attitude and behavioral intention changes were assessed. The results contradicted many of the propositions posited in the Extended Parallel Process Model, and suggest that prior knowledge and experience are important constructs for future research to examine. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance of many people. I would like to thank my committee members Frank Boster, Steve Wilson, and Stan Kaplowitz for their comments and suggestions which significantly improved this manuscript. Special thanks to Sandi Smith, my advisor, chair of my committee, role model and friend; Jen Kopfman for her support and listening ear; and Kim Witte for her endless energy, eternal optimism, and.assistance in the pretest. Love and thanks to Carol and Ross Morrison, whose greatest gift was to teach me that I had the strength and ability to achieve anything I pursued; and Steve McCornack, who gave me the confidence to try, and the love and encouragement to continue. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES INTRODUCTION LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES The State of Fear Appeal Research Optimal Fear Level Terminology Witte’s Extended Parallel Process Model Individual Difference Variables Prior Knowledge and Experience Prior Knowledge Prior Experience METHOD Overview Respondents Stimulus Materials Pretest Measures Persuasive Message Mood Measure Immediate Recall and Thought Listing Task Perceived Threat and Efficacy Measures Delayed Memory Recognition Task iv vi 11 11 16 16 17 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 POSttESt Measures Independent and Dependent Variables RESULTS Overview Prior Knowledge Prior Experience Outcome Measures Danger/Fear Control Subsidiary DISCUSSION Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Subsidiary LIMITATIONS Analyses 6 7 Analyses DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH APPENDIX A: Persuasive Message APPENDIX B: Measures ENDNOTES LIST OF REFERENCES 21 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 29 29 31 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 42 44 47 48 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Scales and Reliabilities From Confirmatory Factor Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Table 2 Intercoder Reliabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Table 3 Means and Cell Sizes for the Effects of Experience on Perceived Threat, Perceived Efficacy, and Cognitive Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Table 4 Means, Cell Sizes, and Contrasts for the Effects of Experience and Prior Knowledge on Intention Change . . . . 26 Table 5 Means and Cell Sizes for the Effects of Danger Control and Fear Control on Attitude Change, Belief Change, Intention Change, Cognitive and Emotional Processing . . . . . . . . 27 Table 6 Correlations Between Perceived Efficacy and Outcome Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 vi I NTRODUCT I ON Contemporary fear appeals warn the public about myriad dangers, including drug abuse, smoking, drinking and driving, and the HIV virus. Public information campaigns related to these topics typically persuade by attempting to evoke fear, and then providing specific actions that can be undertaken to ensure protection against the proposed threat, such as using a latex condom to pmevent the transmission of AIDS during sexual intercourse. A problem occurs, however, when people are inundated with percentages and facts about a threatening issue, but then are not told what to do in order to protect themselves from harm. The issue of sexual assault against women is just such a problem, and it is prevalent both.on the Michigan State campus and on campuses nationwide. In a survey of 2400 colleges across the nation, Michigan State University reported the second highest number of campus sexual assaults in 1991. Statistics which appeared in January issues of both The State News and USA.Today indicated that while the overall crime rate decreased on the Michigan State Campus in 1991, the number of reported sexual assaults on campus increased in both 1991 and 1992. These statistics, however, represent only a portion of 2 the entire problem. According to K085 and Harvey (1991), "reported rapes represent only the tip of the iceberg," as "forcible rape is still recognized as one of the most underreported of all index crimes" (p.9) . Statistics from the Mg. report on recognizing, fighting, and surviving date and acquaintance rape indicate that only 5% of rape victims reported their rapes to the police (Warshaw, 1988). Furthermore, given that there are ten times the number of sexual assaults reported to counseling offices than are reported to the police (The State News, 1993), campus sexual assault is an even more threatening and pervasive danger than the publicized numbers would indicate. Like other threatening issues, campus sexual assault receives much media attention. Students frequently are exposed to headlines in The State News such as "Alcohol focus of student rape case", and "Student raped in Owen Hall". Yet, while students may be aware of the problem of sexual assault on campus, and justifiably frightened for their safety, they are not told what to do in order to protect themselves. Unlike other problems which are the subject of persuasive appeals that specify proactive strategies for self-protection, the recommended actions concerning sexual assault are post hoc in nature. Some of the remedies offered include sexual assault crisis lines and the Department of Public Safety’s "Sexual Assault Guarantee Program", which guarantees fair 3 treatment of any victims reporting sexual assault to the Department of Public Safety. While these are important avenues for rape survivors to pursue, these services provide help for students only after they have been victimized. The ultimate goal of this research is to design effective persuasive campaigns which educate women about proactive protection strategies which they can utilize against the danger of sexual assault. Because this is an issue which threatens and evokes fear, a fear appeal strategy will be employed. Relevant research from the fear appeal literature will be addressed first, Witte’s (1992) Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) will be discussed, and the importance of prior knowledge and experience will be considered as variables which influence the persuasive process. Perceptions, cognitive processing, and ultimate attitude and behavioral intention changes will be examined. By exploring how women perceive, process, and react to these campaigns, messages which highlight the problem of sexual assault am which instruct women how to deal effectively and proactively with this problem can be designed and then implemented on campuses. LITERATURE REVIEW AND HYPOTHESES The State of Fear Appeal Research Fear appeal research has received considerable attention in recent years. Several theoretical and quantitative reviews have been conducted (e.g., Beck & Frankel, 1981; Boster & Mongeauq 1984; Dillard” 1993; IHigbee, 1970; .Janis, 1967; 4 Leventhal, 1970; Mongeau, in press,- Sutton, 1982; Witte, 1992), yielding contradictory conclusions about past research and varied suggestions for future research. Three issues which have contributed to the contradictions and conflicting recommendations in the literature are the optimal level of fear to elicit in an effective appeal, terminology, and the relevant individual difference variables to include. Each of these will be discussed briefly in turn. W Researchers disagree about how much fear is the most effective amount to elicit from message recipients. For example, Mongeau (in press), Boster and Mongeau (1984), and Beck and Frankel (1981) concluded that the data they examined were inconsistent with both negative linear model predictions1 (i.e., resistance explanations which suggest that low fear messages are the most likely to elicit message recommendation conformity), and curvilinear predictions2 bwhich suggest that moderate levels of fear are the most effective in producing message recommendation conformity). Witte (1992), however, suggested that boomerang, negative, and curvilinear results are plausible because researchers have confounded perceived threat and fear arousal. Thus, the idea that the likelihood of eliciting effective and adaptive outcomes increases as the level of perceived fear increases is a point of contention amongst researchers . 5 Over time, the focus of fear appeal research has come full circle. .As Dillard (1993) noted, "fear was at the center of the theoretical stage" (p. 11) in early drive models. Then, as a cognitive emphasis became more prominent in psychology, the focus of fear appeal research shifted away from the role of fear in favor of cognition. The recent work of Dillard and Witte is returning the important emotion of fear back to fear appeal research, while also incorporating the importance of cognitive processes. Terminology A second issue contributing to confusion in the fear appeal literature is the inconsistent terminology which has been utilized by fear appeal researchers. As Witte noted (1992), "the interchangeable use of conceptually distinct terms has muddied the fear appeal waters considerably" (p.329). The terms "fear" and "threat" both refer to different components and should be used separately and consistently. Witte (1992) clarified the distinction between fear (a negatively-valenced emotion which is elicited by a threat) and threat, which is an external stimulus variable (such as messages which emphasize the severity of a problem). Rogers (1975) and Maddux and Rogers (1983) delineated the components which comprise "threat" and "efficacy“. The threat components are the severity of the threat (i.e., how serious the problem is) and the individual’s susceptibility to the threat (i.e., how vulnerable the individual is). The 6 components comprising efficacy are response efficacy (i.e., the effectiveness of the recommended response) and .self efficacy (i.e., the individual’s ability' to perform. the recommended response). A first step in effectively constructing and employing persuasive fear appeals requires instituting concrete definitions and utilizing these terms consistently. In addition to the disagreements regarding optimal fear level and the confused terminology, another point of contention amongst fear appeal researchers is*which.individual difference variables are relevant to include in fear appeal research and models. Since this issue is addressed.in.Witte’s EPPM (1992), it will be discussed after a brief review of her model. Witte’s Extended Parallel Process Model Witte’s (1992) EPPM combined Roger's (1975) conception.of protection motivation with Leventhal’s (1970, 1971) parallel processing explanation. Leventhal's (1970) description of two distinct routes defined danger control as a problem—solving process in which an individual responds to danger by attempting to act upon and control the outer world, while ignoring or paying less attention to her/his fear. Fear control was defined as responding to internal cues generated by one's own emotions. Thus, in fear control one is responding to, and attempting to control, internal emotions rather then external (i.e., outer world) cues. Prior to 7 Witte’s extension of Leventhal’s model, several important criticisms had been levelled.against it. IRogers (1975) argued that the parallel response explanation did not articulate clearly which variables predicted fear control and danger control, and that the model was ambiguous. Beck and Frankel (1981) suggested that the parallel response model essentially was untestable. Boster and Mongeau (1984) and Mongeau (in press) concurred with Beck and Frankel, concluding that the parallel response model was unfalsifiable. Witte’s extension of Ieventhal’s model clarified what Leventhal did not. She suggested that the relationship between threat and efficacy is multiplicative, such that high threat/high efficacy conditions initiate danger control processes and outcomes (i.e., positive changes in attitudes, intentions, and behaviors), while high threat/low efficacy conditions initiate fear control Aprocesses and. outcomes (i.e., defensive avoidance or reactance) (p. 116, 1994). Prior criticisms of Leventhal’s model effectively have been rendered mute by Witte’s EPPM, because she clarified previously ambiguous concepts and linkages. In the EPPM, Witte suggested that individual difference variables such as prior experiences, culture, and personality characteristics will influence appraisals of threat and efficacy. "Thus, the same fear appeal may produce different perceptions in different people" (p. 339). This highlights the third factor which has added to confusion in the fear appeal literature, namely, that of individual differences. 8 Individual Difference Variables Several researchers have included individual difference variables in their fear appeal research, and again, discrepancy exists regarding the role these variables play in fear appeal models. Boster and Mongeau (1984) suggested that future researchers consider perceived fear, trait anxiety and age in their efforts. Several researchers have examined the influence of trait anxiety and repression/sensitization (Burnett & Oliver, 1979; Dabbs & Leventhal, 1966; Dziokonski & Weber, 1977; Eberhage, Polek, &.Ihnmun 1985; Goldstein, 1959; Hale & Mongeau, 1991; Hill & Gardner, 1980; Janis & Feshbach, 1954; Jepson & Chaiken, 1990; and Millman, 1968). Others simply' address potentially complex individual difference variables by incorporating them into their models under the category of "individual differences" (Maddux & Rogers, 1983; Rippetoe & Rogers, 1987; Witte, 1992). Because individual differences can play a pivotal role in how a message is perceived and ultimately acted upon, it is important to further examine and specifically test these individual difference components. Prior Knowledge and Experience Interestingly, although many individual difference variables have been addressed in fear appeal research, few scholars have examined the impact of prior knowledge and experience. This is surprising, given findings in the persuasion literature which suggest that these variables can 9 influence biased processing (Chaiken, Lieberman, & Eagly, 1989; and Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Additionally, researchers have indicated that prior knowledge and experience can influence processing and attitude-behavior consistency (Davidson, Yantis, Norwood, & Montano, 1985; Fazio & Zanna, 1981; Kallgren & Wood, 1986; Wood, 1982; and Wu & Shaffer, 1987). For example, Regan and Fazio (1977) and Fazio and Zanna (1981) demonstrated. that attitudes generated from (direct experience with an attitude object were more consistent with and predictive of subsequent behaviors, while attitudes generated from lack of experience or indirect experience were not. Wu and Shaffer (1987) found that the attitudes of individuals possessing direct experience with an attitude object were more reflective of central route processing (i.e., cognitive elaboration of the message arguments) while the attitudes of individuals possessing indirect experience were more reflective of peripheral processing (i.e., influenced by source characteristics). While these persuasion researchers have considered the impact of experience on persuasive outcomes, the experiences examined could be classified as familiarity with an object or issue that elicits no, or small amounts of emotion rather than experience with an object or issue that elicits extreme levels of emotion. Simply' put, having' experienced. working' an intellectual puzzle or a campus housing shortage (experience 10 operationalizations used by Regan and Fazio; 1977) is emotionally very different from having experienced rape. One explanation for the initiation of danger control processing over fear control processing (or vice versa) is that an individual’s levels of prior knowledge and experience may trigger biased processing of the persuasive message. Specifically, prior knowledge and experience may affect perceptions of threat and perceptions of the efficacy of the recommended actions. These perceptions will affect whether fear control processing or danger control processing is initiated. Because perceptions of threat and efficacy levels affect the ultimate persuasive outcomes (attitude, and behavioral intention changes), it is important to examine how individual differences affect perceptions of threat and efficacy levels. Researchers have demonstrated that prior knowledge and experience affect persuasive outcomes (Chu, 1967; Smith, Morrison, Kopfman, & Ford, 1994; Wu & Shaffer, 1987), but have not examined how prior knowledge and experience may affect the intermediary perception processes. Conceivably, prior knowledge and experience could result in biased processing toward either a fear control route or a danger control route. Such biased processing would have serious implications for information campaigns related to campus sexual assault, as will be detailed in the next section. 11 Prior Knowledge Women with high prior knowledge about the issue of campus rape should perceive a persuasive message about rape to be sufficiently threatening but not overwhelming. Thoughts which may occur include, "I know this is a problem because I’ve read about it before. This could happen to me." Because the message does not present novel or surprising information, women with high prior knowledge should perceive the message as threatening but not alarming. Alternatively, women who are less familiar with the issue of campus rape (i.e., those with low'prior knowledge) may be overwhelmed by the threat conveyed in the message because it presents novel information that they have not considered before. If this line of reasoning is valid, individuals with high prior knowledge about the issue of campus rape should perceive a persuasive message about campus rape to be significantly less threatening than individuals with low prior knowledge about this issue (31). Prior Experience Prior experience should affect message processing differently, depending upon the level of experience. Conceivably, a.woman.may have no experience (i.e., a woman who has not been a victim of rape and does not know anyone who has been raped), may have indirect experience (i.e., a woman who knows someone who has been raped), or 'may have direct experience (i.e., a woman who has been the victim of rape whether or not she knows someone else who has been raped). 12 The level of experience should affect perceptions of threat in a direct positive, linear fashion. Women with no experience may feel the problem is severe, but should feel less susceptible to the problem because they have never had.to deal with it. Women who possess indirect experience with rape may perceive themselves to be more susceptible to the threat of campus rape because they know someone who has had to deal with it. Thus, these individuals learn about the susceptibility and severity of the problem indirectly or vicariously. Finally, women with direct experience with rape should perceive the problem to be more severe, and should feel more susceptible to the problem because they have had to deal with it at some point in their lives. If this is true, experience should have a direct positive, linear impact upon.perceptions of threat, such that women with no experience with rape will perceive a persuasive :message about campus rape to be significantly less threatening than will women with indirect experience with rape, who will perceive the message to be significantly less threatening than will women with direct experience with rape (HZ). Experience also may influence perceptions of the efficacy of the recommended responses. Women who possess direct experience with rape may engage in biased processing of the perceived.efficacy of the recommended message responses in two different ways. First, women.who have been raped.may perceive the efficacy of any recommended responses (i.e., response 13 efficacy) to be lower than women who have not been raped. They may think, "yeah, I tried that and it didn’t work". Also, women who possess direct experience with rape may perceive the self-efficacy of the recommended responses to be lower than women who have not been raped. For example, if in her situation a woman was unable to scream or fight back, her perceived self—efficacy will be low and this may help to remove personal blame from the victim. This can serve as a rationalization process and the thinking that may result could be "I was not raped because I am a bad person or because I deserved it, rather, because I was unable to fight back". If this is true, we should find that women with.direct experience with rape will perceive the efficacy of the recommended :message responses to be lower than. women. with. indirect experience or with no experience (H3). Additionally, women with direct experience may have problems processing the message simply because the topic is too emotionally charged. The idea that emotions can disrupt ongoing cognitive activities has been supported by existing research. Brown and Kulik (1977) found that emotional events are especially memorable, while Simon (1967, 1982) suggested that emotions can function.to interrupt processingu .According to Simon, this interruption. occurs when. emotions divert individuals from pursuing one goal and direct them toward pursuing another. Thus, it seems likely that having experience with an emotionally charged event (rape) can l4 interrupt message processing. Simply put, reading about the topic of rape may trigger memories of the actual experience, which interrupt the woman from attending to the message, resulting in poor processing of the persuasive message. If this is true, we should find that women.with direct experience with rape should demonstrate significantly poorer processing of the persuasive message than will respondents with indirect experience or no experience (H4), such that (a) women with direct experience will demonstrate significantly less recall of the persuasive message than will women with indirect or no experience, (b) women with direct experience will generate significantly' more thoughts which are unrelated to the persuasive message (i.e. tangential information or memories), than will women with indirect or with no experience, and (c) women with direct experience will generate significantly poorer delayed recognition of the persuasive message, reporting fewer hits (message statements correctly identified as part of the original message) and more false alarms (new items incorrectly identified as part of the original message) , than will respondents with indirect or no experience. These perceptions of threat and efficacy will in turn influence whether the women engage in fear control or danger control. According to Witte (1992), danger control (and adaptive outcomes) occur when a message is perceived to be threatening and efficacious. Fear control (and maladaptive outcomes) occur when a message is perceived to be threatening 15 yet not efficacious. Because women with direct experience with rape should perceive a message to be more threatening, yet less efficacious than other women without direct experience, these women should pursue the fear control route. Hence, women with direct experience with rape will engage in fear control, yielding significantly less positive attitude and behavioral intention changes than will women with indirect experience or with no experience (35). Moreover, Witte (1992) suggested that fear control processes and.danger control processes can.beidistinguished.by the amount of emotion and cognition involved” "Danger control processes are primarily cognitive processes" (p. 340) in which the individual assesses perceived threat and efficacy, and concentrates on ways to avert the threat. In contrast, "fear control processes are defined as primarily emotional processes" (p. 340) in which the individual focuses on.ways to control and deal with the fear, and not the danger. This suggests that women engaged in danger control should demonstrate better cognitive processing and list fewer emotional thoughts in response to the persuasive message, while women engaged in fear control should demonstrate poorer cognitive processing and list more emotional thoughts. Given this, women engaged in danger control (those rating the persuasive message as threatening and efficacious) should demonstrate significantly better message recall, identifying more correct message statements and fewer incorrect message 16 statements (86a), should demonstrate significantly better message recognition, listing more hits and fewer false alarms (36b), and should list significantly fewer emotional thoughts than women engaged in fear control (those rating the message as threatening yet not efficacious) (36c). A final way to examine the differences between individuals pursuing danger control and those pursuing fear control is to examine correlations. between the outcome measures and perceived efficacy. Witte suggested that perceived efficacy is what determines which processing route will be pursued; high perceived.efficacy should trigger danger control while low perceived efficacy should trigger fear control. Thus, perceived efficacy should be positively correlated with correct message recall, hits, and danger control outcomes (positive attitude, belief and behavioral intention change), and negatively correlated with incorrect message recall, false alarms, emotional processing and fear control outcomes (negative attitude, belief and behavioral intention change) (H7). METHOD Overview For this project, a 3 x 2 (no/indirect/direct experience x low/high prior knowledge) factorial design was utilized. Respondents were pretested for prior knowledge about campus rape, prior experience with rape, and completed attitude, intention, and behavioral measures. Respondents then read a 17 high threat, high efficacy persuasive message (see Appendix A) which recommended specific actions that can be performed to increase their personal safety: learning how to use their voices to scream and protect themselves, and enrolling in a self—defense course (PES 106L, which is available through the physical education department). Immediately after the presentation of the message, respondents completed measures assessing mood, perceived threat, and perceived efficacy. Finally, free recall and prompted thought listing tasks were completed. After a 48 hour delay, posttest measures were administered which consisted of a memory recognition task, and attitude and behavioral intention measures. Respondents Two hundred and fifty three women enrolled in undergraduate communication courses at a large Midwestern university participated in the final study. Students earned extra credit for their' participation, and completed, the surveys in an anonymous and confidential fashion” 'The students created a four—digit code known only to them so that their pretest and posttest questionnaires could be matched. Women between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four represent the population most vulnerable to rape (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985), thus college women are an ideal sample for this study. 18 Stimulus Materials Pretest Measures Prior knowledge about campus rape was assessed by summing scores on true/false items to create a prior knowledge index (see Appendix B for all measures). This index consisted of statements which asserted factual information regarding the occurrence of campus rape, the chances of being raped by a stranger, the chances of being raped by aidate, the percentage of women who are sexually assaulted, information about the Department of Public Safety’s sexual assault guarantee program, and MSU’s national safety ranking according to a recent survey about campus rape. Experience was assessed by single item "yes"/"no" measures [i.e., "I am acquainted with someone who has been forced to have sexual intercourse against her will" (indirect experience), and "at some time in my-life, I have been forced to have“sexualwintercoursemwhen I did nOt WégFIEQP (direct experience)]. Prior attitudes, intentions and beliefs were measured by summing 7—point Likert—type items to create indices. The prior attitude about sexual assault index included four items (i.e., "sexual assault on campus is something that women need to be concerned about", and "sexual assault currently is a problem on campus"), while three items composed the prior intention to enroll in self-defense index (i.e., "I plan on taking PES 106L, self defense, this spring", and "I am thinking about taking a class in self-defense"). Finally, the prior beliefs about the efficacy of self defense 19 index included two items (i.e., "I believe that women.who have taken a self-defense course are more protected on campus than those who haven’t", and "women who have taken a self-defense course are better able to defend themselves than those who haven’t"). Persuasive Message A persuasive fear appeal targeted toward college women regarding campus rape was utilized. . The message included factual information regarding the occurrence, reporting, and prevention of rape at MSU. Message recommendations included learning hOW'tO use your voice to screanland.protect yourself, and enrolling in PBS 106L (a self-defense course offered by the physical education.department). The message was pretested with a separate sample, and rated in terms of perceived threat and perceived efficacy. Since Witte’s EPPM suggests utilizing a high threat, high efficacy message to encourage danger control processing, a high threat, high efficacy message was designed and utilized in this experiment. Mood Measure Respondents’ moods were assessed immediately after the presentation of the stimulus messagezby a ten item.index which included 7-point Likert-type items such as "the message made me feel anxious", and "the message made me feel afraid". Immediate Recall and Thought Listing Task After completing the mood measure, respondents were asked to recall the persuasive message. Instructions directed them 20 to try to recall as many message statements as possible from the message they had read, in addition to listing any thoughts or feelings the recalled message statement had evoked. Perceived Threat and Efficagy Measures Perceived threat and perceived efficacy both were assessed. by summing 7-point Likert-type items to create indices. Perceived threat was assessed by a five item index which included items such as "this message depicts sexual assault as (not at all - very) severe " and "this message depicts college women as being (the least - the most) susceptible to sexual assault". Perceived efficacy' was assessed by a four item index which included items such as "this message (does not - does) describe effective ways to avert sexual assault" and "this message (does not - does) describe actions that would help me protect myself from sexual assault". Delayed Memory Recognition Task Each respondent received a list of twelve randomly- ordered statements about campus rape. Six of these statements presented information which actually did appear in the stimulus 'message, and. six: of these statements presented information which did not appear in the stimulus message. Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not each statement had appeared in the persuasive message which they had read previously. The instructions indicated that some of the statements had not, in fact, been presented in the \. \p (, 21 persuasive message. Thus, for each respondent a total of six statements served as "hits" (i.e., message statements correctly identified as part of the original message), while the other six items served as "false alarms" (i.e., new items incorrectly identified as part of the original message). Posttest Measures Posttest attitudes, intentions and beliefs were measured by summing 7-point Likert-type items to create indices. The post attitude about sexual assault index included three items (i.e., "sexual assault on campus is something that women need to be concerned about", and "sexual assault currently is a problem on campus"), while three items composed the post intention to enroll in self-defense index (i.e., "I plan on taking PESlO6L, self defense, spring term", and "I am thinking about taking a class in self-defense"). Finally, the post beliefs about the efficacy of self defense index included two items (i.e., "I believe that women who have taken a self- defense course are more protected on campus than those who haven’t", and "women who have taken a self—defense course are better able to defend themselves than those who haven’t"). Independent and Dependent Variables The dependent variables were attitudes towards campus rape, beliefs about the efficacy of self-defense courses, intentions to utilize the message recommendation(s), message recall, prompted thoughts and feelings, and message recognition. The independent variables were amount of prior 22 knowledge with the issue of campus rape, levels of experience, and danger/fear control. RESULTS Overview The persuasive message initially was pretested with a separate sample (N = 39). T-test results indicated that the message was perceived to be a high threat (M = 5.92, SD = .93) and high efficacy (M = 5.39, S2 = 1.37) message, which was significantly different from the comparison.message, 1(2, 38) = -7.62, p < .05 for threat, (comparison message perceived threat M = 3.65, SD = 1.51), 1(2, 37) = -4.87, p < .05 for efficacy, (comparison message perceived efficacy M = 3.64, S2 = 1.61; scale range ==:1#7). Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that all measures were internally consistent with acceptable reliabilities, as shown below in Table 1. Table 1 Scales and Reliabilities From Confirmatory Factor Analysis Scale Alpha Threat .72 Efficacy .91 Prior Attitudes .73 Prior Intentions .81 Fear .94 Post Attitudes .85 Post Intentions .82 Two trained coders coded the message recall and thought listing tasks. These tasks were coded for number of correctly and incorrectly' identified. message statements, number‘ of 23 relevant and irrelevant thoughts or memories listed, and number (n: emotional thoughts/feelings listed. Intercoder reliabilities using Cohen’s Kappa were acceptable, as shown below in Table 2. Table 2 Intercoder Reliabilities Category Reliability Correct/Incorrect Message Statement K = 1.0 Related/Unrelated Thought K = .65 Emotional Thoughts/Feelings r = .94, p < .001 Hypotheses 1 through 5 were tested with a 3 x 2 ANOVA (no/indirect/direct experience x low/high prior knowledge) with the threat, efficacy and outcome measures as dependent variables. ANOVA techniques were chosen in order to better assess how audiences should be segmented for persuasive campaigns. Hypothesis 6 was tested with a series of T-tests examining the effects of danger/fear control on message recall, delayed recognition, and emotional thoughts/feelings listed, while Hypothesis 7 was tested with correlations. Prior Knowledge A significant main effect for prior knowledge on the threat measure was detected, F(1, 245) = 6.40, p < .01, eta2 = .03, however it was not in the anticipated direction. Respondents‘with.highgprior‘knowledgejperceived.thejpersuasive message to be significantly more threatening (M = 6.43, SQ = 24 .47) than respondents with low prior knowledge (M = 6.24, S2 = .60). Thus, the data did not support hypothesis one. Prior Experience No significant main effects were found for levels of experience on perceived threat or perceived efficacy, thus hypotheses two and three also were not supported by the data. Additionally, no significant main effects were found for levels of experience on the cognitive processing measures (i.e., ‘message recall, thoughts listed, and. ‘memory recognition); thus, hypothesis four was not supported by the data. The means and cell sizes and shown in Table 3 below. Table 3 Means and Cell Sizes for the Effects of Experience on Perceived Threat, Perceived Efficacy, and Cognitive Processing Direct Indirect No Cell size (39) (98) (114) Threat 6.34 6.28 6;32 Efficacy 5.22 5.29 5.21 Hits .88 .88 .86 False Alarms .44 .41 .42 Correct Recall 4.38 4.50 4.03 Incorrect Recall .26 .27 .30 Related Thoughts 6.08 5.85 4.98 Unrelated Thoughts .28 .20 .09 Emotional Thoughts 1.08 1.96 1.41 25 Outcome Measures A significant two-way interaction between level of experience and prior knowledge was found on intention change (intentions to enroll in a self—defense course), E(2, 245) = 3.94, p < .05, eta2 = .03. Post hoc contrast analyses were performed to better explore the nature of this interaction. This interaction proved to be significant and more substantial than originally was suspected, F(1,245) = 16.13, p < .05, Laz = .06 (see Table 4 below for cell sizes, means, and contrasts). This interaction suggests that prior knowledge has different effects on intention change when respondents have different levels of experience with rape. Women with no experience with rape demonstrated similar intentions to enroll in self-defense, regardless of their level of knowledge (low prior knowledge M = —.19, SD = .98; high prior knowledge M = - .25, SD = .99), and they were significantly different from each of the other groups. Women with direct experience with rape and low prior knowledge demonstrated significantly more positive intention change (M = .28, SD = 1.11) than those with direct experience and high prior knowledge (M = -.58, SM = .97). Respondents with indirect experience with rape and low prior knowledge demonstrated significantly less positive intention change (M = -.32, _S_D = 1.09) than those with indirect experience and high prior knowledge (M = -.02, S9 = 1.01). No other significant main effects or interactions were 26 detected, thus, the data did not support hypothesis five. Table 4 Means, Cell Sizes, and Contrasts for the Effects of Experience and Prior Knowledge on Intention Change Direct Indirect No High PK -.58 -.02 -.25 (12) (37) (37) c = -2 c = +1 c = 0 Low PK .28 -.32 -.19 (26) (61) (78) c = +2 c = —1 c = 0 Danger/Fear Control T-tests indicated a significant difference between.women engaged in fear control and those engaged in danger control regarding their recall of the persuasive message, 1(2, 246) = -2.21, p = .028. ‘Women engaged.in.danger control demonstrated significantly worse recall of the persuasive message, recalling more incorrect message statements (M = .38, S2 = .84) than those women engaged in fear control (M = .19, SD = .41). No other significant differences were found between the danger control group and the fear control group on the cognitive processing measures (i.e., thoughts listed, and memory recognition); thus, the data did.not support hypothesis six (see Table 5 below). 27 Table 5 Means and Cell Sizes for the Effects of Danger Control and Fear Control on Attitude Change. Belief Change. Intention Change, Cognitive and Emotional Processing Danger Control Fear Control Cell sizes (127) (121) Attitude Change -.09 -.09 Belief Change .43 .50 Intention Change -.12 —.25 Hits .88 .87 False Alarms .44 .39 Correct Recall 4.18 4.33 Incorrect Recall .38 .19* Emotional Thoughts 1.76 1.43 *indicates significant difference at .05 level The correlational analysis indicated that perceived efficacy was not significantly correlated with any of the outcome ‘measures (see Table 6 below). Also, the data indicated that correlations which were expected to be negative (those with the outcome measures of false alarms, incorrect recall and emotional thoughts) were, in fact, positiveu Thus, hypothesis seven was not supported by the data. Table 6 Correlations Between Perceived Efficacy and Outcome Measures Outcome measure Correlation Attitude Change .09 Belief Change -.02 Intention Change .04 Hits .02 False Alarms .04 Correct Recall .05 Incorrect Recall .13 Emotional Thoughts .04 28 Subsidiapy Analyses Additional analyses detected a significant main effect for levels of experience on the number of emotional thoughts/feelings listed in the thought listing task, 3(2, 246) = 4.97, p < .01, eta2 = .04. Respondents with direct experience with rape listed significantly fewer feelings (M = 1.08, SD = 1.31) than.both respondents with no experience with rape (M = 1.41, S_D = 1.41) and respondents with indirect experience with rape (M = 1.96, SD = 1.95). Furthermore, a significant main effect for prior knowledge on message recall was detected, E(l,246) = 14.05, p < .001, eta2 = .05. Respondents with high prior knowledge identified significantly more incorrect message statements (i.e., demonstrated worse message recall, M = .49, S2 = .90) than did respondents with low prior knowledge (M = .17, _p = .48). Finally, an interesting trend was revealed by the subsidiary analyses. Contrary to predictions suggested in the EPPM regarding differences between outcome variables for the danger and fear control groups (i.e. danger control should result in adaptive outcomes while fear control should result in maladaptive outcomes), no significant differences between the two groups were detected on the outcome measures of attitude change, intention change, or belief change. 29 DISCUSSION Mot—heme; This hypothesis suggested that women with high prior knowledge about the issue of campus rape would perceive the persuasive message to be significantly less threatening than women. with low prior‘ knowledge. Contrary’ to what was predicted, a significant main effect for prior knowledge on perceived threat was found in the opposite direction. Women with high prior knowledge perceived the persuasive message to be significantly more threatening than those with low prior knowledge. Rather than reducing the level of the threat experienced, high levels of prior knowledge seem to amplify the level of threat experienced. Prior knowledge appears to combine with the information.presented in the persuasive message to enhance the level of threat experienced by the individual. Because women with low prior knowledge may have less information with which to process and organize the information presented in the persuasive message (i.e. they may have smaller, and perhaps less structured schemata), their perceptions of threat were attenuated. Exam; This hypothesis posited that experience with rape would have a direct positive, linear impact upon perceptions of threat such that women with direct experience with rape perceived the most threat while women with no experience 30 perceived the least. The data did not support this hypothesis. One possible explanation for the lack of results was that most of the respondents perceived the message as threatening (M = 6.31, SD = .57, range = 1-7). This ceiling effect may have resulted from the message, from the type of items used in the perceived threat index, or possibly both. The message contained a vivid example of an acquaintance rape situation (evolving from an innocent study date), specific statistics about the occurrence of rape at MSU, and personalistic language. While Witte (1992) suggested the use of high threat, high efficacy messages to elicit danger control responses, this hypothesis may have been tested better with a moderate threat message which allowed for more variance in personal perceptions. Additionally, the items assessing perceived threat were worded in terms of how the message depicted the threat, rather than worded with personalistic language (i.e. "this message makes me feel). Using more personalistic language in the items may have captured the respondents’ individual perceptions more accurately. Finally, experience with an emotional event may influence individuals with varying levels of experience differently such that the effect appears to be the same, but for different reasons. For example, women who have been raped may perceive the message to be threatening because they have personal experience with the severity and susceptibility of the issue. Women who know someone who has been raped may rate the message 31 to be just as threatening because they have learned indirectly (or vicariously) about the severity and susceptibility of the issue through a close personal friendl Finally, women with no experience with rape (direct or indirect) may rate the message to be similarly threatening because the issue is portrayed as severe, they are portrayed as susceptible targets, and they may have high uncertainty and anxiety because the issue represents an "unknown" potential threat with which they have no experience. Thus, direct and indirect experience may influence the perceived threat of an issue by enhancing perceptions of severity and susceptibility, while lack of experience may influence perceived threat by enhancing the amount of uncertainty evoked. Hypothesis 3 This hypothesis predicted that experience with.rape*would influence perceptions of the efficacy of the recommended responses such that women with direct experience would perceive lower efficacy than. women. with indirect or“ no experience with rape. This hypothesis also was not supported by the data” .Again, most respondents perceived the message to be efficacious (M = 5.24, S2 = 1.26, range = 1—7). It seems that utilizing a moderate level efficacy message may have allowed for ‘more variance in. personal perceptions, thus providing a better test of this hypothesis. One reason for the lack of results is that, similar to the perceived threat items, the items assessing perceived efficacy focused on the 32 message and not personal feelings. If the items had been phrased in terms of "I think" or "I feel", rather than "this message depicted", more variance in personal perceptions may have been displayed. Wis—4 This hypothesis suggested that women with direct experience with rape should demonstrate significantly poorer processing of the persuasive message than respondents with indirect experience or no experience. The data did not support this hypothesis. Most respondents processed the message well, recalling a fair number of message statements (M = 4.27, SD = 1.65), while demonstrating substantial delayed recognition of the message with high hit rates (M = .87, fig = .14) and relatively low false alarm rates (M = .42, S2 = .26). Perhaps because the message focused on such a sensitive and threatening issue, all respondents paid more attention to the message, which resulted in better processing. Additionally, if women.with.direct experience were repressing their emotions their cognitive processing of the message would not have been interrupted” Since a repression construct was not assessed in this study, this explanation cannot be dismissed. Finally, the paired recall/thought listing task may not have assessed adequately hypothesis 4b, which suggested that women. with. direct experience should list more unrelated thoughts than other women. Because respondents were asked to recall message statements and list any thoughts or feelings 33 elicited by the statements, most thoughts listed were directly relevant to the statements recalled directly above them. Separating the thought listing from the recall task may have assessed this hypothesis more accurately. However, the data from this combined task may prove to be very useful in terms of creating future messages about campus rape because they indicate how women received particular message statements. Hypothesis 5 This hypothesis predicted that women with direct experience with rape would demonstrate significantly less positive attitude and behavioral intention changes than women with indirect experience or no experience with rape. Since this hypothesis depended on the outcomes from hypotheses 2 and 3, it also was not supported by the data. No significant differences were detected on the attitude change measures. Additionally, the two-way interaction for intention change indicated that levels of prior knowledge also must be considered in order to explain the results. Contrary to what was predicted, the group yielding the highest intention change was women with direct experience with rape and low prior knowledge. These women may represent a group of women who have not confronted their rapes and have not sought out support or educational groups. Because these women may not understand how to acknowledge or cope with their rapes, they may display more positive intentions to learn how to protect themselves. A self-defense course could provide an anonymous 34 environment in which they could learn how to protect themselves and where no one would need to know that they had been raped. Alternatively, women with direct experience and high prior knowledge displayed the most negative intention change. These women may have acknowledged their rapes and even become cynical regarding the futility of protecting themselves. Thus, they should.appear less motivated.to change their intentions. All other groups also exhibited negative intention change. These women may not have been motivated to change their intentions because they adhere to some other belief processes, such as perceived invulnerability, which make them feel relatively safe from the threat of rape. This possibility will be discussed more fully in directions for future research. Hypothesis 6 This hypothesis posited that women engaged in danger control would demonstrate better cognitive processing and list fewer emotional thoughts/feelings in response to the persuasive message, while women engaged in fear control would demonstrate poorer cognitive processing and list more emotional thoughts/feelings. Contrary to what was expected, women engaged in danger control demonstrated significantly worse recall of the persuasive message. No other significant differences emerged between women engaged in danger control and those engaged in fear control on the cognitive processing measures or the number of feelings listed” These results seem 35 to contradict the characteristics posited for the two distinct danger control and fear control routes in the EPPM. It may be inaccurate to describe one route as more "cognitive" and another as more "emotional," and indeed, many emotion researchers suggest that both components are necessary to experience emotion (Frijda, 1993; Mandler, 1984; Parrott & Schulkin, 1993). Eminfiis—Z This hypothesis suggested that perceived efficacy would be positively correlated with correct message recall, hits, and danger control outcomes, and negatively correlated with incorrect message recall, false alarms, emotional processing, and fear control outcomes. The data did not support this hypothesis, and yielded insignificant correlations in the opposite direction of what the EPPM suggested. Considered jointly, the results from hypotheses six and seven suggest that the danger control and fear control processes need to be further examined and more thoroughly explicated, since what has been posited to occur in these processes did not seem to occur in this experiment. W Subsequent data analyses indicated significant trends in the data. First, women with direct experience with rape listed significantly fewer emotional thoughts than other women. While a repression construct was not measured in this study, these women conceivably could have repressed any 36 emotions that memories of their experiences triggered. .Alternatively, these*women.actually'may have experienced fewer emotions in response to the message, while those without direct experience may have responded.more emotionally because they possess uncertainty and anxiety about rape. A second trend was that women with high prior knowledge demonstrated poorer message recall than women with low prior knowledge. A possible explanation for these results is that women with more knowledge about an issue may have larger, more complex and connected schemata about the issue. Activating one schematic structure may activate additional structures which contain knowledge that was not present in the original message. Hence, because these women possess high prior knowledge about rape they were more likely to recall statements that were not present in the original message. A final trend in the data seems to contradict propositions of the EPPM. Specifically, the EPPM suggests that individuals who perceive a message to be threatening yet efficacious (i.e. those engaged in danger control) should demonstrate more positive attitude and intention changes than those who perceive a message to be threatening and not efficacious (i.e. those engaged in fear control). The results from this study suggest that simply separating respondents according to levels of perceived threat and efficacy does not explain the outcome measures adequately. Given that most of the respondents in this sample ‘perceived the persuasive 37 message to be threatening and efficacious, most of these respondents should have been motivated to change their attitudes and intentions. This, however, was not the case (attitude change M = -.09, S2 = .57, intention change M = - .18, S_D = 1.03). Again, it appears that some type of processing or beliefs may be interfering with women’s perceptions of threat and their decisions tijursue protective action. This possibility will be detailed more specifically after discussion of some of the limitations of this study. LIMITATIONS This study provides a first attempt at examining the cognitive processing and reception of persuasive fear appeals, and as such, only examined one type of persuasive fear appeal message. While this study provides a test of the EPPM in a new context (i.e. rape instead of AIDS), it only does so in a very limited fashion. Previous tests of the EPPM have examined persuasive fear appeals with three levels of threat and two levels of efficacy. This study examined how individual difference variables influence the reception of a single high threat, high efficacy message. Furthermore, the EPPM suggests that individuals pursuing maladaptive responses may engage in defensive avoidance or reactance. Women in this study may have engaged in these processes, but they were not assessed in this study. Just as individual differences influenced the reception of the persuasive fear appeal, they too may influence defensive 38 avoidance and reactance and therefore should be explored in future research. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH These results offer a complex picture of the reception of persuasive fear appeals related to campus sexual assault, and highlight the importance of examining prior knowledge and experienceu Considering the concept of prior knowledge first, these findings suggest that individuals with high levels of prior knowledge about rape perceive a persuasive message to be more threatening than individuals with low levels of prior knowledge. Moreover, women with high prior knowledge recalled more incorrect message statements than did individuals with low prior knowledge. In terms of designing effective persuasive fear appeal messages about campus rape, this research suggests that the target audience should be segmented regarding the amount of prior knowledge possessed, and these audiences should receive different messages. Thus, prior knowledge represents an important construct to be further explored by fear appeal researchers. The influence of experience on message reception also represents an important area for fear appeal researchers to pursue. The only group of respondents who demonstrated positive intention change (i.e., intentions to enroll in self- defense) was those with direct experience with rape and low prior knowledge. All other respondents demonstrated negative intention change. Those individuals who lack knowledge about 39 an issue but have experience with it seem to be easier to persuade than those who have both knowledge and experience with an issue, or lack both. Therefore, more creative and unique persuasive strategies may be required in order to effectively motivate audiences with various levels of prior knowledge and experience. Furthermore, while this study offers only a very limited test of the many propositions described in the EPPM, it does raise some interesting questions. First, individuals engaged in danger control were not found to be any more cognitive or less emotional than those engaged in fear control. These findings contradict the EPPM, and beg the question of how individuals arrive at their decisions. Obviously, this is an area ripe for additional research, and future work should examine the impact of both cognitive and emotional processes on persuasive outcome measures. Perhaps the most interesting question was raised by the trends displayed by the data. While most individuals perceived the persuasive message to be threatening and efficacious, most individuals were not motivated to change their attitudes or intentions and actually demonstrated negative attitude and intention change. Again, these findings contradict the EPPM and seem to suggest that the issue of rape against women represents a complicated persuasive topic. Unlike AIDS prevention (which has been the focus of much of the research utilizing the EPPM) in which an individual has 40 ‘many efficacious options with the potential to create feelings of safety and.protection (i.e., "if I remain abstinent.I won’t get AIDS"), rape represents a threat which can never definitely be avoided. A woman may be able to learn self- defense, but is never guaranteed that it will work. Therefore, while persuasive messages about rape can suggest efficacious responses, they can never provide the feelings of safety and protection that can be conveyed in messages which address other issues. Given the pervasiveness of rape against women.across the nation.and on college campuses in.particular, researchers need to examine this issue further, focusing specific attention to how these feelings of safety and protection can be conveyed. Finally, these results suggest that when utilizing fear appeal campaigns, persuasive outcomes cannot be explained simply by assessing individuals’ levels of perceived threat and perceived efficacy. Something seems to be interfering with women’s assessments of severity and susceptibility and their ultimate intentions to pursue protective action. Campus rape may represent an issue that is so threatening to women that they look to other beliefs in order to dismiss this potential threat. For example, if a woman accepts Lerner's just world hypothesis (1965) (which suggests that people get what they deserve, i.e. bad things happen to bad people) she may be able to dismiss herself from the category "susceptible targets" and thus perceive herself invulnerable to the threat 41 of rape. Consequently, no protective action would be pursued. Future research should continue to explore the issue of rape against women and attempt to explicate the processes that are preventing women from protecting themselves. APPENDICES 42 APPENDIX A Persuasive Message Student "M", a lst year female student, was on a study date before a big exam with a cute guy from class. They had been studying for a couple hours in.his room when he suggested they take a break. "All of a sudden he started acting really romantic and started.kissing”me. ] liked.the kissing but then he started touching me below the waist. I tried to stop him but he didn’t listen. He was so much.bigger and stronger than me, I couldn’t believe this was happening to me. He actually forced me to have sex with him." Anyone can commit rape-~it could be a complete stranger, an acquaintance, or your date. Realize, also, that this isn’t just a crime that happens to "other people". IT CAN HAPPEN TO YOU. The fact that you, as a student, could.be the victim of sexual assault is not often considered.by most students. Women.don’t like to think about it. IT’S TIME TO THINK. These are the facts: 1. Out.of 2,400 colleges surveyed, Michigan State University reported the 2nd highest number of sexual assaults on campus. 2. As a woman you have a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted at some time in your life. That means that if you live with three other women, one of you may be sexually assaulted before you graduate. 3. Only a tiny fraction of crimes are reported. Consistently ten times the number of sexual assault cases are reported to counseling offices than are reported to police. Based upon calls to the MSU sexual assault crisis line, 2 sexual assaults occurred every day last year. The Department of Public Safety was so concerned with this problem that they instituted a sexual assault guarantee program. This program encourages students to report sexual assault crimes and guarantees fair treatment. While this is a step in the right direction, it deals with the issue of sexual assault after it already has occurred. For many people, this is too late. 43 It is important for you to realize that you can take specific actions tijrotect yourself on campus. Counselors and.experts have compiled a list of guidelines for effective behaviors women should adopt. Two of the most effective include: 1. MAKE NOISE. Learn how to use your voice so that if you are in an attack situation (be it stranger or acquaintance), an automatic response is to yell or scream, rather than stay silent. Police have stated that the #1 thing that can prevent attack is noise. 2 . LEARN HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF. Do not expect that others will take care of you. Learn how to defend yourself before you need to. Research clearly shows that women who have had self-defense are less likely to be chosen as victims. A self— defense course is available through the PE department. The course number is PESlO6L, sign up for it for spring term. 44 APPENDIX B Measures Prior Knowledge The overall crime rate at MSU has decreased since 1991. There are 10 times the number of sexual assaults reported to counseling offices than are reported to the campus police. The number of sexual assaults reported in 1992 at MSU was even higher than the number which were reported in 1991. Compared to other college universities, MSU reported the second—highest number of sexual assaults in the nation in 1991. The Department of Public Safety currently provides a sexual assault guarantee program to students at MSU. According to statistics, there is a higher chance that a woman may be forced to have sexual intercourse against her will by an acquaintance or by a date than by a stranger. According to statistics, one out of every four women has a chance of being sexually assaulted in her lifetime. Experience I am acquainted with someone who has been forced to have sexual intercourse against her will. At some time in my life, I have been forced to have sexual intercourse when I did not want to. Prior Intent I plan on taking PESlO6L (self defense) spring term, or I have already taken it. I am thinking about taking a class in self defense, or I have already taken one. I have talked with my friends or family about the idea of enrolling myself in a course in self-defense. Prior Attitude Sexual assault on campus is something that women need to be concerned about. Sexual assault on campus is an important problem on campus that women should take more seriously. Sexual assault currently is a problem on campus. College women should NOT assume that sexual assault won't happen to them. 45 Prior Belief I believe that women who have taken a self-defense course are more protected on campus than those who haven’t. Women who have taken a self-defense course are better able to defend themselves than those who haven’t. Fear Reading the message has made me feel/I feel frightened, anxious, upset, tense, nervous, mad, apprehensive, threatened, afraid, angry Perceived Threat This message depicts sexual assault as not at all/the most severe. This message depicts college women as being the least/the most susceptible to sexual assault. This message depicts sexual assault as not at allZextremely serious. The message described the issue of sexual assault on campus as a serious problem Perceived Efficacy This message does notldoes describe effective ways to avert sexual assault. This message does not/does tell me about effective ways to protect myself from sexual assault. This message does not/does describe methods that successfully prevent sexual assault. This message does not/does describe actions that would.help me protect myself from sexual assault. Memory'Recognition Police have stated that the #1 thing that can prevent attack is noise. Anyone can commit rape--it could be a complete stranger, an acquaintance, or your date. There may be attack instances where you are unable to fight back. As a woman you have a one in four chance of being sexually assaulted at some time in your life. In a recent survey, 84% of women attacked.knew their attacker. Based upon calls to the MSU sexual assault crisis line, 2 sexual assaults occurred every day last year. Because we have the DPS sexual assault guarantee program, we may be getting more sexual assault crimes reported than other colleges which do not have such a program. One of the reasons MSU reported.so many sexual assaults in the nationwide survey is because we have one of the largest student populations in the nation. Research clearly shows that women who have had self—defense training are less likely to be chosen as victims. 46 Out of 2,400 colleges surveyed, Michigan State University reported the 2nd highest number of sexual assaults on campus. Women are more likely to be attacked.by'a date or acquaintance than by a stranger. Only 5% of women who have been forced to have sexual intercourse against their will have visited or sought help at counseling centers. ENDNOTES 1Negative linear (or resistance) explanations such as the one posited by Janis (1967), hypothesized that as perceived fear decreased, respondents attitudes and/or behaviors more closely parallelled the message recommendations. 2Curvilinear explanations hypothesized that the greatest amount of attitude and/or behavior change occurred when the level of the perceived fear was moderate, rather than at low or high levels of perceived fear. 47 LI ST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Beck, K.H., & Frankel, A. (1981). A conceptualization of threat communications and protective health behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 3, 204-217. Burnett, J.J., & Oliver, R.L. (1979). Fear appeal effects in the field: .A segmentation approach. qurnal of Marketing Research, ;§, 181-190. Boster, F.J., & Mongeau, P. (1984). Fear-arousing persuasive messages. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 8 (pp. 330-375). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Brown, R. & Kulik, J. (1977). Flashbulb memories. Cognition, p, 73-99. Chu, G.C. (1967). Prior familiarity, perceived.bias, and one- sided versus two-sided communications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 243-254. Dabbs, J.M., & Leventhal, H. (1966). Effects of varying the recommendations in a fear-arousing communication, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 525-531. Davidson, A.R., Yantis, 8., Norwood, M., & Montano, D.E. (1985). Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude-behavior consistency; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1184-1198. Dillard, J.P. (1993). Rethinking phe study of fear appeals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Washington, D.C. Dziokonski, W., & Weber, S.J. (1977). Repression- sensitization, perceived vulnerability, and the fear appeal communication. The Jgurnal of Social Psychology, 102, 105- 112. Eberhage, M.G., Polek, D., & Hynan, M.T. (1985). Similar effects of different threats on perceptual processes. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, g3, 470-472. 48 49 Fazio, R.H., & Zanna, M.P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 161-202). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Frijda, N.H. (1993). The place of appraisal in emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 357-387. Goldstein, M.J. (1959). The relationship between coping and avoiding behavior and response to fear—arousing propaganda. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 247-252. Hale, J., & Mongeau, P. (May, 1991). Testing a causal model of the persuasive impact of feer appeals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Chicago. Higbee, K.L. (1970). Fifteen years of fear arousal: Research on threat appeals: 1953-1968. Psychological Bulletin, 12, 426-444. Hill, D., & Gardner, G. (1980). Repression-sensitization.and yielding to threatening health communications. Australian Journal of Psychology, 32, 183-193. Janis, I.L. (1967). Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent developments in theory and research, In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 3), (pp. 166-224). New‘York; .Academic. Janis, I.L., & Feshbach, S. (1953). Effects of fear-arousing communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, ee, 78—92. Janis, I.L., & Feshbach, S. (1954). Personality differences associated with responsiveness to fear-arousing communications. Journel of Personality, 2;, 154-166. Jepson, C., &.Chaiken, S. (1990). Chronic issue-specific fear inhibits systematic processing of persuasive communications. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 61-84. Kallgren, C.A., & Wood, W. (1986). Access to attitude- relevant information in memory as a determinant of attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 328-338. Koss, M.P., & Harvey, M.R. (1991). The rape victimn Clinical and community interventions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 50 Lerner, M.J. (1965) . Observer’s evaluations of performance as a function of performer’s reward and attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ;, 355-360. Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol.5, pp. 119-186) . New York: Academic Press. Leventhal, H. (1971). Fear appeals and persuasion: The differentiation of a motivational construct. American Journal of Public Health, pi, 1205-1224. Maddux, J.E., & Rogers, R.W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, ig, 469-479. Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: Psychology of emotion and stress. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Millman, S. (1968). .Anxiety, comprehension.and.susceptibility to social influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 251-256. Mongeau, P. (in press). Fear-arousing persuasive messages: A meta-analysis revisited. In M. Allen & R.W. Preiss (Eds.), Persuasion: Advances through meta-analysis. Parrott, W.G., & Schulkin, J. (1993). Neuropsychology and the cognitive nature of the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 1, 43-59. Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205). San Francisco: Academic Press. Regan, D.T., & Fazio, R.H. (1977). On the consistency between attitudes and behavior: Look to the method of attitude formation, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, ;;, 28-45. Rippetoe, P.A., & Rogers, R.W. (1987). Effects of components of protection-motivation theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 596-604. Rogers, R.W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 9;, 93-114. 51 Rogers, R.W. (1983). Cognitive and.physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology (pp. 153—176). New York: Guilford. Simon, H.A. (1967). Motivational and emotional controls of cognition. Peychological Review, 13, 29-39. Simon, H.A. (1982). Comments. In M.S. Clark & S.T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 333-342). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Smith, S.W., Morrison, K., Kopfman, J.E., & Ford, L.A. (1994). The influence of prior thought and intent on the memorability and persuasiveness of organ donation message strategies. Health Communication, e, 1-20. Sutton, S.R. (1982). Fear-arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and research. In J.R. Eisner (Ed.), Social psychology and behavioral medicine. New York: John Wiley. Warshaw, R. (1988). I never called it rape: The Ms. report on recognizing, fighting, and surviving date and acgpaintance rape. New York: Harper & Row. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: Reconciling the literature. Communication Monographs, 52, 329-349. Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, pl, 113-134. Wood, W. (1982). Retrieval of attitude-relevant information from memory: Effects on susceptibility to persuasion and on intrinsiC‘motivation” .Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 798-810. Wu, C., & Shaffer, D.R. (1987). Susceptibility to persuasive appeals as a function of source credibility and prior experience with the attitude object. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 677-688.