Article

When Risk Communication Backfires: Randomized Controlled Trial on Self-Affirmation and Reactance to Personalized Risk Feedback in High-Risk Individuals

Centre of Research Excellence for Chronic Respiratory Disease.
Health Psychology (Impact Factor: 3.95). 05/2013; 32(5):561-70. DOI: 10.1037/a0029887
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objective: Health promotion often faces the problem that populations with high behavioral risk profiles respond defensively to health promotion messages by negating risk or reactant behavior. Self-affirmation theory proposes that defensive reactions are an attempt of the self-system to maintain integrity. In this article, we examine whether a self-affirmation manipulation can mitigate defensive responses to personalized visual risk feedback in the skin cancer prevention context (ultraviolet [UV] photography), and whether the effects pertain to individuals with high behavioral risk status (high personal relevance of tanning). Method: We conducted a full-factorial randomized controlled trial (N = 292; age 11-71) following a 2 * 2 design (UV photo yes/no, self-affirmation yes/no). Follow-up period was 2 weeks. Subsequent tanning behavior, sun avoidance intentions, and risk perception. Results: A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed a three-way interaction between risk feedback, the self-affirmation manipulation, and risk status for the three outcome measures. Follow-up analyses of variance (ANOVAs) indicated that high-risk individuals receiving only the risk feedback intervention reacted defensively and reported higher exposure. A self-affirmation manipulation mitigates this reactance effect both on the level of cognitions and behavior. Conclusion: Self-affirmation has influential implications not only for Social Psychology but also for health prevention measures. The findings support the effectiveness of self-affirmation in reducing reactant and defensive reactions to personalized visual risk feedback. Interactions with health risk status indicate that self-affirmation might increase the effectiveness of health promotion messages in high-risk populations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).

1 Follower
 · 
99 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims: This study tests whether enhancing alcohol risk messages with self-affirmation, the process of focusing on cherished aspects of oneself, increases intentions to reduce alcohol consumption and reduces actual alcohol consumption. It was also examined whether these effects differed by risk status as indicated by standard drinks consumed in an average week. Methods: Participants (n = 121) were randomly allocated to a self-affirmation or matched control condition before viewing emotive graphic alcohol warning posters in a questionnaire-based study. Results: There were significant increases in intentions to reduce alcohol consumption in self-affirmed participants, and these effects were stronger in participants with higher behavioural risk. Intentions in turn significantly predicted a reduction in self-reported alcohol consumption. Conclusions: These findings support the use of self-affirmation to enhance alcohol awareness campaigns, particularly in individuals with high behavioural risk.
    Alcohol and Alcoholism 03/2013; 48(4). DOI:10.1093/alcalc/agt027 · 2.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Self-affirmation (induced by reflecting upon important values, attributes, or social relations) appears to reduce defensive resistance to health-risk information and increase subsequent readiness for health behavior change. However, these effects of self-affirmation have yet to be subjected to formal, quantitative integration. Consequently, the current article reports a meta-analysis of the impact of self-affirmation on outcomes at 3 key points in the process of health-behavior change: (a) message acceptance, (b) intentions to change, and (c) subsequent behavior. Method: The literature search identified 144 experimental tests of the effects of manipulating self-affirmation on these outcomes. Effect sizes were extracted and meta-analyzed. Results: Across 34 tests of message acceptance (N = 3,433), 64 tests of intentions (N = 5,564), and 46 tests of behavior (N = 2,715), random effects models indicated small but reliable positive effects of self-affirmation on each outcome: acceptance, d+ = .17(CI = .03 to.31); intentions, d+ = .14 (CI = .05 to .23); behavior, d+ = .32 (CI = .19 to .44). Findings held across a range of health problems and behaviors. Conclusions: The results suggest that deploying self-affirmation inductions alongside persuasive health information has positive effects, promoting message acceptance, intentions to change, and subsequent behavior. Though the effects are small in magnitude, they are comparable to those obtained in meta-analyses of other health-behavior change interventions. These findings are relevant to researchers and practitioners working to understand why people resist beneficial health information and how such resistance can be reduced. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Health Psychology 08/2014; 34(3). DOI:10.1037/hea0000116 · 3.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Smokers and non-smokers can encounter a variety of anti-smoking messages in their everyday life. Anti-smoking warnings often involve fear appeals to which particularly smokers may react in a defensive manner by avoiding or derogating the messages, or downplaying their personal risk. However, previous studies testing the effects of anti-smoking warnings have either been retrospective or lab-based, thus introducing potential recall biases and yielding limited ecological validity. We used ecological momentary assessment (EMA) to give an overview on the number, type, and locations where individuals encounter such messages and to examine their immediate reactions. In an EMA study, 33 smokers and 37 never-smokers logged every encounter with anti-smoking warnings during 2.5 weeks (1,237 participant days of monitoring). After randomly selected encounters, several markers of defensiveness were assessed. On average, non-smokers reported noticing significantly fewer warnings than smokers (M = 0.49/day vs. M = 2.14/day). Both groups saw the majority of warnings on cigarette packages. Smokers reported a significantly higher level of message derogation and a significantly lower level of message acceptance than non-smokers. There were no differences in feelings of vulnerability between smokers and non-smokers upon encountering the warnings. The overall number of encounters with anti-smoking warnings in people's everyday life is relatively low, particularly among smokers. Smokers are likely to avoid messages and respond defensively, thus limiting their potential effectiveness. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
    Nicotine & Tobacco Research 12/2014; 17(7). DOI:10.1093/ntr/ntu253 · 2.81 Impact Factor