The Effects of Appraised Severity and Efficacy in Promoting Water Conservation: An Informational Analysis

To test Rogers' protection motivation theory and Fishbein's behavioral intention model, subjects observed one of four water conservation films which differed according to message severity (high/low) and efficacy of conserving (high/low). A questionnaire assessed the impact of the films on (1) the arguments (informational items) presented; (2) beliefs external to the films; (3) fear arousal; (4) Fishbein's mediating variables SN and Aact; (5) appraised severity and efficacy; and (6) behavioral intention to conserve water. High efficacy and low severity messages increased positive evaluative attitudes (Aact) toward conserving water. Although there was no effect for these manipulations on behavioral intention, the film groups, when compared with a control group which did not observe a fdm, showed significantly greater intentions to conserve water. These results are accounted for through an informational analysis of the beliefs affected by the films. This analysis provided evidence that feelings of citizen's duty to conserve water and concern about the water situation are closely related to behavioral intentions. This analysis did not support Fishbein's assertion of a dominant mediational role for SN and/or Aact in predicting behavioral intentions. The possible inclusion of a moral norm measure as a third component of Fishbein's model is discussed.

[1]  R. Hodgson Evidence of Two Kinds of Fear Aroused by Threat Appeals , 1977, Psychological reports.

[2]  H. Leventhal,et al.  Effects of varying the recommendations in a fear-arousing communication. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  K. Higbee,et al.  Fifteen years of fear arousal: research on threat appeals: 1953-1968. , 1969, Psychological bulletin.

[4]  I. Janis,et al.  Effect of fear-arousing communications. , 1953, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[5]  Kenneth H. Beck The effects of positive and negative arousal upon attitudes, belief acceptance, behavioral intention, and behavior. , 1979, The Journal of social psychology.

[6]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  Fear Appeals: Revisited and Revised , 1974 .

[7]  Shalom H. Schwartz,et al.  A test of a model for reducing measured attitude-behavior discrepancies. , 1972 .

[8]  David Brinberg,et al.  An Examination of the Determinants of Intention and Behavior: A Comparison of Two Models , 1979 .

[9]  J. C. Watts,et al.  Effects of fear and instructions on how to cope with danger. , 1967, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[10]  H. Leventhal,et al.  EFFECTS OF FEAR AND SPECIFICITY OF RECOMMENDATION UPON ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[11]  False physiological feedback and persuasion: effect of fear arousal vs. fear reduction on attitude change. , 1975, Journal of personality.

[12]  K. Higbee What is the “Fear” in a Fear-Arousing Appeal? , 1974, Psychological reports.

[13]  G C Chu,et al.  Fear arousal, efficacy, and imminency. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1. , 1975, The Journal of psychology.

[15]  D. Thistlethwaite,et al.  Effects of fear arousal andreassurance on attitude change. , 1970, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[16]  S. J. Kantola,et al.  The Role of Individual Differences and External Variables in a Test of the Sufficiency of Fishbein's Model to Explain Behavioral Intentions to Conserve Water , 1982 .