Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • The Utility of Choice-Enhancing Language in Emergency Preparedness Messages: An Application of Psychological Reactance Theory

  • Tobias Reynolds-Tylus, Andrea Martinez Gonzalez
  • Journal:
    Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness / Volume 15 / Issue 3 / June 2021
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    03 April 2020, pp. 282-285
  • Objective:

    This study uses psychological reactance theory as a framework for designing effective emergency preparedness messages. Psychological reactance is the motivational state that occurs when individuals perceive their freedom to be threatened. From the standpoint of persuasive message design, reactance is an undesirable outcome that should be avoided whenever possible.

    Methods:

    Participants (N = 174) were randomly assigned to view 1 of 2 emergency preparedness messages (choice-enhancing language [“the choice is yours”] vs choice-restricting language [“you must”]) in a between-subjects-posttest-only online survey experiment.

    Results:

    Structural equation modeling revealed that choice-restricting language resulted in greater freedom threat and subsequent reactance. Reactance resulted in a diminished attitude and subsequent intention to prepare an emergency kit.

    Conclusion:

    Public health practitioners would benefit from the inclusion of choice-enhancing language in their public communications, alongside the exclusion of choice-restricting language. Pretesting of messages is recommended to avoid eliciting reactance and subsequent boomerang effects.