Social Influence in Personally Relevant Contexts: The Respect Attributed to the Source as a Factor...

Social Influence in Personally Relevant Contexts: The Respect Attributed to the Source as a Factor Increasing Smokers’ Intention to Quit Smoking1

FEDERICA INVERNIZZI? JUAN MANUEL FALOMIR-PICHASTOR, DANIEL MUROZ-ROJAS, AND GABRIEL MUGNY

University of Geneva Geneva. Switzerland

The study examined the effects of the status of the source in personally relevant persuasion contexts. Smokers (N = 117) with either weak or strong identity as smokers were exposed to an anti-smoking message, targeting either the tobacco industry or smokers, and attributed either to a health institute or a neighborhood association. The main dependent variable was the change in intention to quit smoking. As expected, the neighborhood association was considered more respectful of the freedom of choice of the target than was the health institute. In high personal relevance conditions ( i q participants with strong identi- ties as smokers and message explicitly targeting smokers), smokers strengthened their intention to quit smoking when the source was the neighborhood association, but decreased it when the source was the health institute. Implications for health campaign implementation are discussed.

The debate concerning cigarette smoking and smoking-related issues (e.g., passive exposure to smoking) nowadays engages public opinion to a considerable degree while governments are implementing health policies on a massive scale in order to discourage smoking onset and to induce reduced smoking and eventually smoking cessation. Most of the health campaigns targeting smokers rely on the assumption that if individuals are aware of the negative effects of tobacco, both from a physical and a social point of view, then they will not smoke. Drawing mainly on information processing models (Maibach & Parrot, 1995), such campaigns convey health-related information on the negative effects associated with smoking (cf. Chassin, Presson, & Sherman, 1990). Such information does seem to have been disseminated effectively since both smokers and nonsmokers are

‘This study was supported by the National Foundation for Scientific Research, Switzerland. The authors thank the Geneva Business School’s staff and students, as well as Sophie Bernard, Carine Layat, and Alain Quiamzade for their help in collecting data. We also thank Fabrizio Butera and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper.

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Federica Invernizzi or Juan M. Faloinir-Pichastor, Universite de Geneve, FPSE, Psychoiogie Sociale, 40 bd. du Pont d‘ Awe, CH- 1205 Geneva, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected]

1818

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2003, 33, 9, pp. 181 8-1 836. Copyright 0 2003 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

SOCIAL INFLUENCE IN PERSONALLY RELEVANT CONTEXTS 181 9

becoming increasingly aware of the consequences of smoking (Goldman & Glantz, 1998) and more willing to acknowledge the risks associated with tobacco consumption and the benefits linked with nonconsumption (e.g., Brownson et al., 1992).

Despite extensive anti-smoking legislation and smokers’ acknowledgement of the risks associated with tobacco consumption, consumption rates continue to rise in many countries (Institut Suisse de PrCvention a L’Alcoolisme et autres Toxicomanies [ISPA], 1999; Kaufman & Yach, 2000; Office Federal de la Statis- tique [OFS], 1998; World Health Organization [WHO], 2000), whereas the quitting rates seem to remain stable (cf. OFS, 1998). Hence, it appears that risk acknowledgment is not necessarily associated with the decision not to smoke or to a behavioral change (i.e., quitting smoking), Rather, exposure to health messages often produces defensiveness and resistance, and these in turn preclude any possible change (e.g., Liberman & Chaiken, 1992; Weinstein & Klein, 1995). The present contribution thus will analyze some of the factors moderating such defensive motivation. More precisely, the issue will be tackled by suggesting that identity involvement and the type of influence relationship through which change is achieved interact to determine the impact of the persuasion attempt.

Target’s Involvement

It is recognized nowadays that smoking accomplishes an identity-related function when it is initiated (Biddle et al., 1985; Chassin et al., 1990; Gray, Amos, & Currie, 1997), as well as in the maintenance (Falomir & Invernizzi, 1999; Shadel & Merlmestein, 1996; Shadel, Merlmestein, & Borrelli, 1996) of the behavior. Being confronted with events that carry undesirable implications for one’s identity (e.g., being exposed to persuasion attempts challenging an important part of one’s self-image) is likely to be experienced as a threat. Conse- quently, it will lead individuals to be defensively motivated to restore their self- image by denying that they are at risk and in need of modifying their behavior (cf. Baumeister, 1996; Sherman, Nelson, & Steele, 2000; Steele, 1988; Tesser & Cornell, 199 I) . According to persuasion models, such a defensive motivation can result in biased or selective processing of information (Chaiken, Giner-Sorolla, & Chen, 1996; Johnson & Eagly, 1989).

Several studies have shown defensive processing of information to be a widely used strategy to ward off identity-threatening situations. For instance, Lundgren and Prislin (1 998) experimentally manipulated participants’ motivation (inducing either accuracy, defensive, or impression motives) and found that defensively motivated participants focused almost exclusively on information supporting their preferred position, and that they combined this with self- generated arguments. Liberman and Chaiken (1 992; see also Kunda, 1987) showed that participants (coffee drinkers) for whom the persuasive message was

1820 INVERNlZZl ET AL.

personally relevant (pointing to a link between caffeine and cystic fibrosis) pro- cessed the threatening parts of the message defensively; that is, they were less critical of reassuring information and more critical of threatening information. Falomir and Invernizzi ( 1 999) showed that smokers, for whom the persuasive message (an anti-smoking message) was particularly relevant (i.e., those with a strong identity as smokers), inferred greater peer support for smoking than did smokers for whom the message did not assume much importance. That is, the former sought support for their position in order to preserve and defend their threatened self-concept.

In another study, Freeman, Hennessy, and Marzullo (2001) exposed a sample of smokers and nonsmokers to several anti-smoking video segments. They showed that smoking status, current smoking identity, and long-term future smoking identity were significantly associated with defensive evaluation of anti- smoking messages. In particular, their results showed that smokers with a long- term future smoking identity appeared to respond most defensively to the anti- smoking messages, and thus long-term future smoking identity was the best pre- dictor of individual differences in response to the messages.

Nevertheless, defensive processing of persuasive information-and consequently the maintenance or polarization of the initial position-is not the only strategy individuals have at their disposal for coping with a threat to their identity. The objective elaboration of such information, and thus a change from the initial position, can also be considered as a way of avoiding the threat (cf. Leventhal, 1970; Witte, 1992). Thus, threatening persuasive attempts may lead recipients to question their beliefs, their behaviors, or even their identity, and consequently to be more willing to change in order to attain a more valued or desired position, rather than to display resistance. This contribution analyzes some of the factors turning the threat to identity either into a drive to change or into a motivation to resist.

Type of Influence Relationship

Since any attempt to change identity-related attitudes is likely to be experienced as a threat, persuasive attempts will need to balance the threat introduced by their content with complementary factors that can help maintaining targets’ positive self-concepts (e.g., see Sherman et al., 2000). According to the social influence perspective, one way to tackle the dynamics of resistance to change (and thus to respond to targets’ particular sensitivity to how the change is introduced and achieved) is to focus on the relation between the source of influence and the target (Falomir, Mugny, & Perez, 2000).

Taking for granted that a threat to smokers’ identity arises when smokers are confronted with evidence questioning an important part of their self-image, we assume that the response to such a threat, and consequently the result of the

SOCIAL INFLUENCE IN PERSONALLY RELEVANT CONTEXTS 1821

influence attempt, will be qualitatively different according to the social context in which the threat is experienced. In other words, targets’ motivation (e.g., more or less defensive) is determined not only by their involvement, but also by the social relationship within which they elaborate the threat introduced by the influence attempt (Falomir et al., 2000; Perez & Mugny, 1993, 1996). Defensive motivation can be regarded as a reaction to a threat made significant by the character of a social and persuasive relationship. The influence relationship established between the target and the source, therefore, is an important factor moderating targets’ motivation and, consequently, the change finally obtained. Accordingly, we assume that a positive influence relationship (i.e., one in which smokers feel themselves valued and respected) can grant to the target a worthy and dignified personal change.

The literature has shown that sources have a greater impact when they are perceived as disinterested (Hovland & Mandell, 1952; see also Walster & Festinger, 1962) or as not having the intention to persuade (Freedman & Sears, 1965; McGuire, 1968). In this regard, reactance theory (Brehm, 1968; Brehm & Sensenig, 1966; Worchel & Brehm, 1970) has probably stimulated some of the most important work illustrating the effect of the extent to which targets of influence perceive the source as threatening their freedom of choice. Numerous experiments have shown that reactance can be aroused by both overt and subtle pressures by a source on the target to adopt an attitudinal position on an object important for the self.

Drawing on the principles of reactance theory, two studies (Falomir, Invernizzi, Mugny, Muiioz, & Quiamzade, 2002; Falomir & Mugny, 1999) manipulated the type of influence relationship via the rhetoric of an anti-smoking message (attributed to a group of university professors). In both studies, the message employed either aflexible rhetoric (leaving the freedom of choice to the smoker and thus respecting his or her autonomy in the decision) or a rigid rhetoric (the authors’ conclusion was compelling and did not leave any freedom of action). Both studies took into account the personal relevance (i.e., the identity involvement) of the message for the subjects: the Falomir and Mugny study distinguished between smokers (high personal relevance) and nonsmokers (low personal relevance), whereas the Falomir et al. study distinguished between smokers with either weak identity (low personal relevance) or strong identity (high personal relevance) as smokers. Both studies showed the interaction between these two factors. More specifically, the disrespecthl (rigid) message led to a decrease in intention to give up smoking among participants for whom the message was highly personally relevant. Thus, both studies showed that the expertise of the source needed to be coupled to respect for the target’s freedom of choice if any change was to occur.

However, these studies fail to differentiate between a resistance effect as a result of the perceived persuasive interest of the source (the source’s goal) and a

1822 INVERNIZZI ET AL.

resistance effect as a result of the more or less respectful style the source employs to reach its goal (the source’s means). Assuming that targets often perceive the source as trying to influence them (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953), the influence relationship nevertheless can be considered as fair on the condition that the source is perceived as respecting them. For instance, relational models proposed within theories of procedural justice stress the importance of fairness perceptions in willingness to accept the decisions of authorities (e.g., Tyler, 1997; Tyler & Degoey, 1996). They argue that people are quite sensitive to their relationship with authority-that is, in terms of standing (e.g., respect, politeness, dignity), neutrality (e.g., honesty, objectivity, lack of bias), and trust (e.g., authority’s intentions, fairness)-because this relationship depicts the status they hold in a social structure (i.e., group, society, instihition) and states whether or not they are valued and treated fairly. Thus, fairness perceptions are determined by procedural evaluations: The procedure is judged to be fair when it is seen as indicating a positive relationship, and unfair when it reveals a negative relationship (Tyler & Lind, 1992).

Although this theory is mainly addressed to people’s concerns about their position within their groups, parallel reasoning can be applied to source-target influence relationships. Targets can evaluate the relational aspects of the influence attempt as giving them a positive standing within the influence relationship (i.e., respect, objectivity, neutrality, status recognition from the source) and consequently will be more ready to question their positions rather than to defend them.

In line with the previous considerations, the present study focuses (as an alternative strategy to counter individuals’ defensive motivation) on the status of the source as a factor that potentially addresses such a concern. Certain kinds of sources can be perceived as more respectful than others, and therefore could increase their influence in contexts in which targets are personally involved and have to deal with some threat to their self-concept. Hence, it is anticipated that a positive influence relationship (one in which smokers feel themselves valued and respected) will allow targets to handle the threat to their identity introduced by a persuasive message so that they will be less resistant to change. Since the quality of the influence relationship (i.e., more or less respectful of the target) can vary along with the social status of the source, we tested the hypothesis that the status of the source moderates the influence of personally relevant messages. More specifically, when the message is personally relevant for the subject, a positive change is expected with a source perceived as more respectful; whereas a negative change is expected with a source perceived as less respectful.

Overview of the Experiment

In order to test these hypotheses, two factors will be considered: the type of source and the personal relevance of the persuasive setting for the target.


Type of Source: Health Institutions Versus Neighborhood Associations

Health institutions are common sources of anti-smoking campaigns since they have the appropriate competencies (expertise) and since they are institution- ally legitimated to prescribe healthy behaviors and to discourage unhealthy ones. However, since legitimacy standards are socially created and maintained (i.e., they are constructed within social interactions, are based on cultural values and norms, and depend on the social positions occupied by the different actors; cf. French & Raven, 197 1 ; Raven, 1965; Tyler & Smith, 1998), perceptions of legit- imate power are neither univocal nor necessarily shared by all social groups. Rather, public trust in institutions seems to vary according to different social factors (cf. Frewer, Howard, & Shepherd, 2001; McGuire, 1968). Hence, because one of the central aims of these institutions is to eradicate unhealthy behaviors, they can be perceived intrinsically not only as acting against smoking behavior, but also as acting against smokers and therefore may be suspected of not always taking into account individuals’ interests or needs. Consequently, smokers might perceive them as particularly biased and as not respecting their freedom of choice.

From an applied point of view, other social actors can be regarded as potential sources of health prevention because they combine the criteria of competence and respect for the individual, as discussed earlier. For instance, neighborhood associations are very active social organizations (at least in Switzerland) that are committed to citizens’ welfare. These associations defend their political and institutional independence, they advocate an active role for residents, they stress the importance of interpersonal relationships, they side with the individual, and they are staffed by qualified people. In these centers, the person is the principal actor, respected in his or her diversity and complexity (cf. Durand, 1996; Felder & Vuille, 1979). Their action consists mainly in offering a space where the inhab- itants (and particularly children, teenagers, and their families) can meet in an atmosphere stressing respect for one another, valuing cultural and individual differences, and offering a large range of possible activities all aimed at improving quality of life while respecting different individual needs. As exam- ples, these centers organize summer and winter camps and take care of children after school. Additionally, they often offer a space for consulting for single par- ents and stimulate debates among young people to discuss health-related issues (e.g., contraception, smoking, alcohol consumption). We suggest that, as compared to current public health institutions, neighborhood associations are likely to be perceived as more respectful of individuals’ interests and needs. In other words, they might be perceived more as for than against people since all their action is aimed at the individual’s growth and expression. As a conse- quence, the source’s status was manipulated by attributing an anti-smoking


message either to a “World Public Health Institute” or to a “Geneva Citizens Neighborhood Association.”

Personal Relevance of the Persuasive Setting: Smokers ’Identity and Message Target

Whereas outcome relevance seems to be situational and is therefore easy to manipulate, value-related or identity-related involvement seems to be enduring and cross-situational (Houston & Rothschild, 1978), and its manipulation therefore requires a somewhat more subtle induction. For this reason, we addressed the issue from two sides: identity involvement and message target. The first consisted in dividing the sample of smokers into two subsamples (i.e., smokers with a weak vs. strong identity as a smoker) according to the strength of their behavior, the extent to which smoking was an important part of their self-concept, and the extent to which they identified with smokers as a group (for a larger consideration of the notion of smokers’ involvement, see Freeman et al., 2001). The second consisted in varying the explicit target of the persuasive message, being more or less clearly directed against smokers. Thus, the same anti-smoking message overtly criticized either smokers or the tobacco industry. The most personally relevant persuasive setting is that in which individuals with a strong identity as smokers were exposed to an anti-smoking message overtly directed at smokers. In this setting, the influence was expected to be moderated by the status of the source; that is, the neighborhood association is expected to lead to a positive change, whereas a negative change is expected with the health institute.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 2523 secondary business school students taking part to a study introduced as a survey about smoking behavior, which involved complet- ing an anonymous questionnaire comprising two booklets. Nonsmokers com- pleted a questionnaire that is beyond the scope of the present study. Data analyses were based on the 117 smokers (69 women, 48 men), whose ages ranged from 17 to 23 years ( M = 19.37, SD = 1.39). All of them were cigarette smokers, and they indicated that they smoked an average of 9.70 cigarettes per day (SD =

5.69). The majority (76.9%) indicated that they had thought about reducing their level of cigarette consumption (28.2% of them had tried unsuccessfully to give up smoking at least once). Unless otherwise indicated, all of the answers to the

3Smokers here represent 46% of the total population surveyed. This rate is comparable to that (43.4%) observed in a representative sample of Swiss people aged 15 to 24 years in 1997 (OFSP, 1998).


questions were provided on 7-point scales ranging from -3 (not at all) to +3 bes , absolutely). Use of the scales was explained orally to the participants.

Pretest

Smoker 5 identity. In addition to personal information (i.e., age, gender), participants indicated the average number of cigarettes they smoked per day and answered the following questions: “To what extent do you feel you are a real smoker?”; “To what extent do you think you are a typical smoker?”; “To what extent do you think you share common points with the other smokers?”; and “To what extent do you identify with smokers?” A score of smoker’s identity was computed by averaging standardized scores for these five items (Cronbach’s a = 30; a higher score indicates a stronger identity as a smoker). No gender differences were found. A categorical variable was computed from the smoker’s identity score by dividing participants into those who scored equal to or less than 0 (weak identity as a smoker: M = -0.60, SD = 0.44, n = 59) and those who scored above 0 (strong identity as a smoker: M = 0.61, SD = 0.44, n = 58).

Intention to quit. Participants then answered two questions about their intention to quit smoking: “Do you intend to quit smoking within the next two weeks?” and “Do you intend to quit smoking soon?’ (pretest of intention; r = .48,

Anti-smoking message. All participants were then asked to read the same anti-smoking message, supposedly published in a French Swiss magazine. This text analyzes the socioeconomic explanations for smoking and focuses on the relationship between the tobacco industry and smokers in terms of manipulation; that is, the industry as the source and smokers as the targets of manipulation (cf. Falomir & Invernizzi, 1999; Ptrez, Falomir, & Mugny, 1995; Ptrez & Mugny, 1990). The following arguments are illustrative: “Smokers do not smoke by virtue of a natural need for tobacco,” “The smoker purely and simply enters into the tobacco industry’s and advertising’s game, and ends up being a veritable accom- plice,” and “Smokers display their dependence upon artificial needs, which have been created in them.” The message concluded that some measures are needed to stop the damage caused by smoking behavior.

Manipulation of the message k target. The message used focuses both on tobacco industry manipulation and on smokers as the targets of such a manipulation. By virtue of this dual focus of the reasoning, it is possible to vary its explicit target and therefore the degree of relevance for the smoker. In the tobacco industry condition, participants received the message introduced as an analysis overtly criticizing tobacco industries, the goal of the message being “to stop the damage of smoking by fighting tobacco industries.” The text’s headline read “Critical Analysis of Tobacco Industries,” and the text stressed at the end the need to fight the tobacco industry as a way of halting the damage of smoking. In the smokers’

p < .0001; M = -0.48, SD = 1.46).


condition, participants received the same message, but this time the message introduced an analysis overtly criticizing smokers, the goal of the message being “to stop the damage of smoking by fighting smokers.” The text’s headline said “Critical Analysis of Smokers,” and it ended by stressing the need to fight smokers as a way of halting the damage of smoking.

Source b status manipulation. The status of the source was manipulated by indicating either that the text had been written by a group of experts from the (hypothetical) World Public Health Institute or by the (equally hypothetical) Geneva Neighborhood Citizens Association. After reading the text, the first booklet was collected and the second was distributed.

Posttest

Manipulation check for target of message. Two questions measured the effect of the message’s target on perception of its authors (“Are the authors of this text against smokers?” and “Are the authors of this text against tobacco industries?”).

Manipulation check for the status of the source. Six items measured participants’ perception of the source in terms of expertise (“Are the authors expert?”), competence (“Are they competent?’), credibility (“Are they credible?”), respectfulness (“Do the authors respect your freedom of choice?’), trustworthiness (“Do you trust the authors?’), and the source’s persuasive goal (“Are the authors trying to influence you?”). The source’s persuasive goal was significantly correlated only with the measures of respectfulness ( r = -.23, p < .02) and trustworthiness (r = - .22, p < .02). The correlations among the other items were all positive and significant.

Perceived quality of the message. Five questions measured the perceived quality of the message: “Is the text persuasive?”; “Is the text well-founded?’; “Is the text convincing?’; “Could the text have an impact on you?”; and “Could the text have an impact on other smokers?” (a = .80).

Message elaboration. Highly personally relevant conditions were expected to differ, not with respect to the amount of processing but in qualitative aspects of processing (i.e., whether or not the processing was biased; see Lundgren & Prislin, 1998). Consequently, the thought-listing task was linked to only one thought. Participants were asked to write down the most important idea that came into their mind with respect to the text they had read. Following this task, participants were asked to evaluate their idea: “To what extent is your idea in agreement or in disagreement with the text?” This was rated on a 7-point scale ranging from -3 (in disagreement) to +3 (in agreement).

Intention to quit smoking. Finally, participants were again asked to indicate their intention to quit smoking (i.e., “within the next 2 weeks” and L‘soon,’’ r =

.49, M = -0.44, SD = 0.63). The main dependent variable of the study was change in intention to quit (posttest scores minus pretest scores).


Results

Manipulation Check

Manipulation of source b status. Ratings of the source (authors’ expertise, competence, credibility, respectfulness, trustworthiness, persuasive intention) were submitted to a 2 x 2 x 2 (Smoker Identity: Weak vs. Strong x Target of Mes- sage: Industry vs. Smokers x Status of Source: Health Institute vs. Neighborhood Association) MANOVA. The analysis reveals a main effect of the status of the source, F(6, 104) = 2 . 8 4 , ~ < .013. More precisely, univariate tests highlight two significant effects. As anticipated, the neighborhood association was perceived as being more respectful than the health institute ( M = -0.22 and -0.88, respectively), F( 1, 109) = 4.40, p < .04; and the health institute was perceived as being marginally more expert ( M = 0.19) than the neighborhood association ( M =

Manipulation of message target. In a MANOVA of responses to the two items assessing perception of the authors as challenging the tobacco industry and smokers, respectively, these were treated as repeated measures, while the experimental variables were independent factors. This analysis reveals a main effect of the within-subjects factor, F(1, 109) = 52.46, p < .001; as well as a significant interaction between this factor and the message target factor, F(1, 109) = 9.99, p < .002. Whereas the authors were perceived as more against the tobacco industry ( M = 1.9 1, SD = 1.24) than against smokers ( M = 0.50, SD = 1.88), this effect was stronger when the text targeted the tobacco industry ( M = 2.09 and 0.13, respectively), F(1, 115) = 5 7 . 8 4 , ~ < .001; than when it targeted smokers ( M = 1.69 and 0.91), F( 1, 115) = 8.47, p < .004. More importantly, however, and as intended by the experimental manipulation, the authors were perceived as more against the tobacco industry when the target of the message was the tobacco industry ( M = 2.09) than when the target was smokers (M=l.69), F(1, 109) =

3.67, p < .06; whereas they were perceived as more against smokers when the message targeted smokers (M = 0.91) than when it targeted the tobacco industry ( M = 0.13), F(1, 109) = 5 . 0 0 , ~ < .03. Overall, the manipulation ofthe framing of the text worked as expected.

-O.l7),F(l, 1 0 9 ) = 2 . 9 9 , ~ < .09.

Change in Intention to Quit Smoking

A preliminary ANOVA on the pretest scores for intention to give up smoking did not show any significant effect. However, the 2 x 2 x 2 (Smoker Identity: Weak vs. Strong x Message’s Target: Tobacco Industry vs. Smokers x Message’s Source: Health Institute vs. Neighborhood Association) ANOVA performed on the measure of change in intention reveals a main effect of the source, F(1, 109) = 4.49, p < .04. The neighborhood association ( M = 0.15) had more


Message target

Tobacco industry Smoker --- -

-

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8 1 I Weak Strong Weak Strong

Smoker identity

Figure 1 . Means of change in intention to quit smoking as a function of smoker identity (wealdstrong), message target (Tobacco industry/Smoker), and Source’s status (Health institute/Neighborhood association). Numbers of cases per condition from left to right (13, 16, 17, 15, 16, 14, 11, 15).

influence than did the health institute (A4 = -0.09). Additionally, the interaction between the smoker’s identity and the source’s status, F(1, 109) = 6.27, p < .02, and the overall interaction, F(1, 109) = 8.28,~ < .005, also proved to be significant (cf. Figure 1).

Least significant difference (p < .05) post hoc comparisons of mean changes between experimental conditions indicate (cf. Figure 1 ), as expected, that influence in high personally relevant conditions was greater when the source was the neighborhood association than when the source was the health institute. Fur- thermore, the negative influence observed when the source was the health institute was greater among participants with a strong smoker identity than among participants with a weak smoker identity.

In order to better analyze the dynamics of change, pretest-posttest differences were examined within experimental conditions. This examination reveals that the change in intention to quit smoking was significant in the two conditions in which personal relevance for participants was high (i.e., when the identity of smoker was strong and smokers were the target of the persuasive message). Whereas a negative change was observed when the source was the health institute ( M = -0.64), F( 1, 109) = 8.17, p < .005, a positive change appeared when the source was the neighborhood association (M= 0.53), F(1, 109) = 7.83,~ < ,006. A marginally significant positive change was also observed for participants


with a weak smoker identity when the message targeting smokers was attributed to the health institute ( M = 0.31), F(1, 109) = 2 . 8 7 , ~ < . lo.

Additional Analyses

The ANOVA performed on the perceived quality of the message and the valence of the thought generated after reading the message did not reveal any significant effect (Fs < 2.50). Correlation analyses were performed between the change in intention to quit smoking and the valence of the generated thought, the perceptions of message’s quality, and the perception of the source (in terms of its expertise, competence, credibility, respectfulness, trustworthiness, and persuasive goal). Significant correlations were found, particularly when participants’ personal relevance was high (i.e., when smokers’ identity was strong and smokers were the message target). When the source was the neighborhood association, the increase in intention to quit smoking observed in this condition was related to the generation of an idea more in agreement with the persuasive anti-smoking message (I = .60, p < .02); to a positive evaluation of the quality of the message (r = .52, p < .05); and to a greater perception of the authors’ competence (r = .47, p < .08), credibility (r = .44,p < .lo), and trustworthiness (r = .54,p < .04). When the source was the health institute, processing of information seemed to be rather paradoxical. In fact, the more smokers decreased their intention to quit smoking, the more highly they evaluated the quality of the persuasive message (r = -.5 1, p < .lo), as well as the authors’ competence (r = -.65, p < .03) and trustworthiness ( r = -.55, p < .08). Finally, and still in this condition, the change observed was also negatively correlated with the perceived intention of the source to influence (r = -.56,p < .07).

Discussion

The main purpose of the present study was to show that in personally relevant contexts, the quality of the influence relationship (i.e., more or less respectful) manipulated through the social status of the source moderates recipients’ defensive motivation and consequently the influence observed. Indeed, because targets’ involvement would make them extremely sensitive and require a positive social influence relationship if any influence is to occur, the respectfidness attributed to the source is important in explaining the influence that takes place. This perceived respectfulness also moderates the effect of the source’s expertise, credibility, and competence. The findings of this study are consistent with these considerations.

First, the results show that the neighborhood association produced a greater change in intention to quit than did the health institute. Second, this result was moderated by the effect of the other two independent variables. In high personal relevance conditions (i.e., when participants with a strong identity as smokers were


exposed to a message targeting smokers), the intention to quit decreased when the message was attributed to the health institute (i.e., the source perceived as less respectful), but increased when it was attributed to the neighborhood association (i.e., the source perceived as more respectful). No effects were observed when the personal relevance was low (i.e., when participants’ identity as smokers was weak or when the message targeted the tobacco industry), which is compatible with other results showing that messages are more persuasive when matching rather than mismatching recipients (De Bono & Parker, 1991; Fleming & Petty, 2000).

Indeed, emphasizing tobacco industry manipulation does not seem to be a useful strategy to prevent smoking among adolescents (Pechman, 1998). How- ever, when smoker identity was weak, only a marginal positive change was observed when the message targeting smokers was attributed to the health institute. This result provides support for the hypothesis that the perception of the source as respectful furthers positive influence, specifically when personal relevance is high, but that more conventional sources can achieve an impact when less personal relevance is at stake.

Hence, as proposed, the results show that source characteristics played a role going far beyond that of being merely cues or heuristics for decisions. This is a challenge to the core assumption of persuasion models that in highly involving settings, source characteristics have no impact because targets are motivated to process information systematically. Rather, the characteristics of the source (e.g., expertise, trustworthiness, respectfulness) are not merely heuristics for decision making, but can also be factors intrinsic to the influence relationship, activating different motivations and processes of change (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Kelman, 1958; PCrez & Mugny, 1996; Petty & Wegener, 1998). In this regard, work on persuasive attempts to change smokers’ intentions to quit smoking has proved the importance of the source’s characteristics in the conflict elaborated by smokers (Falomir et al., 2000).

In addition, the findings indicate that the interplay between the status of the source and the intensity of the target’s involvement moderated the impact of other important variables related both to the source itself (e.g., its expertise) and to the message (e.g., its perceived quality) delivered by the source. Particularly, it is worth pointing out the differential weights assumed by the source’s expertise and respectfulness as a function of the intensity and the nature of the target’s involvement. in contexts in which involvement is self-related, targets appear to be espe- cially sensitive to the source’s characteristics (e.g., its respectfulness). These characteristics can allow a threat to identity to be turned into a change in behavioral intention. The results of this study shed some light on this idea. Indeed, in high-relevance conditions, positive qualities of the persuasion attempt (i.e., message and author qualities) and the positive processing of persuasive information (i.e., valence of the thought listing) were related to a positive change in intention to quit smoking when the source was the neighborhood association (i.e., the source


perceived as being less expert but also as more respectful). Paradoxically, positive qualities of the persuasive attempt (i.e., message and author qualities) were related to a decrease in smokers’ intentions to quit when the source was the health institute (i.e., the source perceived as being more expert but also less respecthl). Put differ- ently, under conditions of high personal relevance, positive qualities of the source and of the message can be detrimental to changes in intention to give up smoking if they are not embedded in a positive social influence relationship.

From an applied point of view, the present findings are certainly interesting insofar as they indicate that, in the realm of health risks and when a threat to the target’s identity is possible, alternative sources of persuasion can be employed with some success. However, three limitations of the study are worth discussing. The first limitation is related to the perception of respectfulness associated to the two sources. Although there seem to be indications (cf. Durand, 1996; Felder & Vuille, 1979) that neighborhood associations are seen as particularly concerned about respecting individuals’ interests and needs, we lack clear-cut reasons as to why this source was perceived as being more respectful than the health institute. Consequently, one could argue that factors other than perception of respect could explain our findings and thus challenge our reasoning. Maybe the more compelling explanation is that the neighborhood association was perceived as more respectful and had more influence in high self-related contexts because of its greater geographical and organizational proximity to our Genevan sample of smokers. Whether perception of respect is determined by in-group categoriza- tion, by target’s greater identification with the source, or by perceived proximity is certainly a question worthy of further investigation.

The second limitation refers to the lack of a measure of actual behavior. Indeed, although intentions have proved to be accurate and reliable predictors of behavior (cf. Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen & Madden, 1986), future research is needed to verify the predictions on a behavioral level.

The third limitation is related to the sample interviewed, which was made up exclusively of business school students (aged 17 to 23 years) and is therefore not necessarily representative of smokers as a whole. For instance, while emphasizing manipulation by the tobacco industry does not seem to be a useful strategy for discouraging smoking among adolescents (Pechman, 1998), it has proved to be effective among adults (Goldman & Glantz, 1998), and future research will thus need to sample from a broader population.

While the goal of health-promotion campaigns is to change people’s harmful behavior, research in social psychology has long shown the difficulties associated with the acceptance and impact of health-related information (Berkowitz & Cottingham, 1960; Ditto & Lopez, 1992; Falomir, Mugny, & PCrez, 1996; Falomir et al., 2000; Freeman et al., 2001; Janis & Tenvilliger, 1962). The aim of the present study was to illustrate that perception of a persuasive source as respecting the individual is particularly worthy because the targets’ greater


sensitivity in personally relevant contexts requires a positive consideration and treatment by the source. Health communication recently has begun to move from a paternalistic conception, in which the sources (e.g., doctors or communicators) are perceived as authorities providing expert judgment and technical skill for the benefit of the individual who is expected to comply, to a more symmetrical relationship in which the individual’s autonomy and fundamental right to self- determination is acknowledged (e.g., Beisecker & Beisecker, 1993; Holm, 1993). Neighborhood associations are well established in the fabric of Swiss cities and therefore may contribute to this kind of transformation in health communication, playing an active role among young smokers in countering the trend toward smoking. Hence, the fact that the neighborhood association overall achieved more influence on the intention to quit smoking than did the health institute is, from an applied point of view, an important finding when considering the implementation of health campaigns.

References

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personali& and behavior. Chicago, IL: Dorsey. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Atti-

tudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22,453-474.

Baumeister, R. F. (1 996). Self-regulation and ego-threat: Motivated cognition, self-deception, and destruction in goal setting. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior (pp. 27-47). New York, N Y Guilford.

Beisecker, A. E., & Beisecker, T. D. (1993). Using metaphors to characterize doctor-patient relationship: Paternalism versus consumerism. Health Com- munication, 5,41-58.

Berkowitz, L., & Cottingham, D. R. (1960). The interest value and relevance of fear-arousing communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

Biddle, B. J., Bank, B. J., Anderson, D. S., Hauge, R., Keats, D. M., Keats, J . A., Marlin, M. M., & Valantin, S. (1 985). Social influence, self-referent identity labels, and behavior. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 159-1 85.

Brehm, J. W. (I 968). Attitude change from threat to attitudinal freedom. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 277-296). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Brehm, J. W., & Sensenig, J. (1966). Social influence as a function of attempted and implied usurpation of freedom. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

Brownson, R. C., Jackson-Thompson, J., Wilkerson, J. C., Davis, J. R., Owens, N. W., & Fisher, E. B. (1 992). Demographic and socioeconomic differences

60,37-43.

chology, 4,703-707.


in beliefs about the health effects of smoking. American Journal ofpublic Health, 82,99-102.

Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: Defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking motivation and cognition to behavior (pp. 553-578). New York, NY Guilford.

Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1990). Social psychological contribution to the understanding and prevention of adolescent cigarette smoking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 133- 15 1.

DeBono, K. G., & Parker, M. (1991). The effects of advertising appeal on perceptions of product quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17,

Ditto, H. R., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferrred conclusions. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 63,568-584.

Durand, R. (1 996). Histoire des centres sociaux: Du voisinage a la citoyennetk [History of community centers: From neighborhood to citizenship]. Paris, France: Syros.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Falomir, J. M., & Invernizzi, F. (1 999). The role of social influence and smoker identity in resistance to smoking cessation. Swiss Journal of Psychology,

Falomir, J. M., Invernizzi, F., Mugny, G., Muiioz, D., & Quiamzade, A. (2002). Social influence on intention to quit smoking: The effect of the rhetoric of an identity-relevant message. International Review of Social Psychology, 15( l),

Falomir, J. M., & Mugny, G. (1999). Influence sociale et resistance au changement chez les hmeurs [Social influence and resistance to change among smokers]. Alcoologie, 21,25-29.

Falomir, J. M., Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (1996). Social influence and threat to identity: Does the fight against tobacco use require a ban on smoking? Inter- national Review of Social Psychology, 2,95-108.

Falomir, J. M., Mugny, G., & Perez, J. A. (2000). Social influence and identity conflict. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior; and social context. The role of norms and group membership (pp. 245-265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

l'instution: Les centres de loisirs genevois [From an adventure to an institution: Community centers in Geneva] (Vol. 12). Geneve, Switzerland: Service de la Recherche Sociologique.

Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. E. (2000). Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior,

194-200.

58(2), 73-84.

8 1-96.

Felder, D., & Vuille, M. (1979). De I 'aventure


and social context. The role of norms and group membership (pp. 171-201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Freedman, J. L., & Sears, D. 0. (1965). Warning, distraction, and resistance to influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1,262-266.

Freeman, M. A., Hennessy, E. V., & Marzullo, D. M. (2001). Defensive evaluation of antismoking messages among college-age smokers: The role of possible selves. Health Psychology, 20,424-433.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. H. (1971). The bases of power. In E. P. Hollander & R. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current perspectives in social psychology (pp. 525-532). New York, N Y Oxford University Press.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (2001). The role of trust in effective communication about food-related risks. In F. Butera & G Mugny (Eds.), Social influence in social reality (pp. 307-3 16). Bern, Switzerland: Hogrefe & Huber.

Goldman, L. K., & Glantz, S. A. (1998). Evaluation of antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 772-777.

Gray, D., Amos, A., & Currie, C. (1997). Decoding the image: Consumption, young people, magazines, and smoking. An exploration of theoretical and methodological issues. Health Education Research, 12,505-5 17.

Holm, S. (1993). What is wrong with compliance? Journal of Medical Ethics, 19, 108-1 10.

Houston, M. J., & Rothschild, M. L. (1978). Conceptual and methodological perspectives in involvement. In S. Jain (Ed.), Research frontiers in marketing: Dialogues and directions (pp. 184-1 87). Chicago, 1L: American Marketing Association.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication andpersua- sion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer- sity Press.

Hovland, C. I., & Mandell, W. (1952). An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience. Journal ofAbnorma1 andsocial Psychology, 47, 581-588.

Institut Suisse de Prkvention a I’ Alcoolisme et autres Toxicomanies (ISPA). (1 999). Chiffyes et donnees sur 1 ’alcool et les autres drogues [Figures and data on alcohol and other drugs]. Bienne, Switzerland: Imprimerie Schuler, SA.

Janis, 1. L., & Tenvilliger, R. F. (1962). An experimental study of psychological resistances to fear-arousing communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1 989). The effects of involvement on persuasion:

Kaufman, N., & Yach, D. (2000). Tobacco control-challenges and prospects.

Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three pro-

Psychology, 65,403-410.

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-3 14.

Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78, 867.

cesses of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 5 1-60.


Kunda, Z. (1 987). Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,636-647.

Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 119-186). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personality relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,

Lundgren, S. R., & Prislin, R. (1998). Motivated cognitive processing and attitude change. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 7 15-726.

Maibach, E., & Parrot, R. L. (Eds.). (1995). Designing health messages. London, UK: Sage.

McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and attitude change: An information-processing theory. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psycho- logical foundations of attitudes (pp. 17 1 - 196). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Office Federal de la Statistique. (1998). Premiers resultats de I’enquete Suisse sur la sante 1997 [First results from the 1997 Swiss-survey on health] (No. 108/ 98). Neuchiitel, Switzerland: Ofice Federal de la Statistique.

Pechman, C. (1997). Do antismoking ads combat underage smoking: A review of past practices and research. In M. G. Goldberg, M. Fishbein, & S. Middlestadt (Eds.), Social marketing: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 1 89- 2 16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Perez, J. A., Falomir, J. M., & Mugny, G. (1995). Internalisation of conflict and attitude change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25,117-124.

Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1990). Changement d’attitude, credibilite et influence minoritaire: Interdependance et independance de la comparaison sociale [Attitude change, credibility and minority influence: Interdependence and independence of social comparison]. Revue Suisse de Psychologie, 49,

Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (Eds.). (1993). Influences sociales: La thkorie de I ’klaboration du conflit [Social influence: The Conflict Elaboration Theory]. Paris, France: Delachaux et Niestle.

Perez, J. A., & Mugny, G. (1996). The conflict elaboration theory of social influence. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior (pp. 19 1-2 10). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 323-390). New York, NY McGraw-Hill.

Raven, B. H. (1965). Social influence and power. In I. D. Steiner & M. Fishbein (Eds.), Current studies in social psychology (pp. 371-382). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

669-679.

150- 15 8.


Shadel, W. G., & Mermelstein, R. (1 996). Individual differences in self-concept among smokers attempting to quit: Validation and predictive utility of measures of the smoker self-concept and abstainer self-concept. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 18, 15 1 - 156.

Shadel, W. G., Mermelstein, R., & Borrelli, B. (1996). Self-concept changes over time in cognitive behavioral treatment for smoking cessation. Addictive Behaviors, 21,659-663.

Sherman, D. A. K., Nelson, L. D., & Steele, C. (2000). Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261-302). New York, NY Academic Press.

Tesser, A., & Cornell, D. P. (1991). On the confluence of self-processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 501 -526.

Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary deference to authorities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, I , 323-358.

Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions. In R. M. Kramer, & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 331-3561, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 11 5-1 92). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Smith, H. J. (1998). Social justice and social movements. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. R. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2,4th ed., pp. 595-628). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Walster, E., & Festinger, L. (1962). The effectiveness of “overheard” persuasive communications. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholoa, 65,395-402.

Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1 995). Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing interventions. Health Psychology, 14, 132-140.

Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monograph, 59,329-349.

Worchel, S., & Brehm, J. W. (1970). Effect of threats to attitudinal freedom as a function of agreement with the communicator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 14, 18-22.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2000, January). Sex, drugs and potato crisps: Findings of new WHO Youth Health Survey announced (Press release EURO 0 1/00). Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.

1046-1058.

Social Influence in Personally Relevant Contexts: The Respect Attributed to the Source as a Factor...

Documents

Transcript of Social Influence in Personally Relevant Contexts: The Respect Attributed to the Source as a Factor...