April 7-9, 2022 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Communication Strategies to Promote Comprehensive Well-being
Communication Strategies to Promote Comprehensive Well-being
Abstract: Reducing Psychological Reactance to Bystander Intervention Messages: Comparing Preemptive and Postscript Mitigation Strategies
Sexual assault is a major issue on college campuses in the United States. One in four women, one in four Trans/non-binary individuals, and one in fourteen men report being sexually assaulted during their time in college (Cantor et al., 2019). Bystander intervention programs seek to reduce the occurrence of sexual violence by creating a shared sense of responsibility among the campus community and by encouraging peers to intervene when they encounter sexual violence, or situations preceding sexual violence (Banyard et al., 2004). Meta-analytic evidence supports the overall effectiveness of these programs (Jouriles et al., 2018). However, some individuals show resistance and boomerang effects in response to these interventions (Malamuth et al., 2018). In our study, we examined two strategies for reducing psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966) to bystander intervention messages: preemptive and postscript mitigation (Richards et al., 2020). Psychological reactance theory is based on the premise that people value their freedom and autonomy (Brehm, 1966). Reactance results from a perceived freedom threat and is characterized by anger and negative cognitions (Dillard & Shen, 2005). The consequence of reactance is often diminished persuasion (Quick et al., 2013). Communication researchers have identified several strategies for circumventing reactance (Reynolds-Tylus, 2019). Recently, Richards and colleagues (2020) compared two strategies for mitigating reactance: preemptive scripts and restoration postscripts. Preemptive scripts—drawing from inoculation theory (McGuire, 1964)—refer to messages delivered prior to the campaign message to prevent feelings of freedom threat upon message exposure. Restoration postscripts refer to messages presented following message exposure intended to restore feelings of autonomy (Miller et al., 2007). Richards and colleagues (2020) found both techniques were equally effective at reducing reactance. Undergraduates (N = 378) completed an online survey experiment. Participants (78.8% female) viewed a message promoting bystander intervention and were randomly assigned to either a preemptive script condition, restoration postscript condition, or message-only control (no pre/postscript). Dependent variables included reactance (operationalized as freedom threat, anger, and negative cognitions) and behavioral intention. Consistent with past work (Richards et al., 2020), no differences were observed in the effectiveness of preemptive and postscript mitigation techniques vis-à-vis reactance and behavioral intention. The use of a reactance mitigation strategy (preemptive or postscript) resulted in greater behavioral intention relative to a control message, suggesting the utility of both approaches in bystander intervention efforts. Counter to expectations, the use of preemptive and postscript strategies did not reduce reactance relative to a control message. Though previous work has largely supported the effectiveness of these approaches (e.g., Bessarabova et al., 2013; Richards & Banas, 2015), null effects have also been observed (Quick et al., 2015). Our study differed in at least one notable way from previous research supporting these reactance mitigation strategies—the preemptive and postscripts we used were shorter (~40 words) than those used in previous studies (e.g., Richards et al., 2020; ~100 words). Work using very short restoration postscripts (Quick et al., 2015; ~5 words) has also documented null effects, suggesting a potential boundary condition for these mitigation strategies that could be investigated in future work.