Interplay of Social Distance, Regulatory Focus and Involvement in Anti-High-Risk Drinking Advertising

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Interplay of Social Distance, Regulatory Focus and Involvement in Anti-High-Risk Drinking Advertising The Role of Construal Level Theory
Physical Description:
1 online resource (129 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Park, Sun Young
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Mass Communication, Journalism and Communications
Committee Chair:
Morton, Cynthia R
Committee Co-Chair:
Treise, Deborah M
Committee Members:
Weigold, Michael F
Dodd, Virginia J

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
advertising -- alcohol -- construal -- experiment -- health
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
The present study examines the interactive effects among social distance, regulatory focus and involvement on individuals’ responses to anti-high-risk drinking advertising. The current research evaluates messages framed as social distance and regulatory orientations, and examines whether the persuasive effect of the regulatory focus differs as a function of social distance frames based on conceptual rationale drawn from construal level theory. This research seeks to also investigate how the interplay between social distance and regulatory focus varies at individuals’ involvement with the framed messages. A 2 (social distance: proximal vs. distant) X 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) X 2 (involvement: high vs. low) between-subjects randomized experimental design was implemented to explore the advertising message effects on attitudes toward advertising, attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, and intentions to drink moderately and responsibly. The results show that when asked to make judgments for the distant entities, people are more persuaded by a promotion focus frame, compared to when asked to make judgments for the proximal entities. On the other hand, the results do not show a differential effect of the regulatory focus frame on judgments associated with the proximal entities. Additionally, this research reveals the construal level effects do not remain significant when people are more motivated to process information. In doing so, the findings from the experiment not only shed light on the potential effects of the framed messages, but also contribute to the relevant theories by testing its boundary condition and tapping into unanswered issues. The findings provide important theoretical implications for future research on construal level theory and practical implications for strategic use of individually tailored messages, particularly in anti-high-risk drinking advertising.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Sun Young Park.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Morton, Cynthia R.
Local:
Co-adviser: Treise, Deborah M.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-05-31

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID:
UFE0044071:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 INTERPLAY OF SOCIAL DISTANCE, REGULATORY FOCUS AND INVOLVEMENT IN ANTI HIGH RISK DRINKING ADVERTISING : THE ROLE OF CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY By SUN YOUNG PARK A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 SUN YOUNG PARK

PAGE 3

3 To my beloved family for all their love, care, and support

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to many people in my completion of this dissertation. In particular, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Cynthia Morton She supervised my dissertation work and provided invaluable feedback and guidance. Without her tremendous support, this study would not been able to be completed. Indeed, s he has given her invaluable advice and direction through out my Ph.D. work. I also express deep respect and appreciation for Dr. Debbie Treise who gave me indispensible advice and support as an inspirational men tor during my degree process. T his dissertation has benefited immensely from the constructive comments I have received from my other committee members: Dr. Michael Weigold and Dr. Virgina Dodd who provided fruitful comments, direction, and encouragement f or this dissertation. Additionally, I would also like to take this opportunity to thank faculty and colleagues especially Dr. John Sutherland for his mentorship, and Jody Hedge and Kimberly Holloway for their valuable support and encouragement. And I mu st express my thanks to my colleagues, especially Moonhee Cho, Soojin Kim and Hyunji Lim, for their sincere support and stimulating academic discussions throughout this Ph.D. experience. Thanks also to the instructors who allowed me to recruit their subjec ts for this dissertation. I must express m y special thanks to my family. I have benefited greatly from the unconditional support and love by my parents mother in law, sister and brother in law ; they have always believed in me, and been great spiritual su pporters throughout my life. I have to finally give my special love to my husband Mark Yi Cheon Yim who gave his endless support and love during my graduate process, and my little son Philip, who a dded further joy and peace to the journey.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CON TENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 Social Norms Advertising Campaigns ................................ ................................ ..... 12 Limitations of Social Norms Advertising Campaigns ................................ ............... 14 Need for Current Research ................................ ................................ ..................... 15 Theoretical Framework ................................ ................................ ........................... 18 Purpose and Overview of Research ................................ ................................ ....... 19 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 Message Strategies in Health Communication Campaigns ................................ .... 21 Social Norms Approach ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 Message Strategy 1: Social Distance ................................ ................................ ..... 29 Message Strategy 2: Regulatory Focus ................................ ................................ .. 33 Construal Level Perspectives ................................ ................................ ................. 38 Involvement as a Moderator of Construal Level Effects ................................ .......... 42 Hypotheses and Research Questions ................................ ................................ .... 44 Summary of the Hypotheses and Research Questions ................................ .......... 50 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 52 Study Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 52 Recruitment ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 52 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 54 Stimulus Development ................................ ................................ ............................ 55 Measu rement Instrument ................................ ................................ ........................ 60 Pretest ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 64 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 66 Subjects ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 66 Reliability Checks ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 68 Manipulation Checks ................................ ................................ ............................... 69

PAGE 6

6 Hypothesis Tests ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 70 Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............................... 85 Covariates ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 86 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 88 Summary and Implications ................................ ................................ ...................... 88 Limitations and Suggests for Future Research ................................ ....................... 95 Conclu sion ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 99 APPENDIX A THE STIMULI ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 101 B QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................................ 109 LIST OF R EFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 115 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 129

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 2 X 2 X 2 fact orial design ................................ ................................ .................... 52 3 2 Measurement instrument ................................ ................................ .................... 61 4 1 Number of subjects by experimental groups ................................ ...................... 66 4 2 Sample profile ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 67 4 3 Means and standard deviations (social distance) ................................ ............... 70 4 4 Means and standa rd deviations ( regulatory focus ) ................................ ............. 71 4 5 Simple main effects of means (social distance X regulatory focus) .................... 73 4 6 Means and stand ard deviations (social distance x regulatory focus) .................. 73 4 7 Simple main effects of means (social distance x regulatory focus x involvement) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 77 4 8 Means and standard deviations (social distance x regulatory focus x involvement) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 81 4 9 A summary of ANOVA results ................................ ................................ ............ 81 4 10 Simple main effects of means ( perceived risk X regulatory focus) ..................... 83 4 11 Means and standard deviations ( perceived risk x regulatory focus) ................... 83 4 1 2 Regression analyses for alcohol related and classification variables ................. 86

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Two way i nteraction between social distance and regulatory focus (DV: Attitude toward advertising) ................................ ................................ ................ 74 4 2 Two way interaction between social distance and regulatory focus (DV: Attitude toward modera te and responsible drinking) ................................ ........... 74 4 3 Two way interaction between social distance and regulatory focus (DV: Intention to drink moderately and responsibly) ................................ ................... 75 4 4 Three way interaction among social distance, regulatory focus and Involvement (DV: Attitude toward advertising) ................................ .................... 78 4 5 Three way interaction among social dista nce, regulatory focus and involvement (DV: Attitude toward moderate and responsible drinking) .............. 79 4 6 Three way interaction among social distance, regulatory focus and involvement (DV: Intent ion to drink moderately and responsibly) ....................... 80 4 7 T wo way interaction between perceived risk and regulatory focus ( DV: Attitude toward advertising ) ................................ ................................ ................ 84 4 8 T wo way interaction between perceived risk and regulatory focus ( DV: Attitude toward moderate and responsible drinking) ................................ ........... 84

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the Universit y of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INTERPLAY OF SOCIAL DISTANCE, REGULATORY FOCUS AND INVOLVEMENT IN ANTI HIGH RISK DRINKING ADVERTISING : THE ROLE OF CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY By Su n Young Park May 2012 Chair: Cynthia R. Morton Cochair: Debbie Treise Major: Mass Communication T he present study examine s the inter active effects among social distance, regulatory focus and involvement on individuals responses to anti high risk drinki ng advertising. T he current research evaluate s messages framed as social distance and regulatory orientations and investigates whether the persuasive effect of the regulatory focus differs as a function of social distance frames b ased on conceptual ration ale drawn from construal level theory T his research seeks to also investigate ho w the involvement with the framed messages A 2 (social distance: proximal vs. distant) X 2 ( regu latory focus : promotion vs. prevention) X 2 (involvement: high vs. low) between subjects randomized experimental design was implemented to explore the advertising message effects on attitudes toward advertising, attitudes toward moderate and responsible dr inking, and intentions to drink moderately and responsibly. The results show that w hen asked to make judgments for the distant entities people are more persuaded by a promotion focus frame, compared to when asked to make judgments for the proximal entitie s On the other hand, the results do not show a differential effect of the regulatory

PAGE 10

10 focus frame on judgments associated with the proximal entities A dditionally, this research reveals the construal level effects do not remain significant when people are more motivated to process information. In doing so, the findings from the experiment not only shed light on the potential effects of the framed messages but also contribute to the relevant theories by testing its boundary condition and tapping into unansw ered issues. The findings provide important theoretical implications for future research on construal level theory and practical implications for strategic use of individually tailored messages, particularly in anti high risk drinking advertising.

PAGE 11

11 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION High risk drinking among college students is one of the most challenging problems on college campuses (Wo l b u rg, 2001; Lederman, Stewart, Goodhart, & Laitman, 2003). According to The National Survey on Drug Use and Health binge (high ris k) drinking, defined as drinking five or more drinks in one setting within the past 30 days ( Department of Health and Human Services, 2007 ), has actually increased over time. More than 90% of alcohol consumption among young adults between 18 and 25 involve s high risk drinking (Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention, 2005). Nowhere is this more prevalent than on college campuses, with two out of five college 2002 ). At least 30 40% of college students are involved in dangerous drinking on most college campuses, and approximately 70% of them engage in drinking behavior during their college years on all college campuses (Perkins, 2002). Most colleges tolerate a certa in amount of consumption by students, but the negative consequences of excessive drinking remain problematic. Every year, there are 600,000 assaults, 70,000 sexual assaults, and 1,400 deaths related to alcohol among college students (National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 2002). The high rate of high risk drinking has a profound influence on learning, retention, and graduation and is linked to the use/abuse of other substances (e.g., cocaine and tobacco) and to mortality and morbidity from alco hol related accidents and deaths (Beets et al., 2009; Naimi et al., 2003).

PAGE 12

12 Social Norms Advertising Campaigns Recognizing that high risk drinking is a serious problem among college students, many attempts have been made to reduce high risk drinking and enc ourage responsible drinking among college students (Lederman, 2010). A considerable body of research has revealed that college students tend to have misperceptions about peer drinking norms (e.g., Berkowitz & Perkins, 1986; Prentice & Miller, 1993), as mos t college related to social norms addresses pluralistic ignorance (Miller & McFarland, 1987; Toch their A similar concept is false consensus, which is a false belief that everyone else thinks the same (Ross, Greene, & House, 1977). When the frequency of problem or ri sk behaviors is overestimated or the frequency of healthy or protective behaviors is underestimated in the social environment, incorrect perceptions, which may cause individuals to change their own behaviors to the unhealthy misperceived norm, occur (e.g., 1997). Therefore, social norms based approaches are designed to decrease college behavior (B roadwater, Curtin, Martz, & Zrull, 2005; Perkins & Wechsler, 1996). Notably, the social norms approach to message development has been employed to correct misperceptions by presenting accurate norms to reduce high risk drinking in the college population ( Haines & Spear, 1996; Lewis & Neighbors, 2006). Traditionally, the social norms messages have focused on education about alcohol

PAGE 13

13 negative alcohol related consequences, and discouraging heavy drinking among students (Haines & Spear, 1996; Wechsler, Seibring, Lui, & Ahl, 2004). Moreover, the communication messages attempt to provide students with objective facts and statistics about drinking norms on college campus. They h ave often been successful in reducing alcohol use in college populations (Berkowitz, 2000). For instance, main message themes used in colleges to discourage high risk drinking emphasize social norms and statistics that show most students do not over consum e alcohol (Perkins, 2003). Of particular interest is that traditional public service announcements (PSAs) and social networking sites (SNSs), such as MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter, are major tools used in social norms advertising campaigns to discourage high risk drinking on college campuses. Anti binge drinking campaigns commonly use PSAs that discourage excessive drinking of college students in particular (Treise, Wolb u rg, & Otnes, 1999). Using various media outlets (e.g., newspaper ads, radio, posters, and fliers), the PSAs provide college students with accurate information regarding the alcohol use of their peers, such as objective facts and statistics about drinking norms on campus (Pilling & Brannon, 2007). Additionally, social norms interventions wh ich use SNSs have been successful in reducing alcohol use in college populations. For instance, based on a Facebook fan page and Twitter presence with more than 700 fans, Michigan State University executed a two year ad campaign to encourage students to ma ke good choices about drinking alcohol (Jacobson, 2010). High risk drinking has also declined two years after the University of Massachusetts at Amherst launched a social norms campaign utilizing SNSs (Schworm, 2008).

PAGE 14

14 Limitations of Social Norms Advertisin g Campaigns Although a number of colleges and universities have adopted generalized social norms advertising campaigns, several scholars (e.g., Campo & Cameron, 2006; Polonec Major, & Atwood, 2006; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000 b ) assert that the social norms campaigns are unsubstantiated; thus, the widespread use of the campaigns should be scrutinized. Previous studies found no evidence that the social norms approach actually reduces national high risk drinking levels (Wechsler et al., 2002). Social norm s messages were found to be ineffective in changing either perceptions or actual drinking behavior, or in targeting heavy drinkers who are less importantly, some boomerang effects were indicated in the recent literature. The effects of social norms messages on college students who drink the most led to more unhealthy alcohol related attitudes following message exposure (Campo & Cameron, 2006). This outcome was particularly true for statistical normative messages. Similarly, psychological reactance that is, the perceived threat to freedom was found to result in framed messages that failed to dissuade excessive alcohol consumption among college students (Quick & Bates, 2010). Notab ly, recent research on social norms approach has highlighted the complex social nature of human interaction, placing greater emphasis on messages developed to Cameron and Ca mpo (2006), simply using a message based on social norms approach does not consistently lead to behavior change among college students. Pilling and Brannon (2007) suggested that tailoring the social norms message to individual

PAGE 15

15 an using a generic message effectively reduces high risk drinking. Considering these contradictory findings about social norms advertising campaigns, there is a need to develop multiple anti high risk drinking intervention approaches that would consider th e dynamic process of the issues related to alcohol consumption on campus. Need for Current Research Given the complex social nature of human interaction with regard to drinking behaviors, there is a need to reexamine the effects of social norms from the pe rspective of social distance. College students tend to perceive that the average students (outgroup members) drink more than their friends (ingroup members). The magnitude of misperceptions about alcohol use by outgroup members is greater due to the outgro up bias, but is weaker in terms of their effect on personal drinking behaviors. Conversely, the size of misperceptions is smaller due to the ingroup bias, but is stronger in terms of their effect on personal drinking behaviors (Yanovitzky, Stewart, & Leder man, 2006). Existing research (Baer, 2002; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998; Real & Rimal, 2007; Yanovitzky et al., 2006) suggests that proxima l entities, compared to dista nt entities, are more persuasive in terms of reducing college students' alcohol use. It i s also important to note that the effect of misperceptions about alcohol use on personal behavior depends on how important or noticeable their membership is in a group related to the alcohol use (Yanovitzky et al., 2006). Admittedly, the findings about the important role of social distance in influencing personal drinking behavior invite a closer scrutiny of the typical message strategy used in social norms interventions. The y suggest that there may be a need to develop messages that modify college students alcohol related behaviors by their friends rather than average students on campus.

PAGE 16

16 In addition, another drinking reduction strategy is to develop messages framed in positive or negative terms. In terms of message approach, one of the widely implemented t hemes that might affect drinking behavior involves positive and negative reinforcements, or the portrayals of positive and negative consequences related to excessive alcohol consumption in health related messages (Robberson & Roger, 1988). In particular, g oal framing research has found that messages that emphasize the benefits of undertaking the behavior (gain framed messages) are more effective compared to messages that emphasize the costs of not undertaking the behavior (loss framed messages) in promoting healthy activity (e.g., Rothman & Salovey, 1997). Rothman, Martino, Bedell, Detweiler, and Salovey (1999) suggested that gain framed appeals are more likely to influence prevention behaviors, including using sunscreen and exercising while loss framed appe als tend to influence detection behaviors, including cancer screening and breast cancer examinations Recently, scholars have considered the effectiveness of framed messages at the individual level instead of the behavior type (prevention vs. detection be haviors) level (Leshner & Cheng, 2009; Shen & Dillard, 2009; Quick & Bates, 2010). Dispositional (Latimer, daily experiences in terms of the presence and absence of positive or negative outcomes of behavior in line with a regulatory focus (Higgins, 1998). Regulatory f ocus theory (Higgins, 1997) suggests that there are two categories of people who can be distinguished according to their motivational orientations: promotion focused people and

PAGE 17

17 prevention focused people. People who direct their behavior toward advancement and achievement self regulate in such a way that approaches their desired end state (promotion focused). On the other hand, people who orient their behavior toward protection and safety self regulate behavior in a manner that avoids mismatches with their d esired end states (prevention focused) (Higgins, Shah, & Friedman, 1997). In other words, people regulate their responses to positively and negatively framed appeals by using different strategic paths (i.e., an approach strategy or an avoidance strategy) to goal attainment (Cesario Grant, & Higgins, 2004; Higgins, 2002; Kim, 2006; Lee & Aaker, 2004). Despite the pervasiveness of the research on regulatory focus in diverse disciplines, few studies have empirically examined the effects of framed messages as sociated with self regulatory strategies in the context of anti high risk drinking intervention. The persuasiveness of messages has been extensively studied in health related behaviors in terms of differential effects of positively or negatively framed mes sages on decision making process (e.g., Block & Keller, 1995; Rothman & Salovey, 1997). Nevertheless, research on the effectiveness of anti high risk drinking messages W hether to drink depends on a d ecision made by individual self regulatory goals as well as an individual situated in a social relationship. Considering that little research has been conducted on the effects of regula tory strategies, it is timely to investigate the interaction effects between social distance and regulatory focus on discouraging high risk drinking systematically. Moreover, involvement with alcohol use can be an important predictor affecting

PAGE 18

18 attitudinal and behavioral responses to anti high risk drinking messages. Indeed, the construct of issue involvement has received attention in the health communication literature while studies have demonstrated that issue involvement is a variabl e that moderates the effects of message framing (Maheswaran & Meyers Levy, 1990; Rothman, Salovey, Antone, Keough & Martin, 1993). Nevertheless, there is a lack of empirical research on the framed messages depend ent on the extent of t heir involvement with the alcohol use s Thus, there is a need to examine the interplay among social distance, regulatory focus and involvement in the current research arena. In doing so, effective social norms based intervention strategies that guide the i ndividual environmental dynamics in the health enhancing direction can be developed in the context of anti high risk drinking interventions. Theoretical Framework Social distance and regulatory focus are theoretical accounts of how framed messages influenc e individuals attitudinal and behavioral responses to anti high risk drinking advertising campaigns Construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2003) will be employed to explain the interaction effects between perceptions of social distance and individuals regulation strategies. The original theory postulates that people construct different mental representations for similar information based on whether the information pertains to psychologically proximal or distant entities. Additionally, in order to investigate a potential boundary condition for the construal level theory, the concept of involvement will be invited. The effects of construal level theory may represent a misattribution effect, which suggests that people could be confused about the sour ce of their feeling right about the traits of the target evaluated (Aaker & Lee, 2006). For example, people who make judgments for the average students are more likely to think

PAGE 19

19 about abstract consequences of the anti high risk drinking, whereas people who make judgments for their best friends are more likely to think about concrete consequences of the anti high risk drinking. And this experience of feeling right occurs because of transfer from source misattribution (Cesario et al., 2004). This tendency sugg ests that people who experience the feeling right depend on heuristic (i.e., less involved) rather than systematic (i.e., more involved) processing of information. Thus, the robustness of the construal level effect under high and low involvement condition s can be examined in the present study. Purpose and Overview of Research The purpose of this investigation is to evaluate messages framed as social distance and regulatory orientations and examine the effects of individuals involvement with the alcohol is sue on the interplay of framed messages in the context of anti high risk drinking advertising. First, t he social norms will be tested with the perceived social distance dimension : proximal and distant distance based on social identity theory. Also, t he cur rent research will examine the persuasive effect of the regulatory focus frames drawing on regulatory focus theory, and whether the regulatory focus effect differs as a function of social distance frames Thus, this exploration presents a study that offer s an in depth look at the role of social distance and regulatory focus and their interaction effects based on construal level theory, Finally, this research will investigate how the interplay between social distance and regulatory focus varies at individual information processing to the framed messages acknowledging that the involvement might influence the role of the construal level theory. Therefore, to enhance the effectiveness of anti high risk drinking advertising, the present study lays th e theoretical

PAGE 20

20 as a boundary condition for the construal level theory. The study will explore the message effects on college students attitudinal and behavioral respo nses to moderate responsible drinking. In doing so, the current research will not only shed light on the potential effects of the framed messages, but also contribute to the relevant theories by testing its boundary conditions and tapping into unanswered i ssues. The findings from the experiment will provide important theoretical implications for future research on individually tailored messages, particularly in anti hig h risk drinking advertising. It is this could moderate the message effects on health outcomes. C hapter 2 proceeds with an expanded review of the existing literature on k ey theories, such as social distance regulatory focus, construal level theory, and involvement, and provide s hypotheses and research questions based on the theoretical underpinnings. Chapter 3 elaborates on the research design recruitment, experimental p rocedure, stimulus development, measurement instrument, and pretest Chapter 4 presents results of the study, including reliability checks, manipulation check s for independent variables, hypotheses testing, and testing for research questions and covariates Chapter 5 provide s a discussion of the research conclusion s in addition to theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and suggestions for future research.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Message Strategies in Health Communication Campaigns A cam by change agents to achieve certain changes in receiver behavior in a specific time overall public he alth through persuasive communication activities. First, health communication campaigns are intended to generate desirable outcomes ranging from has three levels of objectives: to inform, to persuade, and to mobilize behavior change. Mediated communication efforts are designed to increase individual levels of knowledge, reveal or change attitudes, or facilitate or prevent behaviors which are accep ted as the common good generating overall social improvement. Similarly, Flora, Maibach, and Maccoby (1989) proposed that mass media play the roles of educator, supporter, promoter, or supplement for health intervention. Second, when health communication c ampaigns are implemented, assessment of individual audiences is crucial. Parrot, Egbert, Anderton, and Sefcovic (2001) proposed that specific and consistent message strategies aimed at target audiences are key to generating successful outcomes for health c ampaigns. In that sense, Flora et al. (1989) suggested the necessity of tailored communication, asserting Audience se gmentation strategies targeting concrete messages to particular audiences are important in improving campaign effectiveness (Rogers & Storey, 1987).

PAGE 22

22 The most common approach to segmenting audiences is demographic; this approach distinguishes audience membe rs by age, gender, race, ethnicity, or income. A more sophisticated approach is to segment audiences using psychographic characteristics of the target because it influences enactment of the health behavior. Indeed, individual health behaviors, such as obta ining knowledge, coping with constraints, and self motivation, are found to be the antecedents of sequential individual behavioral outcomes (Slater, 1995). Many theories of behavioral prediction and behavior change, including the health belief model (Becke r, 1974), social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986), theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975), theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985; 1991), and the transtheoretical model of behavior change (Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992) have been ap plied to explain a wide variety of health behaviors. These theories posit that health behaviors result from the interplay between behavior specific cognitions and forces in the social environment (Slater, 1995). Specifically, the combination of behavior an d relevant behavior specific cognitions, which may play a role as an effective basis for audience segmentation strategies, efficacy), beliefs about the behavior (e.g., outcome expectancies), and beliefs about suppor t for the behavior among relevant members in the social environment (e.g., perceived social support and norms) (Maibach, Maxfield, Ladin, & Slater, 1996). In conjunction with audience segmentation based on behavior specific cognitions and social environme ntal factors, health campaign practitioners have stressed the importance of developing the right messages to influence the right audiences (Hornick, 2002; Viswanath & Emmons, 2006 ). The optimal approach to tailoring includes

PAGE 23

23 personalizing messages by consi dering complex individual differences in the cognitive and behavioral factors that affect health related decision making and actions ( Latimer, Katulak, Mowad, & Salovey, 2005). Several studies have systematically investigated the effectiveness of matching messages to specific psychological characteristics and demonstrated that psychologically tailored messages may be more persuasive than generic health messages. This has been illustrated by studies on messages tailored to ef ficacy (Campbell et al., 2004), level of social support (Brug, Steenhuis, Van Assema, & De Vries, 1996), and attributional style (Strecher et al., 1994); tailored messages are more likely to change cognitive and behavioral outcomes as opposed to non tailor ed messages. Furthermore, Latimer et al. (2005) tailored messages to psychological constructs that differentiate people based on how they process health information using a variety of variables such as need for cognition (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982), coping st yle (Miller, Summerton, & Brody, 1988), health locus of control (Wallston, Wallston, & Devellis, 1978), and regulatory focus (Higgins, 1998). Social Norms Approach Given the importance of audience segmentation and message tailoring in health communication campaigns, multiple strategies can be used to design messages in the context of anti high risk drinking advertising campaigns. One message strategy that may enhance the effectiveness of the advertising campaigns is a social norms approach. There are two t ypes of norms: injunctive norms and descriptive norms (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000). Descriptive norms refer to what most people do in a given situation without implications of right or wrong. These norms, which defin is commonly done in a particular situation regardless of the acceptability of the action. In

PAGE 24

24 contrast, injunctive norms are social expectations about what people should do i n a particular situation. These norms, defined in terms of what behaviors are typically approved or disapproved of, are related to perceived attitudes, beliefs, or moral rules about what is commonly approved or disapproved in a society or culture. Social n orms, which refer to rules or expectations for appropriate social behaviors, particularly related to drinking behaviors incorporate both injunctive and descriptive norms (Berkowitz, 2001; Borsari & Carey, 2003). Through a meta analysis of 23 studies of no rm misperceptions about alcohol use, Borsari and Carey (2003) found that many college frequency ( i.e., descriptive norm) and the approval or acceptance of drinking among their peers ( i.e., injunctive norm). The extent of misperception of this descriptive norm and most successful social norms interventions have used descriptive norms (Berkowitz, 2001). Similar to perceived social norm, subjective norm has been found to be an important construct in predicting behavioral intention in the health campaign arena. Reasoning based theories such as the theory of reasoned action (TRA; Fishbein & Ajzen, 19 75) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1985) address the role of subjective norms in predicting the intention to limit alcohol consumption. It is believed that the TRA and TPB provide an organizing framework for empirical findings related to t he effectiveness of health interventions (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2002). More specifically, the TRA consists of beliefs, attitudes, intentions, and behaviors and deals with the relationships among those components, while the TPB, as an extended version of the

PAGE 25

25 our ability to actually perform the behavior, which is similar to the construct of self efficacy. The TRA and TPB suggest that subjective norms can be operationalized an d measured via beliefs about whether most people approve or disapprove of the behavior. Also, subjective norms can be indirectly measured by normative belief, which refers to belief about whether each referent approves or disapproves of the behavior, and m otivation to comply, which refers to motivation to do what each referent thinks (Ajzen, 1985; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1 975; Fishbein & Cappella, 2006; Montano & Kasprzyk, 2002). In light of this, based on TPB and the social norms approach, Park, Klein, and Smith (2009) examined whether perception of subjective norms, descriptive and injunctive university level norms, and descriptive and injunctive U.S. level norms represent separate dimensions of the behavioral intention to limit drinking to zero drinks and confi rmed that the five types of norms are all unique constructs. The social norms approach concerns peer influences that are based on what beliefs and actions (the actual norm ). Moreover, it addresses the influences of incorrect perceptions of how other members in social groups think and act on human behaviors (Berkowitz, 2001). Notably, people may overestimate the permissiveness of peer attitudes and/or behaviors regarding alc ohol or underestimate the extent to which peers engage in healthy behavior. The phenomenon in which people in a group misperceive the beliefs of others because everyone behaves inconsistently with their beliefs refers to pluralistic ignorance (Miller & McF arland, 1987; Toch & Klofas, 1984). Pluralistic ignorance occurs when a majority of people falsely assumes that most of their peers

PAGE 26

26 think or behave differently from them, when in fact their attitudes and/or behaviors are similar. For instance, most college students who drink moderately or not at all incorrectly assume that other college students drink more than they do; these students also think that others drink more than they actually do (Prentice & Miller, 1996). In a similar vein, false consensus, as a self serving bias, indicates the incorrect belief that example, heavy drinkers may incorrectly think that most other students are heavy drinkers, or prejudiced individ uals may incorrectly believe that they speak for their group (Borsari & Carey, 2001). In sum, the majority of people with healthy behavior may incorrectly believe that they are in the minority ( i.e., pluralistic ignorance), while the minority who engage in unhealthy behavior may incorrectly think that they are in the majority ( i.e., false consensus). Indeed, a considerable body of research has revealed that college students tend to have misperceptions about peer drinking norms (e.g., Berkowitz & Perkins, 1986; consumption of alcohol. The misperceived drinking norms have been regarded as causal factors that affect heavy drinking and elicit alcohol misuse. Prentice and Mi related to comfort with alcohol use in that students tend to believe that they are more uncomfortable with campus alcohol practices than the average student (the s ocial norm). perceptions of the campus drinking norm and drinking behavior, attitudes toward drinking, and the degree of consistency/discrepancy between their own attitudes t oward

PAGE 27

27 drinking and those of others are significantly associated with drinking behavior. The study showed that the more students believe that the perceived campus norm is similar to their own attitude, the more they drink. Also, research has consistently re ported that students tend to overestimate the number of drinks that defines high risk drinking while underestimating the seriousness of problems caused by heavy drinking (Wechsler & Nelson, 2001). Miley and Frank (2006) noted that high risk drinkers overes timate drinking norms more consistently than non high risk drinkers. These misperceptions of alcohol consumption related norms make students feel justified or even pressured to drink as much as they do (Gomberg, Kessel Schneider, & DeJong, 2001). A signifi cant number of social norm related interventions have been implemented as well, giving focus to the degree to which college students misperceive the level of peer drinking and the resulting tendency toward heavy drinking. Interventions based on social norm s have been designed and implemented to correct misperceptions of peer drinking norms to reduce high risk drinking in the college population (Haines & Spear, 1996; Lewis & Neighbors, 2006). These interventions have often been successful in reducing alcohol use in college populations. Haines and Spear (1996) found that a 5 year media campaign aimed at changing perceptions of drinking norms among Northern Illinois University (NIU) undergraduates resulted in an 18.5% drop in the number of students who perceive d high risk drinking as the norm. Haines and Spear also found that this intervention lowered the proportion of high risk drinkers among the population by almost 9%. The NIU intervention was followed by successful marketing campaigns based on social norms a t many colleges and universities (Berkowitz, 2001).

PAGE 28

28 The social norms approach to message development was employed to correct these misperceptions by presenting accurate norms through traditional public service announcements (PSAs) and social networking si tes (SNSs) such as MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter. As an integral part of public health campaigns (Wallack, 1989), PSAs are meant to raise public awareness of an issue to change the attitudes and behaviors of the public for its own good, vocalize health be liefs, and advocate healthy practices. PSAs seek to effect changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior related to alcohol consumption, changing the ways in which alcohol related problems are considered as public health issues (DeJong & Atkin, 1995; Ringo ld, 2008). In particular, PSA based social norms advertising is the most commonly implemented intervention used to disseminate messages about the dangers and consequences of high risk drinking and convince students to drink moderately and responsibly (Pill ing & Brannon, 2007). SNSs also have been incorporated into the recent social norms campaign plans. Health communication practitioners have used social media, and specifically SNSs, for a number of health education, intervention, and social marketing effo rts (Hawn, 2009). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses the SNS as an important platform for health communication and information exchange to engage individuals in health topics and empower them to lead healthier, safer lives (CDC, 2011 ). Given the importance of segmenting primary users of Web 2.0 social media (Thackeray, Neiger, Hanson, & McKenzie, 2008), recent research (e.g., Kontos, Emmons, Puleo, & Viswanath, 2010) has revealed that young adults, the so re more likely to use SNSs for health queries, comments, and updates, suggesting that

PAGE 29

29 age is the primary predictor of SNS use. Based on this premise, social norms campaigns using SNSs have been successful in reducing alcohol consumption on college campuses (Jacobson, 2010; Schworm, 2008). Message Strategy 1 : Social Distance Despite the prevalence of the social norms approach, past research (e.g., Campo & Cameron, 2006; Polonec et al., 2006; Wechsler, Lee, Kuo, & Lee, 2000 b ) has indicated that this approach can be ineffective in decreasing the levels of high risk drinking. The social norms approach is based on the assumption that if students believe heavy drinking is the norm and an expected part of college life, they are more likely to become involved in al cohol abuse regardless of the accuracy of their belief. S ocial norms campaigns depend on the rationale that college students will tend to reduce alcohol use if they think that most students on campus are moderate drinkers. However, revealed that only 27.4% of the students believed the norms message that most found that accuracy in e stimating the social norms on college campus did not necessarily increase or decrease alcohol consumption. In that sense, the social norms campaign, based on the social comparisons approach, revealed its ineffectiveness in decreasing the levels of dangerou s drinking among hard core drinkers. This study found drinking norm than their group norm. With regard to the ineffectiveness of the campaign, recent research (Camero n & Campo, 2006; Campo & Cameron, 2006; Pilling & Brannon, 2007; Polonec et al., 2006) asserted that there is a need to develop multiple approaches in the context of drinking behaviors. The complex relationships between

PAGE 30

30 variables can be better understood b y the causation among other predictor variables, such as social nature of human interaction and drinking behavioral outcomes. In light of these findings, a critical issue influencing drinking behaviors may be the saliency of norms, or the degree of immedia (Borsari & Carey, 2001), which is related to the concept of social distance. The social distance corollary posits that the self other perceptual gap of media effects (i.e., third person perception) increases as the compare d others become more distant from the respondents themselves. Although the concept was originally defined mainly with respect to geographic distance (Cohen, Mutz, Price, & Gunther, 1988), a body of research has tested it with different operationalizations, such as close (friends and acquaintances) versus remote (people in general) groups, vague versus specific and close friends versus distant others (Paek, Pan, Sun, Abisaid, & Houden, 2005). The basic rationale for this argument is provided by social ident ity theory (Tajfel, 1982) that refers to the beliefs and feelings people have toward the groups to which they see themselves belonging. According to the social identity theory, people view themselves and others as group members who have a common or shared social identity. The stronger the social identification, the more magnified the tendencies toward perceptions of similarity between self and in group members ( i.e., in group assimilation) and toward perceptions of difference between in group and out group members ( i.e., intergroup groups over members of other groups is related to in group bias (Brewer, 1979; Tajfel, 1982). Specifically, past research has suggested that perceived alcohol use by proxima l

PAGE 31

31 alcohol use than perceived alcohol use by more distant peers, such as students in general (Baer, 2002; Oetting & Donnermeyer, 1998; Real & Rimal 2007; Yanovitzky et al., 2006). The concept of social distance overlaps the idea of peer proximity. It is important to recognize that, theoretically, the term peer signifies a multidimensional concept that includes the following: best friends as the imme diate social circle of friends, the peer group with which they interact, and the anonymous crowd in their school as the larger social context (Bearman, 2002). Peer influence operates at both proximal (close friends) and distal (leading crowds, peer groups) levels, a concept that Bearman (2002) termed influence of presumed influence (IPI) that predicts the indirect influence of media nd behaviors via the presumed influence of the given media content on others. The importance of peer proximity in influencing health behaviors has been highlighted in health related research fields. For example, Paek and Gunder (2007) found that respondent anti smoking messages leads to a significant decrease in their favorable thoughts toward smoking and intention to smoke. Similarly, the role of peer communication has been emphasized in terms of reducing behavior (TNSB; Rimal & Real, 2005) distinguishes the roles of descriptive and injunctive norms in behavior change and proposes a moderating effect of injunctive norms on the relationsh ip between descriptive norms and intention to drink alcohol among college students. The theory also considers the role of other moderators, such

PAGE 32

32 group identity ( i.e., as well as outc ome expectations ( i.e., the belief that engaging in a behavior will confer and Rimal (2007) found that peer communication about alcohol influenced the association between descriptive norms and behaviors, such that people who engage in discussions about alcohol related issues are more likely to believe that many others engage in alcohol consumption. They also found the moderating role of discussion of alcohol in influencing the perceived prevalence of consumption. That is, when students talked about alcohol as opposed to when they did not, descriptive norms were more likely to predict the alcohol consumption. Consistent with previous findings (Campo, Brossard, Frazer, Lewis, indicates that peer communication needs to be considered when conducting research 08) study revealed that group identity and behavioral identity moderate the relationship between descriptive norms and behavioral intentions. Notably, there are misperceptions about alcohol use in that college students are inclined to perceive that their best friend pairs or the dyad ( i.e., in group members) drink less than students in general ( i.e., out group members) (Yanovitzky et al., 2006). People are likely to have stronger misperceptions about alcohol use by out group members due to out group bias, but the size of misperceptions is weaker in terms of their effect on individual drinking behaviors. On the other hand, people tend to have weaker misperceptions about alcohol use by in group members due to in group bias, yet the magnitude of misperceptions is stronger in terms of their effect on behaviors. Previous

PAGE 33

3 3 research (e.g., Bosari & Carey, 2001; Carter & Kahnweiler, 2000; Thombs, Wolcott, & Farkash, 1997; Yanovitzky et al., 2006) conducted on college drinking has documented that as social distance in creases, misperceptions about alcohol use by peers tends to increase. For instance, Borsari and Carey (2001) reviewed the existing literature about influenced by the social distance of the individual from the environment. Misperceptions tend to increase as social distance increases, while the closer or more prominent a (Berkowitz, 200 1 ). For example, almost all students on a college campus are more influenced by campus behavior norms than by norms of off campus behavior or behavioral norms at other schools (Perkins, 2003). In terms of drinking behavior and perception, an individual college student tends to perceive that his or her friends drink more than the individual does and that in general the student body drinks more than the 1 ). Message Strategy 2 : Regulatory Focus The persuasiveness of positively or negatively framed messages has been extensively studied in health related behaviors (Block & Keller, 1995; Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987; Rothman & Salovey, 1997). Drawing on prospect theory (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), research has revealed the differential effects of messages that contain negatively framed information versus those with positively framed information. outcome are sensitive to how message frames ar e presented as gains or losses. The framing postulate of the prospect theory suggests that two respective ways of

PAGE 34

34 behavioral responses differently. For instance, in the examina tion of skin cancer, growths are [frequently diagnosed as] the less deadly non etected, 1 of 20 growths is [frequently diagnosed as] Salovey, Antone, Keough, & Martin, 1993, p. 410). Nevertheless, the literature cited above showed inconsistent findings related to the effectiveness of positiv ely framed or negatively framed messages. For example, negative framing is more effective when it comes to detection behavior, such as breast self examination (Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987), mammography screening (Banks et al., 1995), and skin cancer detecti on (Rothman et al., 1993), rather than when it refers to other behaviors. On the other hand, in terms of disease prevention or health promotion such as improvement of self esteem through regular exercise (Robberson & Roger, 1988), use of sunscreen for prev child (Rothman et al., 1993), positive framing is more persuasive than negative framing. In that sense, Kelly and Rothman (2002) proposed that loss framed messages are more persuasive than gain framed messages when the goal of the examination is to indicate a health problem rather than to accrue a health benefit. To resolve the inconsistent findings, Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, and Salovey (2006) also suggested a concrete framework for health campaigner s who develop interventions as a means of promoting desirable health behaviors. While detection behaviors, such as cancer screening practices and breast cancer examinations, are more likely to be affected by loss framed

PAGE 35

35 appeals, prevention behaviors, such as using sunscreen and exercising, are more likely to be influenced by gain framed appeals (Rothman et al., 2006). Certainly, matching the message frame to the type of behavior can enhance the meta analytic review indicated that there are no statistically significant differences in persuasiveness between gain and loss framed messages concerning preventive actions, such as safer sex behaviors, skin cancer prevention behaviors, or diet and nutrit ion behaviors. analysis r evealed that using loss framed rather than gain framed appeals is unlikely to substantially improve persuasiveness in advocacy of disease detection behaviors. Along the same vein, recent r esearch (e.g., Leshner & Cheng, 2009; Shen & Dillard, 2009; Quick & Bates, 2010) has attempted to consider message framing effectiveness at the level of individual type, not at the level of ndency to orient their behaviors toward favorable or unfavorable outcomes may influence their responses to framed messages (Latimer et al., 2007). framing research, the current resea rch suggests that the effects of message frames may be operationalized differently depending on message frame congruency with message recipient goals. Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) indicates that two distinct kinds of goals exist. One is to attai n advancement and achievement by aiming for matches to desired end states ( i.e., promotion focus); the other is to attain protection and safety by avoiding mismatches to desired end states ( i.e., prevention focus). A promotion focus is geared to motivate p eople to pursue gains and aspire toward ideals, while a prevention

PAGE 36

36 focus is geared to motivate people to avoid losses and fulfill obligations (Lee & Aaker, 2004). These distinct goals can be served by different strategic means. Promotion focus uses an appr oach strategy to goal attainment, whereas prevention focus uses an avoidance strategy to goal attainment (Cesario et al., 2004; Higgins, 2002; Kim, 2006; Lee & Aaker, 2004). Accordingly, there are two distinct types of people; promotion focused people, who are motivated by achievement and are sensitive to opportunities for advancement, and prevention focused people, who are motivated to avoid threats to security and safety, and are sensitive to occasions of hazard (Zhao & Pechmann, 2007). Of special intere st is that regulatory focus can be investigated either as a chronic individual difference or a situationally induced focus (Cesario et al., 2004). First, regulatory focus has been conceptualized as a chronic tendency, acknowledging that people have a natur al predisposition to prefer a promotion orientation or gravitate more toward a prevention orientation. Previous research (e.g., Higgins, 1987; Lee, Aaker, & Gardner, 2000) has supported the idea that people have a chronic regulatory focus, suggesting that approximately half of people are chronically promotion focused and the other half are prevention focused. Also, regulatory focus has been examined as a situational factor in that it can be manipulated for a particular task or goal. People can momentarily a ctivate an eager or vigilant means of obtaining the goal, or they can activate a prevention or promotion focus (Cesario et al., 2004). Regulatory goals can be elicited by momentary situations, such that message frames providing positive consequences to be gained elicit a promotion focus and those providing negative consequences to be avoided elicit a prevention focus (Kees, Burton, & Tangari, 2010; Kim, 2006; Lee & Aaker, 2004). A persuasive message can be framed as either an

PAGE 37

37 eager means, focusing on achiev ing success, or a vigilant means, focusing on preventing failure (Cesario et al., 2004). Regulatory focus effects have been examined in terms of how message framing persuasion in the health (2001) study, promotion focused information, including becoming energized, was found to be more persuasive for people who are exposed to a promotion focus than for those who were imbu ed with a prevention focus. Conversely, prevention focused information, such as avoiding heart disease, was found to be more effective for people exposed to a prevention focus than to a promotion focus. With regard to the role of regulatory focus in messag e framing, Aaker and Lee (2001) found that appeals presented in gain frames were more persuasive when the message was promotion focused, whereas loss framed appeals were more persuasive when the message was prevention focused. These regulatory focus effect s suggesting heightened vigilance against negative outcomes and heightened eagerness toward positive outcomes were replicated when perceived risk match between antismo king ad messages and the regulatory goal led to adolescents who had lower smoking intentions and lower perceptions of the benefits of smoking. The study suggested that antismoking messages for adolescents with a promotion focus should emphasize promotion r elated merits of abstaining from smoking, whereas antismoking messages for adolescents with a prevention focus should emphasize prevention related merits of abstaining from smoking.

PAGE 38

38 Moreover, recent research has proposed moderating effects of other varia bles on effects of message framing of health advertisements and individual differences in temporal orientation on consumer risk perceptions, attitude, and behavioral inten tions. framing effects related to goal pursuit strategies (GPSs). Also, they found that the fit between a GPS e ffectiveness of the advertisement, but the regulatory fit effect is moderated by temporal construal and self regulatory focus interplay in determining advertising message persuasivenes s. construal with respect to regulatory focus, they found that individuals with a dominant independent self construal (vs. a prevailing interdependent self construal) exhibit more positive attitudes toward a promotion focused (vs. a prevention focused) advertising message and the advocated brand. Additionally, they confirmed that situationally primed self construal, in conjunction with regulatory focus, has a similar impact on adve rtising message effectiveness. Construal Level Perspectives Recent studies (Eval, Liberman, Trope, & Walther, 2004; Nan, 2007) have suggested that positive attributes associated with a course of action constitute a higher construal level, while negative at tributes make up a lower construal level. This kind of feeling right experience provides an important theoretical underpinning of the social distance and regulatory focus interaction. Construal level theory (CLT) (Trope & Liberman, 2003) postulates that pe ople construct different mental representations of the

PAGE 39

39 same information depending on whether the information pertains to the near future (i.e., psychologically proximal) or the distant future (i.e., psychologically distant). Specifically, Eyal et al. (2004 ) found that people generated more arguments in favor of a social plan when it was expected to launch in the distant versus the near future. Further supporting the assertion that positive attributes constitute a higher construal level than negative attribu tes, Nan (2007) proposed that the persuasiveness of a gain frame, which focuses on positive consequences of performing the requested behavior, becomes stronger when people make judgments for socially distant versus proximal entities. A basic tenet of const rual level theory is that temporal distance influences the way people mentally represent the same information or event (Trope & Liberman, 2003). The greater the temporal distance, the more likely events will be represented in terms of abstract, schematic, and decontextualized features, often referred to as high level construals. On the other hand, as temporal distance decreases, events will be more likely to be represented in terms of concrete, detailed, and contextualized features, often referred to as low level construals. In other words, according to the construal level theory, people use concrete, low level construals to represent near events. In contrast, people use abstract, high level construals defined in terms of schematic, decontextualized repres entations that extract the gist from the available information to represent distant events (Trope, Liberman, & Wakslak, 2007). Research has shown that different dimensions of psychological distance (time, space, social distance, and probability ) affect m ental construal. In particular, numerous studies (Liberman, Sagristano, & Trope, 2002; Liberman & Trope, 1998; Forster, Friedman, & Liberman, 2004) have examined the hypothesis that distant future events are represented in a

PAGE 40

40 more abstract, structured manne r that emphasizes superordinate and incidental features of events, while near future events are represented in a concrete, contextualized manner that includes an emphasis on subordinate features of events. Interestingly, the principles of construal level theory apply to various forms of psychological distance, including so called social distance (e.g., in group vs. out group). Liviatan, Trope, and Liberman (2006) examined construal effects related to similarity, one form of social distance. Their research was based on the assumption that the less similar someone is to oneself, the more socially distant they typically seem. The researchers hypothesized that behavior performed by a dissimilar other would be represented at a higher level of construal than beh avior performed by a similar other (Trope et al., 2007). Liviatan et al. (2006) hypothesized that behavior performed by a dissimilar other (i.e., a target person who had attended different classes than participants themselves) would be represented at a hig her level of construal than behavior performed by a similar other (i.e., a target person who had attended similar represented in higher level terms than similar target for superordinate action identifications (i.e., description emphasizing the end for which the action is performed) relative to subordinate action identifications (i.e., description emphasizing the means by which the act ion is performed) was greater for a dissimilar than similar target. In addition, Smith and Trope (2006) examined the relationship between power activation and abstraction such that merely activating the concept of power should cause people to view stimuli in terms of the big picture, to focus on the gist and categorize broadly, even if these stimuli are unrelated to power itself Smith and

PAGE 41

41 Trope claimed that e levated power increases the psychological distance one feels from others, and this distance, acc ording to construal level theory should lead to more abstract information processing. categorization, indicating to what degree atypical exemplars (e.g., purse) are good members of a given category (e.g ., clothing). If priming high power leads to more abstract thinking, high power primed participants should be more inclusive in their categorization than low power primed participants. Thus, high power primed participants should rate these atypical exempla rs as better category members than low power primed participants. The results suggest that power priming leads to more abstract thinking and thus greater breadth of categorization. The principles of construal level theory are similar to those of regulator y fit, a match between the manner in which a person pursues a goal and his or her goal T he interaction effects between regulatory focus and temporal distance are evidence of a regulatory fit type of effect (Aaker & Lee, 2006). Research on regulatory fit conveys the relationship between regulatory goal and strategic means during goal pursuit. The experience of feeling right resulting from a regulatory fit leads to more positive feelings about desirable choices and negative feelings about undesirable choices (Higgins, 2002). In other words, when people feel right about their reactions, positive reactions become more positive, and negat ive reactions become more negative (Cesario et al., 2004). This experience can increase engagement in reactions (e.g., Avnet & Higgins, 2006). In line with this, the effec ts of

PAGE 42

42 self regulatory focus can be operationalized differently depending on message frame congruency with message recipient goals. People with a promotion ( vs. prevention) focus evaluate the target product and product features described at an abstract ( vs. concrete) level of construal more favorably (Lee, Keller, & Sternthal, 2010). In a similar vein, positive or promotional outcomes of an event constitute high level construals, whereas negative or preventional outcomes represent low level construals. Thus, when people with a prevention focus are prompted to take on a proximal versus a distant temporal perspective, they have more positive attitudes toward the target product (Mogilner, Aaker, & Pennington, 2008; Pennington & Roese, 2003). Involvement as a Mod erator of Construal Level Effects A potential boundary condition for the construal level theory that assumes the interaction effects between social distance and regulatory focus can be explained by the concept of involvement. Temporal construal, defined as the tendency to construe near future events concretely and distant future events abstractly, is a generalized heuristic that results from differences in what people typically know and do about near and distant future situations (Trope & Liberman, 2003). In a similar vein, the regulatory fit effect driven by people who experience regulatory fit depends on heuristic rather than systematic processing of information. Regulatory fit involves an experience of feeling right that occurs due to transfer from sourc e confusion (i.e., misattribution) (Cesario et al., 2004; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003). People adjust their responses and correct the bias when they are aware of how they believe that the feeling may potentially influence their respons es (Higgins et al., 2003). The bias correction is resource demanding; when people are less involved with alcohol use, processing

PAGE 43

43 capacity is limited; thus, there might be insufficient resources to correct for the response bias (Wang & Lee, 2006). The heur istic systematic model (HSM) proposes two fundamental information processing modes and provides a theoretical framework for understanding the effects of construal level. The model makes a distinction between a systematic (i.e., a more comprehensive, analy tic orientation) and a heuristic (i.e., simpler decision rules) view of persuasion (Zuckerman & Chaiken, 1998). Systematic processing occurs when people exert considerable cognitive effort in judging message validity, while heuristic processing requires co mparatively little effort (Chaiken, 1980). According to the arguments to reach their judgment; thus, people need to devote more cognitive resources to a judgment task to engag e in systematic processing. In contrast, heuristic processing requires less cognitive capacity than systematic processing; therefore, people in the heuristic processing mode use simple decision rules and have limited ability to process argumentation and, s ubsequently, rely on more accessible information (e.g., non content cues) in judging message validity (Chaiken, 1980; 1987; Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994; Zuckerman & Chaiken, 1998). Furthermore, people are likely to perceive the importance of a highly accura te judgment under conditions of high involvement, which means when people receive messages of personal importance or when people feel that their judgments have important consequences for themselves. On the other hand, under low involvement conditions, whic h means when the topic is perceived as unimportant or when the judgment is perceived as inconsequential, people may employ a heuristic processing strategy (Chaiken, 1980).

PAGE 44

44 In light of this, previous findings showed how involvement moderates the regulatory fit effects on attitude. Wang and Lee (2006) examined the robustness of the regulatory fit effect under high and low involvement conditions. People who are not motivated to process information tend to pay attention to information that addresses their reg ulatory concerns more heuristically. In contrast, people who are motivated to process information are likely to attend to information more systematically, regardless of regulatory focus relevance. Wang and Lee found that participants paid more attention t o (e.g., selectively searched for and spent more time processing) and evaluated their product based on the information that addresses their regulatory concerns only when they were not involved in processing the information which means, only under the low involvement condition. On the other hand, they found no sign of the regulatory fit effect in product evaluations for involved participants. In a similar vein, Briley and Aaker (2006) found that people who were culturally inclined to have a promotion or pre vention focus held more favorable product attitudes only when they were unable to expend cognitive resources on the task (e.g., cognitively busy with a memory task) or when they were under high time pressure conditions; nevertheless, this effect disappeare d when they were able to expend cognitive resources or under low time pressure conditions. Hypotheses and Research Questions According to social identity theory, people have perceptions of the groups to which they see themselves belonging, and view themse lves and others as their group member who have a common or shared social identity. Based on the consistent finding that misperceptions about alcohol use by peers increase with increased social distance, it is plausible that the effect of drinking norms mis perceptions on college students drinking behavior is contingent on perceived social distance from peers. In light of it,

PAGE 45

45 Yanovitzky et al. ( 2006 ) found that perceptions about alcohol use by proximal peers (friends and best friends) exerted more influence on college students personal alcohol use than perceptions about alcohol use by more distant peers (such as students at the same university, students in general, and members of fraternities or sororities). Thus, it is conceivable that anti high risk drinki ng advertising messages would be more persuasive when the messages are framed as socially proximal entities (e.g., in groups) than for socially distant entities (e.g., out groups ) The following hypothesis is postulated : H 1 : When individuals make judgment s for a socially proxima l entity, there will be (a) more positive attitudes toward advertising, (b) more positive attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, and ( c ) greater intentions to drink moderately and responsibly compared to when individua ls make judgments for a socially distant entity. It is expected that the effects of promotion and prevention focused messages aimed at motivating moderate and responsible drinking will differ on a basis of Rothman prevention behavior versus detection behavior Previous studies that have examined the influences of message frames on reducing health damaging behavior such as abusing alcohol and smoking have found that individuals tend to be more risk averse and more l ikely to abandon the risky behavior when the potential gains from responsible drinking or smoking cessation are considered. G ain framed messages were found to be more effective in lowering alcohol use by college students than were loss framed messages that stressed the consequences of alcohol use (Gerend & Cullen, 2008). Similarly, gain framed visual and auditory appeals that focus on the benefits of smoking cessation were more likely than were loss framed ones to elicit anti smoking beliefs and attitudes ( Schneider et al.

PAGE 46

46 2001) and to generate intentions to quit smoking (Steward, Schneider, Piazarro, & Salovey, 2003). Acknowledging that message frames providing positive consequences to be gained elicit a promotion focus or those providing negative consequ ences to be avoided elicit a prevention focus (Kees et al., 2010; Kim, 2006; Lee & Aaker, 2004), a message can be framed as either eager means or vigilant means, or either a promotion focus or a prevention focus. Therefore, with regard to the anti high ris k drinking advertising messages, people should be more receptive to a message suggesting eager means ( vs. vigilant means) to achieve a goal. That is, it is predicted that an ad focusing on a promotion focus will be evaluated more favorably than one suggest ing more a prevention focus. Specifically, people will be more responsive to a message framed as a promotion focus and will have more positive attitudes toward advertising that contains a message highlighting the benefits of moderate and responsible drinki ng than a message highlighting the costs of high risk drinking. Also, a message framed as a promotion focus rather than as a prevention focus may be more effective in terms of generating attitudes and intentions to favor moderate and responsible drinking T he following hypothesis is postulated: H 2 : A promotion focused advertising message will lead to (a) more positive attitudes toward advertising, (b) more positive attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, and ( c ) greater intentions to drink mod erately and responsibly than will a prevention focused message With regard to the interaction effects between regulatory focus and social distance it is conceivable that a promotion message that focuses on the positive outcomes of compliance would be more persuasive when preventive health messages are framed as socially distant entities (e.g., out groups) than for socially proximal

PAGE 47

47 entities (e.g., in groups) according to construal level theory. In contrast, a prevention message that emphasizes the nega tive outcomes of noncompliance would be more persuasive when preventive health messages are framed as socially proximal entities than for socially distant entities. That is, it is expected that an ad message that focuses on promotion oriented means for obt aining a goal would be evaluated more favorably in terms of practicing moderate and responsible drinking, when messages in the ad are evaluated from the perspectives of socially distant entities, and prevention oriented means for goal attainment would be p rioritized when messages are evaluated from the perspective of socially proximal entities. Thus, the following hypothes i s is suggested : H 3 : There will be an interaction effect between social distance and regulatory focus. When individuals make judgments fo r a socially proximal entity, a prevention focused versus promotion focused advertising message will generate (a) more positive attitudes toward advertising, (b) more positive attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, and ( c ) greater intentions t o drink moderately When individuals make judgments for a socially distant entity, the promotion focused versus prevention focused advertising message will be more persuasive. Nevertheless, this tendency may be dependent on the level of involvement with th e alcohol related issues. People are predicted to pay more attention to information that is relevant to their regulatory concerns, but only when they are not motivated to process information. According to t he heuristic systematic model people who are not motivated to process information that addresses their regulatory concerns are more likely to pay attention to information heuristically. On the other hand, people who are motivated to process the information are more likely to pay attention to information systematically. The construal level effect, or the interaction effect between regulatory focus and social distance, would still be observed when people are not motivated to process information carefully under the low involvement condition. On the other han d,

PAGE 48

48 the regulatory fit effect would not be observed under the high involvement condition. Hence the following hypothes i s is proposed: H 4 : There will be an interaction among social distance regulatory focus, and involvement. Under high involvement conditio ns, there will be no interaction effect between social distance and regulatory focus on (a) advertising attitudes (b) moderating and responsible drinking attitudes, and ( c ) moderate and responsible drinking intentions; on the other hand, under low involve ment conditions, there will be an interaction effect between social distance and regulatory focus. There are potential variables that might moderate the effects of regulatory focus and attitudinal/behavioral responses to the advertising. Of par ticular interest is that risk perceptions can influence individuals perform the requested behavior (Menon, Block & Ramanathan, 2002). Regarding regulatory focus and perceived risk, Lee and Aaker (2004) app lied the regulatory fit principle to their study and examined whether the effects of the regulatory focus are moderated by perceived risk when manipulating rather than measuring risk. Message frames influence individuals who are in high versus low risk co nditions differently. More perception of threats leads to enhanced vigilance in rel ation to a prevention focus, (Lee & Aaker, 2004). They found that when featured in a promotion focus frame messages that focus on low risk result in a more favorable brand attitude. In contrast, when shown in a prevention focus frame, messages that focus on high risk lead to a more positive brand attitude. In light of it, the following hypot hesis is posited: H 5 : Risk perceptions will moderate the effects of regulatory focus based message on (a ) advertising attitudes (b) moderating and responsible drinking attitudes, and ( c ) moderate and responsible drinking intentions

PAGE 49

49 In addition, given that p ersonalizing messages are effective when targeting behavior, there is a need to investigate factors predicting th e effectiveness of persuasive messages aimed at decreasing high risk drinking. With regards to alcohol related variables, research suggested that an individual s drinking behavior is determined by a level of alcohol consumption (Real & Rimal, 2007; Quick & Bates, 2010) and drinking attitudes (Campo & Cameron, 2006) in that heavy drinking in past affects present and future drinking Furthermore, research on drinking expectancies (Lee, 2010; Leigh & Stacy 1993; Real & Rimal, 2007; Wood, Sher & Strathman 19 96 ) showed that positive expectancies increase drinking, while negative expectancies decrease drinking. Given the previous findings, it is important to investigate the effects of alcohol related variables on the message persuasiveness, such as attitudes to ward ad and behavior and behavioral intentions. Thus, the following research question is proposed. RQ1: Do an individual s alcohol consumption, drinking attitudes, and drinking expectancies influence the outcome variables of interest? Finally, demographic variables are likely to affect message persuasiveness. The variables related to p eers, s ocial n etwork and s ocial a ffiliation include residential system (on vs. off campus) Greek membership and athletic participation (Brannon & Pill ing, 2005). Research showed that l iving on campus ( Gfroerer, Greenblatt & Wright 1997; Valliant & Scanlan 1996 ), Greek membership ( Baer 1994; Cashin, Presley & Meilman 1998 Rimal, 2008), and a thletic participation ( Leichliter et al. 1998; Wechsler Dowdall, Davenport, & Castillo, 1995 ) have been found to increase drinking. In addition gender was found to predict drinking behavior. Previous research proposed that males compared to females consume more alcohol ( Haines & Spear, 1996; Perkins &

PAGE 50

50 Wechsle r, 1996 Rimal, 2008 ) On a basis of the previous findings, there is a need to explore the effects of demographic variables on the message persuasiveness. Therefore, the following research question is suggested: RQ2: Do gender, resident ial system, Greek me mbership, and athletic participation influence the outcome variables of interest? Summary of the Hypotheses and Research Questions In sum, the hypotheses that will be tested and research questions to be explored in the study are as follows: H 1 : When indi viduals make judgments for a socially proxima l entity, there will be (a) more positive attitudes toward advertising, (b) more positive attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, and ( c ) greater intentions to drink moderately and responsibly compa red to when individuals make judgments for a socially distant entity. H 2 : A promotion focused advertising message will lead to (a) more positive attitudes toward advertising, (b) more positive attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, and ( c ) gr eater intentions to drink moderately and responsibly than will a prevention focused message H 3 : There will be an interaction effect between social distance and regulatory focus. When individuals make judgments for a socially proxima l entity, a prevention focused versus promotion focused advertising message will generate (a) more positive attitudes toward advertising, (b) more positive attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, and ( c ) greater intentions to drink moderately When individuals make judgments for a socially distant entity, the promotion focused versus prevention focused advertising message will be more persuasive. H 4 : There will be an interaction among social distance regulatory focus, and involvement. Under high involvement conditi ons, there will be no interaction effect between social distance and regulatory focus on (a) advertising attitudes (b) moderating and responsible drinking attitudes, and ( c ) moderate and responsible drinking intentions; on the other hand, under low involv ement conditions, there will be an interaction effect between social distance and regulatory focus. H 5 : Risk perceptions will moderate the effects of regulatory focus based message on (a ) advertising attitudes (b) moderating and responsible drinking atti tudes, and ( c ) moderate and responsible drinking intentions RQ1: Do an individual s alcohol consumption, drinking attitudes, and drinking expectancies influence the outcome variables of interest?

PAGE 51

51 RQ2: Do gender, resident ial system, Greek membership, an d athletic participation influence the outcome variables of interest?

PAGE 52

52 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Study Design A n experiment was implemented with a 2 (social distance: proximal vs. distant) X 2 ( message frame : promotion focus vs. prevention focus ) X 2 (involvement: high vs. low) between subjects randomized experimental design to test the proposed hypotheses. The study co nsisted of three independent variables: 1) social distance ; 2) regulatory focus frame ; and 3) involvement. Social distance, defined as the saliency of consist ed of two levels: (1) proximal and (2) distant. The second inde pendent variable, message frame, relate d to regulatory focus, consisted of two type s: (1) promotion and (2) prevention f ocused Finally, the third independent variable, involvement, defined as personal importance and relevance, varied at two levels: ( 1) high and (2) low. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions (Ta ble 3 1). Table 3 1. 2 X 2 X 2 factorial design High Involvement Low Involvement Promotion Prevention Promotion Preventi on Proximal I II Proximal III IV Distant V VI Distant VII VIII The following sections present further information about the imple mentation of the research design including information on the measurement instrument design stimulus development, sampling and recruiting and steps taken to pretest the research design Recruitment Sampling criteria prior to the main experiment focused on that of being a college student. C ollege students were chosen due to the fact that high risk drinking or heavy

PAGE 53

53 episodic drinking continues to be one of the most challenging problems facing college campuses (Wolb u rg, 2001). This study recruited the targ et audiences who are college students between the age of 18 and 24. C hoosing a homogeneous group in terms of one specific university (i.e., UF) allows for a more controlled research sample that is consistent from pretests to main study In that sense, u nde rgraduate students from campus wide introductory courses at University of Florida (UF) were recruited for this research in exchange for extra credit, in an amount to be determined at the course No other compensation w as given to th e subjects Specifically, students were recruited from various kinds of courses in the College of Journalism and Communications at UF, including Principle of Advertising, Principle of Public Relations, Introduction to Telecommunication, TV & American Socie ty, and Rock/Roll & America, Also, students from courses outside of the College of Journalism and Communications, such as Principle of Microeconomics and Introduction to Statistics, were invited to the current experimental study. Prior to the experiment, an instructor for each class made an announcement of the study invitation, specifically regarding what the research was about, how to enroll via the online sig n up sheet, and how to participate in the research (e.g., research lab location, time) in classro om. Then, prospective sample in the campus wide courses receive d an invitation e mail from the researcher and was told that t he purpose of this study as to examine UF students responses to the initial messages developed for advertising campaigns to reduce alcohol use, which will be launched by UF Health Promotion Services ( GatorWell ) In the invitati on email the reason why they were being asked to participate was emphasized in a sense that the present study might contribute

PAGE 54

54 to the development of successful advertising campaigns to reduce alcohol use and that the results might affect the public health improvement on campus In the invitat ion letter, subjects were directed to the link for the online sig n up sheet (i.e., doodle.com) and provided a complete lis t of available sessions for th e study Then, they were asked to click only one among the options given to sign up for a study session from October 3 rd to 7 th of 2011, and click o nly one among the options given Finally, they were asked to type in their UF email address for a study session which was the day and time that was convenient for them in order for a researcher to send a reminder email to them prior to the experiment Procedure The experiment was conducted in a research lab (Weimer 2052) in the Co llege of Journalism and Communications at UF where subjects used individual laptop computers to view the study materials. Each experiment session was held with up to 18 subjects due to a limit to the number of computers. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the eight experimental conditions. When arriving at the re search lab, the researcher informed subjects about the ir rights as study participa nts. Subjects were asked to read the informed consent form highligh ting the purpose of research and the fact that no risks were associated with study participation and reinforc ing the fact that their responses to al l information requests would be confidential After consenting to p articipate, subjects were directed to the next pages of the questionnaire made by Q ualtrics software program where they were guided to answer a series of questions regarding the study. The instrument was self guided and had no time limit Individuals goal directed behaviors, regulated by two distinct motivational systems were measure d in the beginning of the experiment. In the pre manipulation phase they were asked to

PAGE 55

55 answer questions intended to measure their chronic regulatory focus defined as a natural predisposition to prefer a promotion orientation or gravitate more toward a pre vention orientation They were then asked to read the background information describing the definition of high risk drinking as an introductory instruction. Then, based on a tool for randomization available in the Qualtrics, subjects were randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions. Next, s ubjects were asked to read a newspaper excerpt for the involvement manipulation. After viewing the newspaper excerpt, they view ed a fictitious Facebook page that was meant to prime subjects with either a promotion or prevention focus. After viewing the Facebook page they view ed a stimulus ad featuring a promotion focused or prevention focused message related to alcohol use and asking for judgments for a socially proximal or distant entity. The Facebook page and the stimulus ad were consistent in subjects message focus. Following the ad exposure, subjects complete d a post manipulation questionnaire that measure d the manipulation effectiveness dependent variables, moderating variables alcohol usage related variab les and classification variables Subjects were informed that the classification information would only be used to confirm that they participated in th e research and their identity was kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Last, they were thank ed for their participation debriefed, and were directed to the GatorWell Health Promotion Services website (i.e., h ttp://gatorwell.ufsa.ufl.edu/Alcohol and Other Drugs.aspx ) for more information about how to get help regarding the excessive alcohol use Stimulus Development The stimulus development was a n important part of the research process during implementation of the research design. Each condition consist ed of the stimulus

PAGE 56

56 materials encouraging people to practice moderate and responsible drinking, a nd manipulat ing involvement, regulatory focus and social distance. Prior to the manipulation, subjects view ed the following introductory instruction upon agreeing to take part: The following pages present you with information about high risk drinking. High risk drinking is defined as a pattern of alcohol consumption that brings the blood alcohol co ncentration (BAC) level to .08 DL/ML or more. This pattern of drinking usually corresponds to 5 or more drinks on a single occasion for men or 4 or more drinks on a single occasion for women, generally in about 2 hours. Please read the newspaper article on the next page. Then view the Facebook page and public service ad (PSA) about high risk drinking in the pages that follow. I nvolvement was differentiated by t wo levels: (1) high and (2) low. A fictitious newspaper excer pt regarding alcohol use was created, and a real newspaper name, The Gainesville Sun was used to enhance the experimental realism. Under the high involvement condition, subjects learned the subj ect issue is personally relevant to them such that alcohol abuse is a growing problem among UF students. Subsequently, a dapted from Maheswaran and Meyers Levy s (1990) statements regarding the issue involvement, subjects assigned to the high involvement co ndition were instructed to read a scenario that highlighted findings from a recent study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, College students in particula r have a very high risk of becoming alcohol dependent, which may be as high as 80% for those who are engaged in high risk drinking. S usceptibility to alcohol dependence or abuse later in life actually is established early when people are in their late teen s and twenties. Thus, the risk of becoming alcohol dependent is real, increasing, and important to be aware of especially when people are between t he ages of 18 24. Further, they were told High

PAGE 57

57 risk drinking negatively affects their academic performance, social relationships and health. Frequent high risk drinkers are 21 times more likely than non high risk drinkers to fall behind in schoolwork, be injured, engage in domestic violence or drive a car after Subjects in the low involvement conditi on were also apprised of the SAMHSA, but the study purportedly report ed that Middle age people in particular have a very high risk of becoming alcohol dependent, which may be as high as 80% for those who are engaged in high risk drinking. The tendency tow ard alcohol dependence or abuse greatly increases as people grow older. Thus, the risk of becoming alcohol dependent is of utmost concern for those between the ages of 45 Further, they w ere told that High risk drinking negatively affects their job pe rformance, social relationships and health. Frequent high risk drinkers are 21 times more likely than non high risk drinkers to fall behind with work, be injured, engage in domestic violence or drive a car after drinking Then, the regulatory focus was m anipulated by altering the appeals, and varied two types: (1) promotion focus and (2) prevention focus. Two types of stimuli such as a Facebook page and a full color advertisement, were designed for the manipulation of regulatory focus frames. First, a Fa cebook page for anti high risk drinking was created to prime either a promotion or prevention focus before showing the ad. I n each condition subjects view ed a Facebook page The GatorWell health promotion services provided by the Division of Student Affair s of UF which were meant to enhance quality of life by promoting wellness and fostering a vibrant UF campus community for student success was chosen as a sponsor and the manipulations of regulatory focus frames were embedded The screenshot of the real G atorWell Facebook page was altered either a

PAGE 58

58 promotion or prevention focus frame in the News Feed of the page. Gerend and alcohol use were modified in the promotion or pre vention focus manner. Half of the subjects was in the promotion focus condition and read the Facebook page emphasizing self regulation toward positive outcomes (i.e., advancement and achievement ): If you do not drink alcohol, you can obtain positive outcom es, such as increasing your likelihood of driving safely, having a healthy liver maintaining a healthy weight, and decreasing your likelihood of risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Also, limiting alcohol use may lead to better moods and higher self esteem, while alcohol use may result in impaired judgment, poorer memory, and difficulty concentrating. If you do not drink, you will feel greater energy for your everyday life! The other group of subjects was in the prevention focus condition and re view ed the Facebook page emphasiz ing self regulation away from n egative outcomes (i.e., protection and safety ) : If you do not drink alcohol, you can avoid negative outcomes, such as increasing your likelihood of driving accidents, having an unhealthy liver gaining weight, and increasing your likelihood of risk for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Also, limiting alcohol use may not lead to depression and lower self esteem, while alcohol use may result in impaired judgment, poorer memory, and difficulty concentrating. If you do not drink, you can protect your everyday life! In addition to the Facebook page two versions of an ad were designed to manipulate the regulatory focus frames (promotion vs. prevention). The advertisement was created with a made up image containing a beer glass in order to increase the external validity of the study. The image of the rocking beer glass, which was shown on the right side of the stimulus ad, was used to represent the outcome of the high risk drinking. The GatorWell s was shown at the bottom of the stimulus ad to enhance the experimental realism of the ad. Adopted from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse

PAGE 59

59 and Alcoholism (1997) s guidelines, in the promotion focus condition, the message emphasized achieving a health y life, and avoiding health risks in the prevention focus condition. The regulatory focus frames were featured on the left side of the stimulus ad. The promotion focus manipulation that appeared in the text of the ad was as follows: Want to a ttain a health y life? Then, you should know how much alcohol you can handle. No more than one drink per hour will keep you in control of a drinking situation and help you maintain a healthy lifestyle such as safe driving, safe sex, a healthy weight, a healthy liver, be tter moods and higher self esteem Safe, sensible and responsible drinking will boost your energy level and make you better able to accomplish all you want out of life! The prevention focus manipulation from the text of the ad was shown below: Want to av oid health risks? Then, you should know how much alcohol you can handle. No more than one drink per hour will prevent you from losing control of a drinking situation and help you prevent an unhealthy lifestyle, such as injury, unsafe sexual practices, weig ht gain, liver disease, suicide attempts, and depression Safe, sensible and responsible drinking will protect your body and keep you safe! Finally, social distance was manipulated via the tagline shown in the appeal of the same ad. Within the promotion focus or prevention focus condition, either a proximal or distant tagline was highlighted at the bottom of the stimulus ad. Specifically, modified from Nan s (2007) method, the following message was highlighted under the proximal condition: What would you r best friend tell you about high risk drinking? Drink moderately and responsibly for the sake of your best friend. On the other hand, the following message was featured under the distant condition: What would an average college student tell you about hi gh risk drinking? Drink moderately and responsibly for the sake of an average college student S ee the Appendix A for the stimuli, and the Appendix B for the questionnaire.

PAGE 60

60 Therefore, eight variations of the stimuli set combining newspaper excerpt, Faceb ook page and advertisement, were developed and implemented for the present study. The first group was exposed to high involvement news, promotion focus Facebook and ad, and proximal ad. The second group was shown to high involvement news, prevention focus Facebook and ad, and proximal ad. The third group was directed to low involvement news, promotion focus Facebook and ad, and proximal ad. The fourth group was guided to low involvement news, prevention focus Facebook and ad, and proximal ad. The fifth grou p was exposed to high involvement news, promotion focus Facebook and ad, and distant ad. The sixth group was shown to high involvement news, prevention focus Facebook and ad, and distant ad. The seventh group was directed to low involvement news, promotion focus Facebook and ad, and distant ad. The eighth group was guided to low involvement news, prevention focus Facebook and ad, and distant ad. Subjects were randomly assigned to each condition. Measur ement Instrument In the process of research design imple mentation, the measurement instrument was also designed. The q uestionnaire was organized into two parts : a pre manipulation questionnaire and a post manipulation questionnaire. The measurement instrument for the experimental study included items measuring independent variables for the manipulation checks, dependent variables, variables related to alcohol use, classification variables, a moderating variable and covariate (Table 3 2). First, chronic regulatory focus w as measured as a covariate p rior to the ma nipulation. I n the post manipulation, three variables for manipulation checks (i.e., social distance, framed regulatory focus, involvement ) and three dependent variables (i.e., attitude toward advertisement, attitude toward the requested behavior and int ention to perfo rm the

PAGE 61

61 requested behavior ) were measured followed by a moderating variable (i.e., the perceived risk). Also, alcohol related variables (i.e., a lcohol consumption level, drinking attitudes drinking expectancy ) and classification variables (i .e., ge nder, residential system, Greek membership, athletic participation) were measured. The instrument applied was identical across all eight experimental conditions. Table 3 2 Measurement instrument Variable type Variable # of items Study Independe nt variable Social distance 1 Nan, 2007 N/A Regulatory focus 1 Lee & Aaker, 2004 N/A Involvement 4 Wang & Lee, 2006 .79 Dependent v ariable Ad attitude 3 MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989 .86 Behavioral attitude 3 MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989 .94 Behavioral intent ion 3 Lee & Aaker, 2004 .94 Moderator Perceived risk 1 Lee & Aaker, 2004 N/A Covariate Chronic regulatory focus Higgins et al., 2001 Promotion focus 6 .72 Prevention focus 5 .75 Alcohol related variable Alcohol consumption 1 Quick & Bates, 2 010 N/A Drinking attitude 3 Campo & Cameron, 2006 .72 Drinking expectancies Real & Rimal, 2007 Perceived benefits 4 .92 Anticipatory socialization 4 .87 Classification variable Residential system 1 Gfroerer et al. 1997 N/A Greek membersh ip 1 Rimal, 2008 N/A Athletic participation 1 Leichliter et al., 1998 N/A R egarding the variables for manipulation checks, whether variation in the manipulated variables cause differ ences in the dependent variable was measured For the social distance manipulation, subjects were asked to i ndicate the likeliho od that the ad message asked them to think about moderate and respons ible drinking for the proximal entity a single item Likert type scale ranging from 1 (definitely not) to 7 (definitely yes) (N an, 2007) For the regulatory focus manipulation (Lee & Aaker, 2004), subjects were asked to indicate the degree to which ad message focuses on achieving

PAGE 62

62 a healthy life (promotion framed messages). The scale also ranged from 1 (definitely not) to 7 (defini tely yes) T he manipulation of involvement was examined with four items on a seven point semantic differential scale : not at all involved/very involved, not at all interested/very interested, skimmed it quickly/read it carefully. P aid little attention/paid a lot attention ( Wang & Lee, 2006 ) For the dependent variables, subjects were asked to rate their attitude s toward the ad and the moderate and responsible drinking behavior o n a three item, seven point bipolar adjective scale anchored by good/bad, favor able/unfavorable, and positive/negative Subjects moderate and responsible drinking were assessed via a three item, seven point bipolar scale anchored by very likely/ve ry unlikely, probable/impro bable, and possible/impossible ( Lee & Aaker, 2004 ). To examine the moderating effects on responses to promotion versus prevention focused advertising messages, the perceived risk was measured to investigate whether it moderates the effects of regulatory focus based message on the dependent variables. To assess the degree to which subjects perceived themselves to be at risk for health consequences of alcohol use they were asked, What is the likelihood that high risk drinking pl (1 = not at all likely, 7 = very likely) (Lee & Aaker, 2004). Also, the study measure d subjects chronic regulatory focus as a covariate The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) (Higgins et al., 2001) was u sed to measure sub j ect s chronic regulatory focus, operationalized as the subjective history of promotion success versus prevention success. The RFQ is an eleven item measure with subjects rating their history of promotion (e.g., Compared to most people,

PAGE 63

63 are you typically unab le to get what you want out of life?) and prevention (e.g., Growing up, would you ever cross the line by doing things that your parents would not tol erate?) success and failure on five point scales from 1 (never or s eldom) to 5 (very often). There were s ix items related to subjects promotion focused history, while there were five items related to their prevention focused history. Regarding the alcohol related variables, to assess alcohol consumption frequency, the following item was employed (Quick & Ba tes, 2010): On average, how many drinks of alcohol do you have per week? Subjects were told that one standard drink equals one bottle of beer, one glass of wine, or one shot of hard liquor In addition, subjects were asked to provide estimates of their d rinking behaviors, which will be measured by a two item scale measuring situational drinking behavior ( On average, how many alcohol drinks do you consume when you socialize in a setting with alcohol? and Within the last two weeks, how many times have yo u had five or more alcoholic drinks in a sitting? ) (Campo & Cameron, 2006). Attitudes toward drinking were measured using three items on a five point Likert type scale ( I don t have to get drunk to have a good time, I think drinking to get drunk is a b ad idea, and I feel better when I do not drink. ) The scale was ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (Campo & Cameron, 2006) and reverse coded. Drinking expectancies were also measured as outcome expectations, which refer to the degr ee to which individuals perceive that a given action will result in benefits that they seek (Bandura, 1986). According to Real and Rimal (2007), outcome expectation was operationalized in two ways. First, it was measured as students perceived benefits: th e extent to which students believe that drinking alcohol with friends is (a) rewarding, (b) pleasurable, (c)

PAGE 64

64 enjoyable, and (d) fun. Responses to these four items, each coded on a seven point Likert type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (str ongly agree), were averaged into an index of perceived benefits to oneself Second, outcome expectations were also conceptualized as anticipatory socialization, the belief that consuming alcohol five questions: the extent to which students believe that (a) drinking alcohol is a part of a college experience, (b) college students are expected to drink alcohol, (c) drinking alcohol is an important part of social life, (d) college freshmen look forward to being able to drink, and ( e ) drinking alcohol allow stud ents to make friends. Responses, each measured on a seven point Likert type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), were averaged into an index of anticipatory socialization Finally, three lifestyle classification variables were measured Subjects were asked to indicate whether they resided on or off campus ( Gfroerer, Greenblatt & Wright 1997 ), Greek membership status ( Rimal 2008 ), and their degree of membership in school athletic teams (L eichliter et al. 1998 ). Also, gender w as asked. Pretest P rior to the main study, a pretest was conducted to ensure the validity of involvement, regulatory focus and social distance manipulations developed. A total of 90 subjects from classes (e.g., Advertising Research, Public Relations Resea rch, and Emerging Media in Advertising) in the College of Journalism and Communications at UF participated in the study in exchange for extra course credit. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the eight conditions by Qualtrics, and subsequently, ther e were 11 or 12 subjects per condition. U pon consenting to take part in the Web based study, subjects were asked to read an introductory instruction regarding high risk drinking

PAGE 65

65 view the corresponding newspaper article, Facebook page and advertisement, an d then fill out the questionnaire, which consisted of measures of the manipulated items After the data collection, i ndependent samples t tests were performed to verify whether the manipulations of involvement, regulatory focus framing and soc ial distance were significantly differed. First, four items on a seven point semantic differential scale (e.g., not at all involved/very involved ) were measured for involvement manipulation. The results reveal that the i nvolvement was manipulated in that t he mean score for high involvement condition ( M high = 5. 5 1) was significantly different from that for low involvement condition ( M low = 4. 28 t = 2 96 p < .0 5 ). Also, a single item Likert type scale ranging from 1 (definitely not) to 7 (definitely yes) re garding the extent to which ad message focuses on promotion framed messages was used to measure the regulatory focus manipulation The results indicate that the regulatory focus was successfully manipulated in that the mean score for promotion focus frames ( M promotion = 5 76 ) was signif icantly different from that for p revention focus frames ( M prevention = 4 46 t = 3 69 p < .0 1 ). Finally, the social distance manipulation examined subjects likeliho od that the ad message asked them to think about moderate a nd respons ible drinking for proximal entity, based on a single item Likert type scale ranging from 1 (definitely not) to 7 (definitely yes) The results of the pretest show that the manipulation check were successful in that the mean score for proximal con dition ( M proximal = 4 41 ) was greater than the mean score for distant condition ( M distan t = 2 2 0, t = 54 41 p < .0 01). Overall, the results of the pretest reveal that the manipulation was successful, and all of the stimuli were used for the main study sub sequently.

PAGE 66

66 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Subjects A total of 262 subjects were assigned randomly to one of eight experimental groups. Among them, the responses from 11 subjects who failed to complete the questionnaire were excluded; thus, 251 responses were used f or the data analyses. Specifically, the number of subjects in the proximal and distant conditions was 125 and 126, respectively, and the number of subjects in the promotion and prevention focus conditions was 127 and 124 each. Also, 125 subjects were assig ned to the high involvement condition and completed the study, while the 126 in the low involvement condition completed the test (Table 4 1). Table 4 1. Number of subjects by experimental groups High Involvement Low Involvement Promoti on Prevention Pro motion Prevention Proximal 31 31 Proximal 32 31 Distant 32 31 Distant 32 31 Males and females comprised 36 4 percent and 63 6 percent of the sample, respectively. The aver age age of subjects was 20. 2 years ( SD = 1 1 1). Approximately s eventy percent of subjects were Caucasian, 1 4.7 percent Hispanic, 7.2 percent African American, 4.8 percent Asian, and 3.2 percent other races. A majority of them ( 55.4 %) were communication majors, followed by business majors ( 18.3 %) liberal arts and science majors (1 6.7 %) and health and human performance majors (7.6%). Nearly s eventy eight percent of subjects indicated that they live off campus, while 21.9 percent live on campus. Approximately t hirty seven percent of subjects were member s of a fraternity or sorority, and 38.2 percent has ever participated to any degree in school athletic teams including both formal team sports and intramural sports. Subjects

PAGE 67

67 reported that they have 5.43 drinks of alcohol per week ( SD = 6.46) and 3.35 drinks when they socialize in a settin g with alcohol ( SD = 2.07) (i.e., bottles of beer, glasses of wine, and shots of hard liquor ). In addition, it was reported that subjects had binged recently; which means, they had five or more alcohol drinks in a sitting 1.24 times on average within the last two weeks ( SD = 1.73). Sample profile was summarized in Table 4 2. Table 4 2. Sample profile Number Percent Gender Male 91 36.4 Female 160 63.6 Age Average ( SD ) 20.20 ( 1.11 ) Ethnicity Caucasian 176 70.1 Hispanic 18 7.2 African Am erican 37 14.7 Asian 12 4.8 Other 8 3.2 Major Communication majors 139 55.4 Business majors 46 18.3 Liberal arts and science majors 42 16.7 Health and human performance majors 19 7.6 Other 5 2 Residential system On campus 55 21.9 Of f campus 196 78.1 Greek membership Yes 93 37.1 No 158 62.9 Athletic affiliation Yes 96 38.2 No 155 61.8 # of drinks per week (e.g., bottles of beer) Average ( SD ) 5.43 ( 6.46 ) # of drinks in a social setting Average ( SD ) 3.35 ( 2.07 ) # of high risk drinks Average ( SD ) 1.24 ( 1.73 )

PAGE 68

68 Reliability Check s Reliability checks for variables measure with a multi item scale were conducted. R e garding the independent variables the involvement was measured on four, seven point semantic diffe rential scale s developed by Wang and Lee (2006). The reliability estimate for this measure was 79 ) With regards to the dependent variables participants attitudes toward the ad and attitudes toward the moderate and responsible drinking behavior were examined via a three item, seven point bipolar adjective scale developed by MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) The reliability of this ad attitude scale 86 ) and this behavior attitude scale 94 ) was acceptable, respectively. A three item, seven point bipolar scale based on Lee and Aaker ( 2004 ) was als o used to measure participants intentions to engage in moderate and responsible drinking were assessed via a three item, seven point bipolar scale. The reliability estimate for this measure was acceptable 94 ) The reliability estimate f or other variables was also measured. Participants chronic regulatory focus was measured as a covariate based on the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire ( RFQ) (Higgins et al., 2001) with an eleven item five point scales from 1 (never or seldom ) to 5 (very oft en) There were six items related to participants promotion focused history, while there were five items related to their prevention focused history. The reliability estimate for this promotion focus scale 72 ) and this prevention focus scale 7 5) was acceptable. In terms of the alcohol related variables, overall attitudes toward drinking were measured using a general attitude index that was adapted from Campo and Cameron ( 200 6). This measure asked participants to r eport their attitude toward drinking across three, five point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) The

PAGE 69

69 reliability estimate for this scale 72 ) was acceptable. Additionally, drinking expectancies were measured in two ways suggested by Real and Rimal (2007) First the perceived benefits of drinking alcohol were measured by four, seven point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly ag ree) The reliability of this scale was acceptable 92 ) Second, the outcome expectations as anticipatory socialization were measured by five, seven point Liker type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) T he reliability of this scale was acceptable = 87 ) Manipulation Checks I n order to examine if no other independent variables moderated the effects of a single independent variable, a series of three way ANOVAs ( analysis of variances) was conducted. R e garding the social distance manipulation, no oth er main or interaction effects were found except the main effect of social distance, F (1, 243) = 42 50 p < .001 For the regulatory focus manipulation, the regulatory focus manipulation was also the sole factor that affected the type of regulatory focus, F (1, 243) = 23 68 p < .001 Finally, the involvement manipulation was moderated by no other independent variables, F (1, 243) = 15 23 p < .001 Additionally, a series of one way ANOVAs was performed to verify whether the manipulations of social distan ce, regulatory focus and involvement differ s ignificantly. The results showed that there were significant manipulation effects for social distance T he mean score of the proximal entity ( M proximal = 4.32 ) was significantly different from that of the distan t entity ( M distant = 2.59, F = 43 18 p < .001). Also, the mean score for the ad containing the information about promotion focus frames ( M promotion = 5 64 ) was significantly different from that for the ad containing the information about prevention

PAGE 70

70 focus frames ( M prevention = 4 77 F = 23 83 p < .001) Finally, t he mean score for high involvement condition ( M high = 5 01 ) was significantly different from that for low involvement condition ( M low = 4. 52 F = 14 70 p < .001). Hence, all independent variables were successfully manipulated. Hypothesis Tests A series of three way ANOVAs were used to test the hypotheses to determ ine the main effects of social distance, regulatory focus frames and involvement, and their interaction effects. Hypothesis 1 predicte d that judgments for a socially proximal entity were more likely to positively lead to (a) attitudes toward advertising, (b) attitude s toward moderate and responsible drinking, and (c) intention s to drink moderately and responsibly. The results for the hyp othesis 1 showed that the social distance, however, had no significant main effects on the dependent variables That is, there were no significant differences between proximal and distant conditions. When subjects were exposed to the advertising message th at encourages them to make judgments for a socially proximal entity compared to a socially distant entity, they did not show significantly more positive attitudes toward the advertising more positive attitudes toward the requested behavior, and greater in tentions to perform the requested behavior. Thus, H1(a), H1(b), and H1(c) were not supported. M eans and standard deviations for all dependent variables are summarized in Table 4 3. Table 4 3. Means and standard deviations (social distance) Dependent variab le Proximal entity Distant entity A d Attitude 4.90 (.95) 4.97 (1.01) Behavior al attitude 5.79 (1.14) 5.69 (1.12) Behavioral i ntention 5.43 (1.37) 5.44 (1.34)

PAGE 71

71 Hypothesis 2 suggested that a promotion focused advertising message was more likely to positi vely lead to (a) attitudes toward advertising, (b) attitude s toward moderate and responsible drinking, and (c) intention s to drink moderately and responsibly. The results for the hypothesis 2 revealed that the regulatory focus had significant main effects on attitudes toward advertising, F (1, 2 43 ) = 4 73 p < 05 attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, F (1, 2 43 ) = 7 12 p < .0 1 and intention s to drink moderately and responsibly, F (1, 2 43 ) = 4 78 p < 05 The significant main effects of regula tory focus w ere found to be in the predicted direction. When subjects were under the promotion focus condition compared to the prevention focus condition, they showed significantly more positive attitudes toward the advertising ( M pro motion = 5 07 SD = 1 0 2 vs. M prevention = 4 80 SD = 92), more positive attitudes toward the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 91 SD = 1 02 vs. M prevention = 5 56 SD = 1 21) and greater intentions to perform the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 61 SD = 1 19 vs. M prevent ion = 5 25 SD = 1 48). Hence, H2(a), H2(b), and H2(c) were supported. M eans and standard deviations for all dependent variables are summarized in Table 4 4. Table 4 4. Means and standard deviations ( regulatory focus ) Dependent variable Pro motion focus Pr evention focus A d Attitude 5 07 ( 1 02 ) 4. 80 (. 92 ) Behavior al attitude 5. 91 (1. 02 ) 5. 56 (1.2 1 ) Behavioral i ntention 5. 61 (1. 19 ) 5. 25 (1. 48 ) Hypothesis 3 suggested that under the proximal entity condition a prevention focused advertising message was mor e likely to positively lead to (a) attitudes toward advertising, (b) attitude s toward moderate and responsible drinking, and (c) intention s to drink moderately and responsibly ; on the other hand, under the distant entity condition a

PAGE 72

72 promotion focused adver tising message was more likely to be effective. The results for the effects predicted in H3 revealed that the interaction effects between social distance and regulatory focus frames were significant on attitudes toward advertising, F (1, 2 43 ) = 6 33 p < 0 5 attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, F (1, 2 43 ) = 8 41 p < .0 1 and intention s to drink moderately and responsibly, F (1, 2 43 ) = 4 79 p < 05 The results revealed that the effects of regulatory focus frames on individuals overall impres sions of the anti high risk drinking advertising and attitudinal and behavioral responses to the moderate and responsible drinking depended primarily on the perceived social distance level, and the effects were more pronounced for the messages that emphasi ze d the judgments for a socially distant entity rather than a socially proximal entity. More specifically, as shown in Table 4 5 the results of the simple main effects revealed that the mean difference between promotion and prevention focus message fram es within the distant entity condition reached statistical significance for attitudes toward the advertising ( M pro motion = 5 26 SD = .94 vs. M prevention = 4 69 SD = 1 00, F = 10 6 3 p < .01 ); attitudes toward the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 6 05 SD = 81 vs. M prevention = 5 31 SD = 1 28, F = 15 33 p < .001 ); and intentions to perform the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 80 SD = 93 vs. M prevention = 5 07 SD = 1 59, F = 9 96 p < .01 ). Nevertheless, when people make judgments for a socially pro ximal entity there were no significant differences between promotion and prevention focus f raming conditions. T he results of the simple main effects revealed that under the proximal entity condition the mean values of prevention focus message frames were not significantly greater than those of promotion focus message frames in terms of attitudes toward the

PAGE 73

73 advertising ( M pro motion = 4 88 SD = 1 06 vs. M prevention = 4 92 SD = 83, F = 0 7 p > .1 ); attitudes toward the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 7 7 SD = 1 18 vs. M prevention = 5 81 SD = 1 03, F = 0 4 p > .1 ); and intentions to perform the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 42 SD = 1 38 vs. M prevention = 5 43 SD = 1 36, F = 0 0 p > .1 ). In conclusion, as shown in Figure 4 1, 4 2 and 4 3, when t hey were exposed to messages including the promotion focus frames a nd the distant entity, th e campaign was more effective in general; yet, there were no significant differences in subjects the promotion and prevention focused messages under the condition of the proximal entity. T hus, H3(a), H3(b), and H3(c) were supported; however, it partially confirmed that the direction of the interaction effects was consistent with the prediction in H3. M eans and standard deviations for all dependent vari ables are summarized in Table 4 6. Table 4 5. Simple main effects of means (social distance X regulatory focus) Proximal entity Distant entity Dependent variable Promotion vs. Prevention Promotion vs. Prevention A d Attitude 4 8 8 vs. 4 9 2 5 26 vs. 4 69 ** Behavior al attitude 5 77 vs. 5 81 6 0 5 vs. 5 31 ** Behavioral i ntention 5 42 vs. 5. 43 5 80 vs. 5 0 7 ** Note: ** p < .0 0 1 Table 4 6. Means and standard deviations (social distance x regulatory focus) Proximal entity Distant entity Dependent variab le Promotion Prevention Promotion Prevention A d Attitude 4 88 (1.06) 4. 92 (.83) 5.2 6 (.94) 4. 69 (1.00) Behavior al attitude 5 77 (1.18) 5. 81 (1.03) 6.0 5 (.81) 5. 31 (1.28) Behavioral i ntention 5. 42 (1.38) 5. 4 3 (1.36) 5. 80 (.93) 5 07 (1.59)

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4 1. Two way interaction between social distance and regulatory focus (DV: Attitude toward advertising ) Figure 4 2. Two way interaction between social distance and regulatory focus (DV: Attitude toward moderate and responsible drinking )

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4 3. Two way interaction between social distance and regulatory focus (DV: Intention to drink moderately and responsibly ) Hypothesis 4 proposed that under the low involvement condition there would be interaction effects between soc ial distance and regulatory focus on ( a) attitudes toward advertising, (b) attitude s toward moderate and responsible drinking, and (c) intention s to drink moderately and responsibly while under the high involvement condition there would be no interaction effects between social distance and regulatory focus. The results showed significant three way interaction effects on attitudes toward advertising, F (1, 2 43 ) = 4 64 p < 05 attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, F (1, 2 43 ) = 4 26 p < .0 5 an d intention s to drink moderately and responsibly, F (1, 2 43 ) = 4 01 p < 05 T he results revealed that the interaction effects between social distance and regulatory focus frames depended primari ly on issue involvement levels As shown in Table 4 7 the re sults of the simple main effects for low involvement condition showed that the mean values of promotion focus message frames were significantly greater t han those of prevention focus message frames for attitudes toward the advertising ( M pro motion = 5 23 S D = 83 vs. M prevention = 4 65 SD = 80, F = 7 95 p <

PAGE 76

76 .01 ); attitudes toward the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 6 04 SD = 86 vs. M prevention = 5 45 SD = 1 17, F = 5 18 p < .0 5) ; and intentions to perform the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 85 S D = 94 vs. M prevention = 5 15 SD = 1 25, F = 6 39 p < .0 5) under the distant entity condition, while the mean values of prevention focus message frames were significantly greater than those of promotion focus message frames in terms of attitudes toward the advertising ( M pro motion = 4 55 SD = 1 02 vs. M prevention = 5 10 SD = 90, F = 4 96 p < 05 ); attitudes toward the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 25 SD = 1 31 vs. M prevention = 5 97 SD = 97, F = 6 01 p < 05 ); and intentions to perform the re quested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 02 SD = 1 66 vs. M prevention = 5 72 SD = 1 17, F = 3 70 p < .1 ) u nder the proximal entity condition. Nevertheless, as predicted, under the high involvement condition, there were no significant interaction effects b etween social distance and regulatory focus frames. For the high involvement condition, the effects of promotion focus frames on proximal vs. distant entity conditions were nearly identical to the effects of prevention focus frames on proximal vs. distan t entity conditions. More specifically, as shown in Table 4 7, the results of the simple main effects for high involvement condition showed that the mean values of promotion focus message frames were significantly greater than those of prevention focus me ssage frames for attitudes toward the advertising ( M pro motion = 5 28 SD = 1 05 vs. M prevention = 4 73 SD = 1 18, F = 3 79 p < 1 ); a ttitudes toward the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 6 06 SD = 77 vs. M prevention = 5 16 SD = 1 38, F = 10 29 p < .01 ); and intentions to perform the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 75 SD = 93 vs. M prevention = 4 99 SD = 1 89, F = 4 1 1 p < .0 5 ) under the distant entity condition. Similarly, under the proximal entity condition, the mean values of promotion focus

PAGE 77

77 me ssage frames were also significantly greater than those of prevention focus message frames for attitudes toward the advertising ( M pro motion = 5 20 SD = 1 02 vs. M prevention = 4 74 SD = 72, F = 4 21 p < 05 ); attitudes toward the requested behavior ( M pr o motion = 6 30 SD = 73 vs. M prevention = 5 58 SD = 1 22, F = 7 8 9 p < .0 1 ); and intentions to perform the requested behavior ( M pro motion = 5 83 SD = 88 vs. M prevention = 5.13 SD = 1 48, F = 5 03 p < .0 5 ) That is, across the level of the perceived social distance, promotion focus frames as opposed to prevention focus frames were more effective in terms of yielding positive attitudinal and behavioral responses to the anti high risk drinking advertising campaign (Figure 4 4, 4 5 and 4 6) Therefore, H 4 (a), H 4 (b), and H 4 (c) were supported M eans and standard deviations for all dependent variables are summarized in Table 4 8, and a summary of ANOVA results are presented in Table 4 9. Table 4 7. Simple main effects of means (social distance x regulatory f ocus x involvement) High involvement Proximal entity Distant entity Dependent variable Promotion vs. Prevention Promotion vs. Prevention A d Attitude 5 20 vs. 4 74 5 28 vs. 4 73 Behavior al attitude 6 30 vs. 5 58 6 0 6 vs. 5 16 Behavioral i ntention 5 83 vs. 5. 13 5 75 vs. 4 99 Low involvement Proximal entity Distant entity Dependent variable Promotion vs. Prevention Promotion vs. Prevention A d Attitude 4 55 vs. 5 10* 5 23 vs. 4 65 Behavior al attitude 5 25 vs. 5 97* 6 0 4 vs. 5 45 Behavioral i ntention 5 02 vs. 5. 72 5 85 vs. 5 15 Note: p < .1 p < .0 5, p < .01

PAGE 78

78 Figure 4 4. Three way interaction among social distance, regulatory focus and Involvement ( DV: Attitude toward advertising )

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 5. Three way interaction among social distance, regulatory focus and involvement (DV: Attitude toward moderate and responsible drinking )

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4 6 Three way interaction among social distance, regulatory focus and involvement (DV: Intention to drink moderately and responsibly )

PAGE 81

81 Table 4 8. Means and standard deviations (social distance x regulatory focus x involvement) High involvement Proximal entity Distant entity Depend ent variable Promotion Prevention Promotion Prevention A d Attitude 5.20 (1.02) 4.74 (.72) 5.28 (1.05) 4.73 (1.18) Behavior al attitude 6.30 (.73) 5.58 (1.22) 6.06 (.77) 5.16 (1.38) Behavioral i ntention 5.83 (.88) 5.13 (1.48) 5.75 (.93) 4.99 (1.89) Low involvement Dependent variable Promotion Prevention Promotion Prevention A d Attitude 4.55 (1.02) 5.10 (.90) 5.23 (.83) 4.65 (.80) Behavior al attitude 5.25 (5.25) 5.97 (.97) 6.04 (.86) 5.45 (1.17) Behavioral i ntention 5.02 (1.66) 5.72 (1.17) 5.85 (.94) 5.15 (1.25) Table 4 9. A summary of ANOVA results Dependent variable Social distance main effect Regulatory focus main effect Social distance x regulatory focus Social distance x regulatory focus x involvement Ad attitude F = .36 F = 4.73 F = 6.33 F = 4.64 Behavior al attitude F = .6 9 F = 7.12 F = 8.41 F = 3 93 Behavior al intention F = .01 F = 4.78 F = 4 79 F = 4 01 Note: p < .05, ** p < .01 Hypothesis 5 predicted that the perceived risk would moderate the effects of r e gulatory focus based message on (a) advertising attitudes, (b) moderating and responsible drinking attitudes, and (c) moderate and responsible drinking intentions. Subjects risk perception was split at the median to create two subgroups: high and low gro up ( M high = 6 69 vs. M low = 3 80 F = 526 41 p < .001). The results for the effects predicted in H 5 indicated that the interaction effects between perceived risk and regulatory focus frames were significant on attitudes toward advertising, F (1, 2 43 ) = 4 4 4 p < 05 and attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking, F (1, 2 43 ) = 3 46 p < 1. Nevertheless, the interaction effects were not significant on inten tion s to drink moderately and responsibly, F (1, 2 43 ) = 26 p > 1 The results revealed that t he effects of regulatory focus frames on individuals overall attitudes toward the anti high risk

PAGE 82

82 advertising and the moderate and responsible drinking behavior, not behavioral intentions, depended primarily on the perceived risk. More specifically, the r esults of the simple main effects revealed that subjects in the high risk condition found the prevention focus frames ( M prevention = 4 76 SD = 1 05) to be more persuasive relative to the promotion focus frames ( M promotion = 4.62 SD = .99 ) in terms of att itudes toward the advertising Although the mean value of the prevention focus frames was not significantly greater than the mean value of the promotion focus, F = 55 p > .1 the results confirmed the prediction. S ubjects in the low risk condition found the promotion focus frames ( M promotion = 5 24 SD = 87) to be more persuasive than the prevention focus frames ( M prevention = 4 82 SD = 98 F = 8 84 p < .01 ) (Figure 4 7) Similarly, in terms of attitudes toward the requested behavior, the results of t he simple main effects showed that subjects in the high risk condition found the prevention focus frames ( M prevention = 5 4 6 SD = 1 18) to be more persuasive relative to the promotion focus frames ( M promotion = 5.37 SD = 1.19 ) Although the mean value of the prevention focus frames was not significantly greater than the mean value of the promotion focus, F = 12 p > .1 the results confirmed the prediction. S ubjects in the low risk condition found the promotion focus frames ( M promotion = 6 12 SD = 86) to be more persuasive than the prevention focus frames ( M prevention = 5 60 SD = 1 23 F = 10 75 p < 0 1 ) (Figure 4 8) Nevertheless, although there was no significant difference, the results of the simple main effects showed that the mean values of promo tion focus message frames were greater than those of prevention focus message frames for intentions to perform the requested behavior ( M promotion = 5 39 SD = 1 25 vs. M prevention = 4 91 SD = 1 37 F = 2 52 p > .1 ) under the high risk condition; similarl y, the mean

PAGE 83

83 values of promotion focus message frames were greater than those of prevention focus message frames for intentions to perform the requested behavior under the low risk condition ( M promotion = 5 70 SD = 1 16 vs. M prevention = 5.40 SD = 1 52 F = 2 11 p > .1 ) That is, across the level of the perceived risk, promotion focus frames as opposed to prevention focus frames were more effective in terms of eliciting behavioral intentions. Therefore, H 5 (a) and H 5 (b) were supported; yet, H 5 (c) w as not s upported The results of simple main effects of means are shown in Table 4 10, and m eans and standard deviations for all dependent variables are summarized in Table 4 11. Table 4 10 Simple main effects of means ( perceived risk X regulatory focus) High r isk Low risk Dependent variable Promotion vs. Prevention Promotion vs. Prevention A d Attitude 4 62 vs. 4 76 5 2 4 vs. 4 82 Behavior al attitude 5 37 vs. 5 46 6 12 vs. 5 60 Behavioral i ntention 5 39 vs. 4 91 5 7 0 vs. 5 40 Note: ** p < .01 Table 4 1 1 Means and standard deviations ( perceived risk x regulatory focus) High risk Low risk Dependent variable Promotion Prevention Promotion Prevention A d Attitude 4 62 (.99) 4. 76 (1.05) 5.2 4 (.87) 4. 82 (.98) Behavior al attitude 5 37 (1.19) 5. 46 (1.18) 6. 12 (.86) 5. 60 (1.23) Behavioral i ntention 5. 39 (1.25) 4 91 (1.37) 5. 70 (1.16) 5 40 (1.52)

PAGE 84

84 Figure 4 7 T wo way interaction between perceived risk and regulatory focus ( DV: Attitude toward advertising ) Figure 4 8 T wo way interacti on between perceived risk and regulatory focus ( DV: Attitude toward moderate and responsible drinking )

PAGE 85

85 Research Questions Research questions were tested using regression analysis. Regarding RQ1, the primary outcome variable of attitudes toward the adver tising was associated with alcohol consumption level 13 ; t 2 05 p < .0 5 ) and attitudes toward drinking = .2 0 ; t = 3 20 p < .0 1 ). Attitudes toward the anti high risk advertising were negatively related to the alcohol consumption level and a ttitudes toward drinking In addition, the primary outcome variable of attitudes toward the requested behavior were associated with the perceived benefits as outcome expectation ( .18 ; t = 2 94 p < .0 1 ) Attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinki ng were positively related to the perceived benefits. Finally, the primary outcome variable of intentions to perform the requested behavior was associated with alcohol consumption level 20 ; t 3 17 p < .0 1 ) and the perceived benefits as outcome e xpectation 15 ; t = 2 35 p < .0 5 ). Intentions to drinking moderately and responsively were negatively related to attitudes toward drinking. In contrast, the behavioral intentions were positively related to the perceived benefits. Also, the results of the regression analysis for RQ2 showed that the primary outcome variable of attitudes toward the advertising was negatively associated with Greek membership 14 ; t = 2 24 p < .0 5 ) Being a m ember of a fraternity or sorority was negatively related to overall impressions of the anti high risk drinking advertising. Also, the primary outcome variable of attitudes toward the requested behavior was positively associated with gender .12 ; t = 1 97 p < .0 5 ) Female subjects were related to positive at titudinal responses to moderate and responsible drinking. On the other hand, intentions to perform the requested behavior were related to none of the classification variables such as gender, residential system, Greek membership and school athletic teams (T able 4 1 2 ).

PAGE 86

86 Table 4 1 2 Regression analyses for alcohol related and classification variables Ad attitude Behavioral attitude Behavioral intention Dependent variable Std. Beta t value Std. Beta t value Std. Beta t value Alcohol consumption 13 2.05 .10 1.64 .20 3.17 ** Drinking attitudes .20 3 20 ** .08 1.28 .11 1.76 Drinking expectancies Perceived benefits .09 1.37 .18 2.94 ** .15 2.35 A nticipatory socialization 09 1.45 .03 .44 .08 1.26 Gender .04 .6 6 .12 1.97 .05 .76 Residential system .07 1.06 .02 .29 .05 .78 Greek membership .14 2.24 .02 .32 .04 .59 Athletic affiliation .07 1.08 .09 1.47 .06 .92 Note: p < .05, ** p < .01 C ovariates I n the present study, regulatory focus was ope rationalized and manipulated as a situational factor, given that people can momentarily activate a promotion or prevention focus. However, it can be conceptualized as a chronic tendency in that individuals have a natural tendency to prefer a promotion or p revention orientation ( Higgins 1987; Lee et al., 2000 ). Previous rese arch (e.g., Kim, 2006) suggest s that subjects rate advertising messages as more persuasive when the fit between the chronic regulatory goal and the message framing is congruent. In that sense, it is conceivable that chronic regulatory orientations would play a role of changing the effects of the regulatory focus frames. Thus, the present research selected and examined whether the influences of chronic regulatory focus were exerted. Three way ANCOVAs (analysis of covariances) were performed to test the previously investigated main and interaction effects of the independent variables on the dependent variables while controlling for chronic promotion focus and chronic prevention focus. The re sults showed that when chronic promotion focus was entered as a covariate chronic promotion focus significantly

PAGE 87

87 influenced attitudes toward advertising, F (1, 2 42 ) = 8 89 p < 001 while the significant main and interaction effect s were preserved. Neverthe less, the results indicated that chronic promotion focus did not significantly influence attitudes toward the requested behavior and intentions to perform the requested behavior, and the main and interaction effects were still significant when chronic prom otion focus was controlled. Also, chronic prevention focus significantly influenced none of the dependent variables, while the main and interaction effects remained significant when chronic prevention focus was entered as a covariate.

PAGE 88

88 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSI ON Summary and Implications The present study provides helpful insights into the potential utilizations of messages about responsible alcohol use in public health campaigns. First of all, this study postulated that the effect of anti high risk drinking adv ertising messages on c ollege students drinking attitudes and behavior s would be contingent up on perceived social distance from peers. Specifically, drawing on social identity theory, the first hypothes i s predicted that a nti high risk drinking advertising messages would be more persuasive when the messages we re framed as socially proximal entities ( i.e. in groups) than for socially distant entities ( i.e. out groups ) Nevertheless, t he results reveal that perceived alcohol use by proximate peers ( i.e., bes t friends and friends in this study) alcohol use by more distant peers ( i.e., students in general, in this study). P erceptions about alco hol use by proximate peers were found to exert influence s on attitudinal and behavioral responses to drinking similar to perceptions about a lcohol use by more distant peers. The results of the present study suggest that moderate and responsible drinking may be considered important to by most peo ple regardless of the level of the perceived social distance. It is plausible that although the manipulation was successful subjects were not influenced by the taglines asking them to make judgment s for the sake of their best friends or the average student s. It might result in significant effects that social distance is manipulated in the questionnaire as Nan (2007) suggested. More importantly, as Yanovitzky et al. (2006) acknowledged, it seems that the results observed in one study may not provide an accur ate portrayal of the relationship

PAGE 89

89 between perceived alcohol use by peers and personal drinking at universities with a relatively homogenous drinking culture. In other words the anti high risk drinking ad messages focusing on judgments for proximal peers m ay be less effective on relatively homogeneous college campuses where social identities related to alcohol use and, con sequently, perceptions about alcohol use by proximal and distant peers are likely to be homogeneous, but more effective on heterogeneous college ca mpuses Thus, the present study suggests a better approach t o customize social norm messages to the particular drinking culture at each university (Berkowitz, 2000) Colleges with a fairly homogeneous demographic and cultural mix of students may find effective a n ad message by normative peers who are influential, and from whom most students on campus are likely to perceive the least social distance For instance, a message encouraging moderate and responsible alcohol use by well known figures on campus may be more effective in reducing drinking norm misperceptions and lead to behavior change among students The present study suggests that a careful investigation of alcohol related social identities on campus is needed prior to designing social no rm messages T he relative effectiveness of promotion versus prevention framed messages in the execution of the advertising strategy for anti high risk drinking was also discerned from the present study. An advertising message has been framed as being eit her eager means or vigilant means or having either a promot ion focus or a prevention focus in numerous studies ( e.g., Kees et al., 2010 ; Kim, 2006; Lee & Aaker, 2004); yet, t he advantage for promotion and prevention focused messages has been obse rved differently depending on the type of health behavior promoted in the stud y A s predicted

PAGE 90

90 in the second hypothes i s the results of this study provide important empirical findings in that people were more receptive to a message that suggest ed a promotio n ( vs. prevention) focus to achieve a goal with regards to anti high risk drinking ad messages. The results reveal that an anti high risk drinking ad focusing on a promotion focus was evaluated more favorably than one suggesting a prevention focus. The fin dings suggest that anti high risk advertising messages may yield more positive attitudinal and behavioral responses when the y emphasize advancement and achievement by aiming for matches to desired goals ( i.e., promotion focus), as opposed to when the messa ges emphasize protection and safety by avoiding mismatches to desired goals ( i.e., prevention focus). In other words, anti high risk drinking adverting messages should motivate people to pursue gains and aspire toward a healthy life, rather than motivating people to avoid losses and fulfill obligations to avoid health risks. It provides practical implications for strategic use of individually tailored messages, particularly in anti high risk drinking advertising, shedding light on the potential effects of t he framed messages. Of particular interest is that f indings from the present study offer theoretical contributions that shed light on specific conditions in which goal pursuit strategies of health messages may be more effective in influencing attitudinal a nd behavioral responses. This study offers support for the suitability of the construal hypothesis ( Trope & Liberman, 2003 ), which predicts a correspondence between regulatory focus and level of construal, and provide s a guide for the construction o f adver tising messages that engage people at the appropriate level of construal to enhance that j udgments are more susceptible to the influence of low level construal as psychological

PAGE 91

91 distance decreases, the findings of the third hypothes i s sugges t that messages framed in pr omo tion oriented terms may be more effective when the object of judgment is a distant entity. On the other hand, there was no significant difference between message s framed in promotion oriented terms and prevention oriented terms when judgment wa s made for a proximal entity, unlike the hypothesis that prevention focused messages would be more persuasive under the distant condition. That is, when faced with the proxi mal condition, the prevention focused messages were not significantly more effective than promotion focused messages in yielding subjects positive reactions Indeed, some studies applying the construal level theory indi cate that low level construals may b e equally salient at different levels of psychological distance For instance, j udgments are not more susc eptible to the influence of low level construals (i.e., loss framed message) as psychological distance increases (Nan, 2007), and people s preventiona l concerns (i.e., concerns about the negative outcomes of an event), which constitute low level construals, do not vary with temporal distance ( Pennington & Roese 200 3). I t could be that the salience of low level construals is not as affected by psycholog ical distance as that of high level construals. This can be also explained by the fact that the negative consequences of high risk drinking behaviors (e.g., injury, unsafe sexual practices, weight gain, liver disease, suicide attempts, and depression ) are not imminent compared to other types of health damaging behaviors although these consequences are relevant to the target population; thus, prevention focused ad messages may not be as powerful as expected. Notably, th e findings of this study suggest that the condition of the prevention focus framed messages and the distant entity was least effective in yielding attitudinal and

PAGE 92

92 behavioral intentions. L ike other preventive behaviors, the abstinence program stressing the negative consequences of drinking (e.g ., Drug Abuse Resistance Education ( DARE ) ) tend to be relatively ineffective at reducing alcohol use (Gerend & Cullen, 2008). Thus, it is not recommend ed that health campaigners develop advertising messages that reinforce health risks by not performing the requested behavior when people were asked to make judgments for their best friends. In that sense, although partially confirm ing that the direction of the interaction effects was cons istent with the prediction in the third hypothes i s, the findings still suggest the moderating role of social distance in affecting attitudinal and behavioral responses In other words, the f indings show that the effectiveness of these framing techniques may depend on the degree to which individuals are influenced by the perce ived social distance Preliminary evidence from this research suggests that advertisers should consider the goal pursuit strategies of persuasive messages as they develop public service advertisements. M oreover, the present study advance s research on the t heory such that the subject issue. The findings of the fourth hypothes i s reveal a situation in which the predictions of the regulatory fit type backfire, moving people aw ay from the predicted responses. Specifically, t he construal level effect (i.e., the interaction effect between regulatory focus and social distance ) was found to be observed when people we re not motivated to process information carefully, that is, under t he low involvement condition. On the other hand, the interaction effect was not observed under the high involvement condition. T he present involvement as a boundary condition for construal l ev el theor y. The construal level

PAGE 93

93 effects suggest that people f eel right when they use a goal pursuit strategy that is compatible with their regulatory orientation. Previous research showed that the experience of feeling right is moderated by subjects need for cognition ( Evans & Petty 2003) and may be attributed to certain objects when people do not recognize the source of this feeling ( Cesario et al., 2004; Higgins et al., 2003). Consistent with Wang and Lee s (2006) findings, the results of the present study provide evidence that the effect of regulatory fit type on persuasion is moderated by involvement suggesting that the effect of regulatory fit is reflective of heuristic versus systematic processing The boundary condition for the construal level e ffect highlight s th e important role of involvement providing health communication campaigns and advertisers helpful insights into the potential utilizations of messages about anti high risk drinking advertising. The results indicate that it may be optimal to include health benefits that address both promotion and prevention concerns in the anti high risk drinking advertising me ssage, especially when people are un likely to pay much attention to the message. In doing so, pr omotion focused people would select ively pay attention to benefits that address growth and advancement concerns especially related to the general population, and prevention focused people would pay attention to benefits that address safety and security concerns especially related to their proximal peers. T here is a need however to include the benefits that focus on promotion concerns i n the ad message when targeting people who are likely to be motivated to process information and personally relevant to the alcohol related issues. Furthe rmore, t he findings regarding the fifth hypothes i s suggest that the effectiveness of promotion framed ( vs. prevention framed) messages would be

PAGE 94

94 maximized when targeting people who have low ( vs. high) perceived risk. The results are consistent with Lee and Aaker s (2004) finding s regarding the moderating effect of perceived r isk on regulatory focus frames. The regulatory fit effects between message framing and risk perception propose that when prevention focus ed messages are oriented to ward people at relativ ely high risk for high risk drinking, the overall advertising effectiveness is enhanced. In a similar vein, when promotion focus ed messages are aimed at people with relatively low risk, overall favorable individual responses occur. The present study addres ses that the high ( vs. low) risk perception of high risk drinking makes salient the outcomes related to prevention focus m essage s, and the opposite holds true. The prevention ( vs. promotion ) framing effects may be more pronounced among people at higher ( vs lower) risk. That perceived risk plays a principle in that a good fit between the message framing ( prevention v s promotion framing) and st rategic means (hi gh vs low risk focus) increases the overall message effectiveness. Although the present study did not show the regulatory fit effect in yielding greater behavioral intentions, f rom a managerial perspect ive, it is important for health communication campaigners to und erstand the circumstances in which the advertising message effects are enhanced particularly in terms of generating positive attitudes toward overall preventive behaviors as well as responsible and moderate drinking. Finally, additional analyses provid e implications for future research on alcohol interventions. The present study investigated how individuals characteristics or traits were associated with the outcome variables of interest. R egarding the first and second

PAGE 95

95 research questions, some of the al cohol related variables were found to be important factors predicting the advertising effectiveness. According to the results, people who drink less, who have favorable attitudes toward staying sober, or who are not a member of fraternity or sorority are l ikely to have positive attitudes toward anti high risk drinking advertising. In addition, people who have stronger perceived benefits of drinking alcohol with friends or who are females may have positive attitudes toward moderate and responsible drinking b ehavior. In a similar vein, people who drink less, or who have stronger perceived benefits of drinking alcohol with friends are likely to have stronger behavioral intentions. Also individuals chronic regulatory orientation, including chronic promotion fo cus and chronic prevention focus, was tested as a covariate that might affect the results of the experiment. T he results reveal that chronic promotion focus significantly affected the advertising attitudes, while the main and interaction effects were still significant when controlled. It is important to note that people who have a natural tendency to prefer a promotion orientation are more likely to have favorable attitudes toward anti high risk drinking advertising. The finding that individual factors in p ublic health could influence the effects of advertising message s on health outcomes provide s practical implications for selection of t he right advertising message s for the right target audiences Limitations and Suggests for Future Research S everal limitat ions of this research must be acknowledged. It shares common weaknesses of experimental studies such as an artificial scenario in a laboratory setting and the use of a student sample of convenien ce I t employed a college student convenience sample since t he sample was chosen based on the relevance of the health topic H aving employed the student samples in this study however, warrants that more

PAGE 96

96 work be done to examine whether the results of this research translate to nonstudent samples. In p articular, the use of a female dominant sample reduces the generalizability of the study findings. Also, considering that the perceived social distance did not significantly affect the outcome variables of interest in this research, there is a need to replicate the stud y with the het erogeneous nature of the sample to investigate the perception behavior relationship at universities with heterogeneous social i dentities and drinking cultures Therefore, for greater generalizability of these results future research should b e conducted with a more representative population sample and other advertising types Furthermore, a lthough cautio us efforts were made to embrace executional formats, this research still relied on a limited number of advertising forms (i.e., print ads). Fu rther research with different advertising types (i.e., commercials) is needed to better identify the degree of generalizability of the findings. Another major limitation of this study is that the use of a real sponsor name ( i.e., Gainesville Sun GatorWell ), which was intended to heighten the external validity of the study might have increased the confounding effects. Thus, an alternative experimental design can use a real sponsor name in the newspaper excerpt or print a dvertisement while statistically con trolling for subjects and perceptions of the specific organization that sponsors the advertising campaigns. Also, subjects overall attitudes toward PSA s and anti high risk drinking advertising campaigns should be gauged to determ ine whether and how these kinds of prior attitudes might also influence their responses. Furthermore, the way in which the newspaper excerpt and print advertisement were shown to the subjects may lack realism due to the made up design features; thus, it mi ght moderate their responses to the advertising campaign examined

PAGE 97

97 in this research. T o enhance overall internal validity of the study f uture studies should prevent these confounding effects ; t hat is, future research needs to consider this con trolled conte xt and environment which provide s experimental control and minimize s alternative explanations for effects although findings may still not be generalizable to a more natural environment. The present study incorporated both social contextual factors (e.g., social distance) and individual factors (e.g., involvement, risk perceptions, chronic regulatory focus) in the research hypotheses which concern the effects of these variables on the message framing effects. In addi tion, the present study gauge d the role of individual differences (e.g., alcohol consumption level alcohol attitudes, alcohol expectancies, Greek membership ) in influencing attitudes and behavioral intentions Nevertheless, whether and how these individual factors moderate or mediate the effect s of perceptions of social distance and regulatory focus framing as well as their interaction effects were not examined in this study. Additionally, p revious researc h (e.g., Lee & Chen, 2004) f ound that moderate drinkers exhibit a higher level of intention to change their drinking behavior in negative reinforcement conditions than those in positive reinforcement conditions; however, no significant condition effect was found among heavy drinkers with regard to their intention to change their drinking behavio rs. such as sensation seeking might serve as another important variable that determines the effectiveness of the advertising campaigns. us, and are called high sensation seekers and are much more at risk for use of a variety of

PAGE 98

98 drug and alcohol items (Palmgreen & Hoyle, 2001, p. 292). In light of t hese findings, the role of individual drinking practices or personal trai ts in moderating the main effects and interaction effects can be further investigated. Another promising direction for future research may be along the lines of further assessing the primary effects of message appeals. The present research was also limited in its scope in that only one message feature message tone or message framing was examined. The potential moderating effects of other important message features such as argument strength, message complexity, and visual versus verbal treatment were largely ignored. To better understand message effects, however, it is essential to gain an understanding of the effects of message features. In addition, message tone is defined here broadly in terms of the type of impact induced by the message, which is either positive or negative. Recent developments in discrete emotions research suggest a broader spectrum of e ffect that encompasses discrete emotions such as fear, guilt, and happin ess (Dillard & Peck, 2001; Nabi, 2002). A more specific definition of message tone that takes into account discrete emotions may prove useful in testing the effects of message tone as a message feature. Therefore, additional research is warranted to unde rstand the mechanism that links such message feature variables to perception of social distance, regulatory goals and individual difference variables and to identify other antecedents of construal level of mental representations in advertising contexts. Fi nally, further research is needed that examines how individual s perceptions of social distance self regulatory orientations and issue involvement influence the c onstrual level of mental representations in a broader context. O nly one type of health

PAGE 99

99 behavi or (i.e. moderate and responsible alcohol use) was tested in the present study The major causes of mortality and morbidity among college students are problem behaviors, such as substance (e.g., alcohol tobacco, drug) abuse and unprotected sexual practice s; and such health hazards are all preventable with responsible behaviors (Schulenberg Maggs & Hurrelmann, 1997). Therefore, in order to strengthen the generalizability of the findings, future research with a larger set of health problems is needed. Moreo ver, the habits and lifestyles formed and consolidated during this period of time may continue into individuals' later life, leading to long term health c onsequences. Hence, future studies that examine actual lifestyle changes based on the ad appeals studi ed in this research would be meaningful. In terms of practical implications of this research, it is important to study whether persuasive messages viewed over time as part of a specific campaign can actually change health behavior ( beyond measuring how pos itively or negatively consumers evaluate the ad or how the ad affects persuasion or intentions). Future research may use methodologies that capture individuals advertising responses over longer periods of time and/or attempt to capture actual behavioral c hange that may result from ad based exposures. Conclusion T his research indicates that the same message strategy may be differentially effective depending on whether the message recipients act as the ultimate target audience or not Overall a message fra med as a promotion focus, compared to a prevention focus, is more effective in terms of yielding attitudes and intentions to favor moderate and responsible drinking. In particular, w hen asked to make judgments for distant entities (i.e., acting as the infl uence groups), people are more persuaded by high level construals of the advocated issue such as a promotion focus ed frame (i.e., a

PAGE 100

100 message framed as advancement and achievement ) than when asked to make judgments for proximal entities (i.e., acting as the ultimate target audience). N evertheless, the results of the current research do not show a differential effect of the regulatory focus frame on judgments associated with proximal entities. This means that l ow level construals such as a prevention focus ed frame (i.e., a message framed as protection and safety) a re less susceptible to role changes. Additionally, the current research investigates the role of involvement in moderating the construal level effect, examining its boundary conditions through syst ematic research on how involvement as well as social distance and regulatory focus influence the construal level of me ntal representations S uggesting that the regulatory fit effect is reflective of heuristic versus systematic processing this research r eveals that the effects of the experience of feeling right do not remain significant when people are more motivated to process information. Understanding how social distance influences t he way in which people make judgments is an important scientific inqui ry especially in the context of anti high risk drinking advertising campaign s targeting college population. By approaching this issue uniquely from a construal level perspective and relating it to the study of framing and involvement effects this research aims to serve as a springboard for future inquiries in the realm of health communication and strategic communication in general.

PAGE 101

101 APPENDIX A THE STIMULI Involvement: a newspaper excerpt High involvement Alcohol Abuse: A Growing Problem Among UF Students By Jeremiah Payne Sun Staff Writer Assistant Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students JenDay Shaw said the UF alcohol abuse rates among high risk drinkers actually increases by 19.8 percent between 2008 and 2011, although it i s said that University of Florida (UF) has seen decreases in alcohol related issues in recent years. About 31 percent of UF students met criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and 6 percent for a diagnosis of alcohol dependence in the past 12 months acc ording to UF GatorWell s Student Health Surveys. According to a recent study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, especially college students have a ver y high risk of becoming alcohol dependent, which may be as high as 80% for those who are engaged in the high risk drinking. Susceptibility to alcohol dependence or abuse later in life actually is established early when people are in their late teens and tw enties. Thus, the risk of becoming an alcohol dependent patient is real, increasing, and important to be aware of especially when people are between the ages of 18 24. High risk drinking negatively affects their academic performance, social relationshi ps and health. Frequent high risk drinkers are 21 times more likely than non high risk drinkers to fall behind in schoolwork, be injured or hurt, engage in domestic violence or drive a car after drinking. Shaw pointed out that while UF students estimat ed 6 5.5 percent of the student population to be habitual party goers, 42 percent of students answered that they consume five or more drinks in a social setting, or engaging in "risky behavior."

PAGE 102

102 Low involvement Alcohol Abuse: A Growing Problem A mong Middle Aged People By Jeremiah Payne Sun Staff Writer According to a recent study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, especially middle age peo ple have a very high risk of becoming alcohol dependent, which may be as high as 80% for those who are engaged in the high risk drinking. The tendency toward alcohol dependence or abuse greatly increases as people grow older. Thus, the risk of becoming an alcohol dependent patient is of utmost concern for those between the ages of 45 54. High risk drinking negatively affects their job performance, social relationships and health. Frequent high risk drinkers are 21 times more likely than non high risk dr inkers to fall behind with work, be injured or hurt, engage in domestic violence or drive a car after drinking.

PAGE 103

103 Regulatory focus: a Facebook page (priming) Promotion focus

PAGE 104

104 Prevention focus

PAGE 105

105 Reg ulatory focus & social distance : an ad Promotion focus + proximal

PAGE 106

106 Prevention focus + proximal

PAGE 107

107 Promotion focus + distant

PAGE 108

108 Prevention focus + distant

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE Pre Manipul ation Questionnaire This set of questions asks you about specific events in your life. Please indicate your answer to each question by circling the appropriate number below it. Never Sometimes Very often 1. Compared to most people, are you typically unable to get what you want out of life? _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 2. Growing up, would you ever cross the line'' by doing things that your parents wou ld not tolerate? _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 3. How often have you accomplished things that got you ``psyched'' to work even harder? _______:_______:_______:_______:____ ___ 1 2 3 4 5 4. Did you get on your parents' nerves often when you were growing up? _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 5. How often did you obey rules and regulations that were established by your parents? _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 6. Growing up, did you ever act in ways that your parents thought were objectionable? _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 7. Do you often do well at different things that you try? _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 8. Not being careful enough has gotten me into trouble at times. _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 9. When it comes to achieving things that are important to me, I find that I don't perform as well as I ideally would like to do. _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 10. I feel like I have made progress toward being successful in my life. _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 11. I have found very few hobbies or activities in my life that capture my interest or mot ivate me to put effort into them. _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 110

110 Post Manipulation Questionnaire P lease indicate how you feel about the message in the newspaper article ab out alcohol abuse that you just read b y selecting one of each bipolar adjective pair. Not at all involved _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very involved Not at all intereste d _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very interested Skimmed it quickly _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 R e ad it carefully Paid little attention _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Paid a lot of attention For the following statements please indicate how you feel about the message in the ad that you just saw b y selecting one of the given options. Definitely not Definitely yes The ad message focuses on achieving a healthy life. _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 P lease indicate the likelihood that the ad message asked you to think about moderate and responsible drinking for someone b y selecting one of the given options. Definitely not Definitely yes Th e ad message asked me to think about moderate and responsible drinking for the proximal entity. _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 111

111 P lease indicate how you feel about the ad tha t you just saw by selecting one of each bipolar adjective pair. Bad _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Unfavorable _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable Unpleasant _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant P lease indicate how you feel about moderate and respon sible drinking by selecting one of each bipolar adjective pair. Bad _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good Unfavorable _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Favorable Unpleasant _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasant How likely would it be that you will perform the follo wing behavior ? Please choose the answers that most reflect your opinions about moderate and responsible drinking by selecting one of each bipolar adjective pair. Very Unlikely _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Likely Improbable _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Probable Impossible _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Possible Not at all likely Very likely What is the likelihood that high risk drinking places your health at risk? _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 112

112 Your responses to the following questions or statements should reflect your experience answers remain strictly conf idential.) On average, how many drinks of alcohol do you have per week? Please assume that one standard drink equals one bottle of beer, one glass of wine, or one shot of hard liquor. _________________________ On average, how many alcohol drinks do you consume when you socialize in a setting with alcohol? _____________________________ Within the last two weeks, how many times have you had five or more alcohol drinks in a sitting? _____________________________ How you feel about drinking alcohol in g eneral? Please select one of the given options. Strongly disagree Strongly agree time. _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 2. I think drinking to get drunk is a bad idea. _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 3. I feel better when I do not drink. _______:_______:_______:_______:_______ 1 2 3 4 5 For the following questions, please indicate the extent to which you believe about drinking alcohol with friends selecting one of the given options. Strong ly disagree Strongly agree Rewarding _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Pleasurable _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Enjoyable _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fun _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 113

113 H ow do you feel about drinking alcohol? For the following questions, p lease click the answers that most reflect your opinions. Strongly disagree Strongly agree Drinking alcohol was a part of a college experienc e. _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 College students were expected to drink alcohol. _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Drinking alcohol was an important social life. _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 College freshmen looked forward to being able to drink. _____:_____:_____:__ ___:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Drinking alcohol allowed students to make friends _____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 In order to effectively evaluate the survey responses, please answer the following questions about yourself. Please remember all of your answers remain strictly confidential. Gender: Male _____ Female _____ Age : ________ Year in S chool : Freshmen _____ Sophomore _____ Junior _____ Senior _____ Graduate _____ Other ( Please specify ______________ ) Major : ________ Ethnicity: White _____ B lack _____ H ispanic _____ Asian _____ Other _____ Residential system: Please click your curr ent living situation. 1) On campus 2) Off campus Greek membership: Are you a member of a fraternity or sorority? 1) Yes 2) No

PAGE 114

114 School athletic teams: Have you ever participated to any degree in school athletic teams? 1) Yes 2) No Please indicate the last four digits of your UFID number. This information will only be used to confirm that you participated in this research. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. ______ ______ ______ ______ Thank you so much for your participation. Your input is extremely value to your study! If you have questions or concerns about this survey, please contact Maureen Miller at GatorWell Health Promotion Services at 352 392 1161 or emm@ufl.edu. If you are i nterested in general alcohol information, please visit the GatorWell website: http://gatorwell.ufsa.ufl.edu/Alcohol and Other Drugs.aspx

PAGE 115

115 LIST OF REFERENCES Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). I seek pleasures and we avoid pains: The role of self regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 33 49. Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (200 6). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (1), 15 19 Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Bechmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11 39). New York: Springer Verlag. Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (February ), 1 10. Baer, J. S. (1994). Effects of college residence on perceived norms for alcohol consumption: An examination of the first yea r in college. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 8, 43 50. Baer, J. S. (2002). Student factors: Understanding individual variation in college drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Supp. No. 14, 40 53. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bearman, P. S. (2002). Social network context and adolescent STD risk. New York: Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy, Columbia University. Becker, M. H. (197 4). The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Education Monographs, 2, 324 508. Beets, M. W., Flay, B. R., Vuchinichc, S., Li, K K, Acocke, A., & Snyderb, F. J. (2009). Longitudinal patterns of binge drinking among first year college students with a history of tobacco use. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 103, 1 8. Berkowitz, A. D. (2000). The social norms approach: Theory, research and annotated bibliography. Newton, MA: Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention. Be rkowitz, A. D. (2001). The social norms approach: Theory, research and annotated bibliography. Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Prevention (On line). Available: http:/ /www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/social_norms.pdf Berkowitz, A. D. & Perkins, H. W. (1986). Problem drinking among college students: A review of recent research. Journal of American College Health, 35, 21 28.

PAGE 116

116 Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When t o accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 192 203. Borsari, B., & Carey, K. B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A re view of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 391 424. Borsari B., & Carey, K. B. (2003). Descriptive and injunctive norms in college drinking: A meta analytic integration. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64, 331 341 Bradley, J R., Carman R. S ., & Petree A. (1992) Personal and s ocial d rinking m otives, f amily d rinking h istory, and p roblems a ssociated w ith d rinking in t wo u niversity s amples. Journal of Drug Education 22 195 202. Brannon, L. A., & Pilling, V. K. (2005). Encouraging responsibl e drinking among underage drinkers. Health Marketing Quarterly, 23 (2), 3 30. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307 324. Briley, D. A., & Aaker, J. L. ( 2006). When d oes c ulture m atter? Effects of p ersonal k nowledge on the c orrection of c ulture b ased j udgments J ournal of Marketing Research, 43 (3), 395 408. Brug, J., Steenhuis, I., Van Assema, P., & De Vries, H. (1996). The impact of a Computer tailored nutrition intervention. Preventive Medicine, 25, 236 242. Cacioppo, J. T. & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 116 131. Cameron, K. A., & Campo, S. (2006). Stepping back from social norms camp aigns: Comparing normative influences to other predictors of health behaviors. Health Communication, 20 (3), 277 288. Campbell, M. K., Carbone, E., Honess Morreale, L., Heisler Mackinnon, J., Demissie, S., & Farrell, D. (2004). Randomized trial of a tail ored nutrition education CD ROM program for women receiving food assistance. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 36, 58 66. Campo, S., Brossard, D., Frazer, M. S., Marchell, T., Lewis, D., & Talbot, J. (2003). Are social norms campaigns really m misperceptions on drinking behavior. Health Communication, 15, 481 497. Campo, S., & Cameron, K. A. (2006). Differential effects of exposure to social norms campaigns: A cause of concern. Health Communicat ion, 19 (3), 209 219.

PAGE 117

117 Carey, K B. & Correia C. J. (1997) Drinking m otives p redict a lcohol r elated p roblems in c ollege s tudents. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 58 1 00 105. Carter, C. A., & Kahnweiler, W. M. (2000). The efficacy of the social norms a pproach to substance abuse prevention applied to fraternity men. Journal of American College Health, 49, 66 71. Cashin, J R., Presley C. A., & Meilman P. W. (1998) Alcohol u se in the g reek s ystem: Follow the l eader? Journal of Studies on Alcohol 59 63 70. Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 210 224. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011). Social media tools for consumers and partners Gui delines & best practices. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/socialmedia/tools/guidelines/ Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (3), 388 404. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39 (5), 7 52 766. Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (3), 460 473. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201 234. Cohen, J., Mutz, D., P rice, V., & Gunther, A. C. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation: An experiment on third person effects. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161 173. Cooper, S. E. (1999). Changing the campus drinking culture: An initiator catalyst consultation approach. Cons ulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51 (3), 160 169. DeJong, W., & Atkin, C. (1995). A review of national television PSA campaigns for preventing alcohol impaired driving, 1987 1992. Journal of Public Health Policy, 16, 59 80.

PAGE 118

118 Department of Health and Human Services (2007). National Survey on Drug Use & Health. Retrieved from http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k7NSDUH/2k7results.cfm#Ch3 Dillard, J. P., & Peck, E. (2001). Persuasion and the structure of affect: Dual systems and discrete emotions as complementary models. Human Communication Research, 27 38 68. Eval, T., Liberman, N., Trope, Y., & Walther, E. (2004). The pros and cons of temporally near and distant action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (6), 781 795. Evans, L M. & Petty R.E. (2003) Self g uide f raming and p ersuasion: Responsibly i ncreasing m essage p rocessing to i deal l evels Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29 (3), 313 24. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Boston: Addison Wesley. Fishbein, M., & Cappella, J.N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health communications. Jour nal of Communication, 56 (Suppl.), S1 S17. Flora, J. A., Maibach, E., & Maccoby, N. (1989). The role of media across four levels of health promotion intervention. Annual Review of Public Health, 10, 181 201. Frster, J., Friedman, R. S., & Liberman, N. (2 004). Temporal construal effects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 177 189. Gerend, M. A. & Cullen, M. (2008). Effects of message framing and temporal cont ext on college students drinking behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1167 1173. Gfroerer, J C., Greenblatt J. C., & Wright D. A. (1997) Substance u se in the U.S. c ollege p opulation: Differences a ccording to e ducational s tatus and l iving a rrangement. American Journal of Public Health 87 62 65. Gomberg, L., Kessel Schneider, S., & DeJong, W. (2001). Evaluation of a social norms marketing campaign to reduce high risk drinking at the University of Mississippi. American Journal of Dr ug and Alcohol Abuse, 27, 375 389. Gonzalez, G M. (1989) Early o nset of d rinking as a p redictor of a lcohol c onsumption and a lcohol r elated p roblems in c ollege Journal of Drug Education 19 225 230. Gunther, A. C., & Storey, J. D. (2003). The influenc e of presumed influence. Journal of Communication, 53, 199 215.

PAGE 119

119 Jacobson, K. (2010, April 15). Drinking down: MSU campaign attempts to curb dangerous drinking with informative approach. Retrieved from http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2010/04/drinking_down Haines, M. P. & Spear, S. F. (1996). Changing the perception of the norm: A strategy to decrease binge drinking among college students. Journal of American Colleg e Health, 45, 134 140. Hawn, C. (2009). Take two aspirin and tweet me in the morning: How Twitter, Facebook, And other social media are reshaping health care. Health Affairs, 28 (2), 361 368. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self discrepancy: A theory relating sel f and affect. Psychological Review, 94 (3), 319 340. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52 1280 1300. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (E d.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1 46). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Higgins, E. T. ( 2002). How self regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 2, 177 191. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus prevention pride European Journal of Social Psychology 3 1, 3 23. Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84, 1140 53. Higgins, E. T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. (1997). Emotional responses to goa l attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (3), 515 525. Hong, S. M., & Faedda, S. (1996). Refinement of the Hong psychological reactance scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 173 182. Hornik, R. (2002). Public health communication: Making sense of contradictory evidence. In R. Hornik (Ed.), Public health communication: Evidence for behavior change. New York: Erlbaum. Kallgren, C. A., Reno, R. R., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). A Focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality & social psychology bulletin, 26 (8), 1002 1012.

PAGE 120

120 Kees, J., Burton, S., & Tangari, A. H. (2010). The impact of regulatory focus, temporal orientation, and fit on c onsumer responses to health related advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39 (1), 19 34. Kelly, K. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2002). Screening for health or illness: An analysis of how and when message frames impact behavioral decision making. Unpublished manus cript, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. Kim, Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in message framing in antismoking advertisements for adolescents. Journal of Advertising, 35 (1), 143 151. Kontos, E. Z., Emmons, K. M., Puleo, E., & Viswanath, K. (2010). Communication inequalities and public health implications of adult social networking site use in the United States. Journal of Health Communication, 15, 216 235. Latimer, A. E., Katulak, N. A., Mowad, L., & Salovey, P. (2005). Motivating can cer prevention and early detection behaviors using psychologically tailored messages. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 137 155. Latimer, A. E., Salovey, P., & Rothman, A. J. (2007). The effectiveness of fain framed messages for encouraging disease pre vention behavior: Is all hope lost? Journal of Health Communication, 12, 645 649. Lederman, L. C. (2010). The impact of health communication on the culture of college drinking. Health Communication, 25, 603 604. Lederman, L. C., Stewart, L. P., Goodhart, F. W., & Laitman, L. (2003). A case against messages about dangerous drinking. Journal of Health Communication, 8 (1). 79 91. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205 218. Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L. & Gardner, W. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (6), 1122 1134. Lee, M., & Chen, Y. C. (2004). Effectiveness of positive and negative reinforcements in h umor advertisements targeting heavy and moderate drinkers. Co nference p apers -International Communication Association

PAGE 121

121 Lee, A. Y., Keller, P. A., & Sternthal B. ( 2010 ). Value from regulatory construal fit: The persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. Journal of Consumer Research, 36 (5), 735 747. Lee, M. (2010). The e ffects of s elf e fficacy s tatements in h umorous a nti a lcohol a buse m essages t argeting c ollege s tudents: Who i s i n c harge? Health Communication, 25, 638 646. Leichliter, J S., Meilman, P. W., Presley, C. A., & Cashin J. R. (1998) Alcohol u se and r elated c onsequences a mong s tudents w ith v arying l evels of i nvolvement in c ollege a thletics Journal of American College Health 46 257 262. Leigh, B C. & Stacy A. W. (1993) Alcohol o utcome e xpectancies: Scale c onstruc tion and p redictive u tility in h igher o rder c onfirmatory m odels. Psychological Assessment 5 216 229. Leshner, G., & Cheng, I. (2009). The effects of frame, appeal, and outcome extremity of antismoking messages on cognitive processing. Health Communica tion, 24. 219 227. Lewis M. A., & Neighbor, C. (2006). Social norms approaches using descriptive drinking norms education: A review of the research on personalized normative feedback. Journal of American College Health, 54 (4), 213 218. Liberman, N., Sa gristano, M., & Trope, Y. (2002). The effect of temporal distance on level of construal. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 523 535. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distan t future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5 18. Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2006). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance dimension: A construal level approach to the me ntal representations Unpublished manuscript, New York University. MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an adve rtising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53 (2), 48 65. MacKie, D, M,, & Smith, E, R, (1998), Intergroup relations: Insights from a theoretically integrative approach. Psychological Review. 105, 499 529, Maheswaran, D., & Meyers Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing, 27, 361 367.

PAGE 122

122 Maibach, E., Maxfield, A., Ladin, K., & Slater, M. (1996). Translating health psychology into effective health communication. Journal of Health Psychology, 1, 251 277. to believe: Effects of message cues on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 533 549. Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500 510. Miley, W. M., & Frank, M. (2006). Binge and non its. College Student Journal, 40(2), 259 262. Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (2), 298 305. Miller, S. M., Summerton, J., & Bro dy, D. S. (1988). Styles of coping with threat Implications for health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 142 148. Mogilner, C., Aaker J. L., & Pennington G. L. ( 2008 ). Time will tell: The distant appeal of promotion and imminent appeal of prevention. Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (5), 670 681. Montano, D.E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2002). The theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. In K. Glanz, B.K. Rimer, & F.M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theo ry, research, and practice (3rd ed.) (pp. 45 66). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publication. Nabi, R. L. (2002). Discrete emotions and persuasion. In J. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.), Handbook of persuasion (pp. 289 308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Naimi, T. S., Brewer, R. D., Mokdad, A., Denny, C., Serdula, M. K., & Marks, J. S. (2003). Binge drinking among US adults. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 289 (1), 70 75. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (1997). Alcohol metabolism. Alcohol Alert, 35. Retrieved from http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa35.htm National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (2002). How to reduce high risk college drinking: Use pr oven strategies, fill research gaps Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Retrieved from www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/media/FINALPane l2.pdf

PAGE 123

123 Nan, X. (2007). Social distance, framing, and judgment: A construal level perspective. Human Communication Research, 33, 489 514. Oetting, E. R., & Donnermeyer, J. F. (1998). Primary socialization theory: The etiology of drug use and deviance. S ubstance Use & Misuse, 33, 995 1026. Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention (2005). Drinking in America: Myths, Realities and Prevention Policy. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquenc y Prevention, Washington, DC. framed loss f ramed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623 644. fe, D.J., & Jensen, J.D. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain framed and loss framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59, 296 316. idemiology of alcohol and other drug use among American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, S14, 23 39. Paek, H. J., & Gunther, A. C. (2007). How peer proximity moderates indirect media influence on adolescent smoking. Communication Research 34, 407 432. Paek, H. J., Pan, Z., Sun,Y., Abisaid, J., & Houden, D. (2005). The third person perception as social judgment: An exploration of social distance and uncertainty reduction in perceived effects of political attack ads. Communication Research 32, 143 170. Palmgreen, P., & Hoyle, R. H. (2001). Television campaigns and adolescent marihuan use: Tests of sensation seeking targeting. American Journal of Public Health, 91(2), 292 296. Park, H. S., Klein, K. A., & Smith, S. (2009). Separating su bjective norms, university descriptive and injunctive norms, and U.S. descriptive and injunctive norms for drinking behavior intentions. Health Communication, 24, 746 751. Parrott, R., Egbert, N., Anderton, J., & Sefcovic, E. (2001). Enlarging the role of environment as a social influence construct in health campaigns. In J.P. Dillard & M. Pfau (Eds.). The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 633 660). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pennington G. L., & Roese, N. J. ( 2003 ). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39 (6), 563 576.

PAGE 124

124 Perkins, H. W. (2002). Social norms and the prevention of alcohol misuse in collegiate contexts. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Suppl. 14, 164 172. Perkin s, H. W. (2003). The promise and challenge of future work on the social norms model. Ch 17 in Perkins, H. W. (Ed), The Social Norms Approach to Preventing School and College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook for Educators, Counselors, Clinicians. San Francis co, Jossey Bass. Perkins, H. W., & Wechsler, H. (1996). Variation in perceived college drinking norms and its impact on alcohol abuse: A nationwide study. Journal of Drug Issues, 26 (4), 961 974. Pilling, V. K., & Brannon, L. A. (2007). Assessing colleg responsible drinking messages to identify promising binge drinking intervention strategies. Health Communication, 22 (3), 265 276. Polonec, L. D., Major, A. M., & Atwood, L. E. (2006). Evaluating the believability and effecti Health Communication, 20 (1), 23 34. Prentice, D. A. & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the so cial norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (2), 243 256. Prentice, D. A. & Miller, D. T. (1996) Pluralistic ignorance and the perpetuation of social norms by unwitting actors. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 28 161 209. Proc haska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. (1992). In search of how people change: Application to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102 1114. Quick, B. L., & Bates, B. R. (2010). The use of gain or loss framed messages and efficacy appeals to dissuade excessive alcohol consumption among college students: A test of psychological reactance theory. Journal of Health Communication, 15 603 628. Real, K., & Rimal, R. N. (2007). Friends talk to friends about drinking: Exploring the role of peer communication in the theory of normative social behavior. Health Communication, 22 (2), 169 180. Rimal, R. N. (2008). Modeling the relationship between descriptive norms and behaviors: A test and extension of the theory of normative social behavi or (TNSB). Health Communication, 23, 103 116.

PAGE 125

125 Rimal, R. M., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: A test of the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32, 389 414. Ringold, D. J., (2008). Responsibilit y ad brand advertising in the alcoholic beverage market: The modeling of normative drinking behavior. Journal of Advertising, 37 (1), 127 141. Robberson, M. R., & Roger, R. W. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive appeals to health and self esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 277 287. Rogers, E. M. (1973). Communication strategies for family planning. New York: Free Press. Rogers, E. M., & Storey, J. D. (1987). Communication campaigns. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handb ook of communication science (pp. 817 846). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 13, 279 301. Rothman, A. J, Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of gain and loss framed messages to promote healthy behavior: how theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56 (Suppl.), S202 S220. Rothman, A. J. Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey, P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain and loss framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 1355 1369. R othman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121 3 19. Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29 408 433. Schneider, T. R., Salovey, P., Pallpnen, U., Mundorf, N., Smith, N. F., & Steward, W. T. (2001). Visual and auditory message framing effects on tob acco smoking. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 667 682.

PAGE 126

126 Schulenberg, J., Maggs, J. L., & Hurrelmann, K. (1997). Negotiating developmental transitions during adolescence and young adulthood: Health risks and opportunities. In J. Schulenberg, J. L. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 1 22). New York: Cambridge University Press. Schworm, (2008, August 25). UMass tackles alcohol abuse. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/08/25/umass_tackles_alcohol_a buse/ Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2009). Message frames interact with motivational systems to determine depth of messagi ng processing. Health Communication, 24, 504 514. Slater, M.D. (1995). Choosing audience segmentation strategies and methods for health communication. In E. Maibach & R.L. Parrott (Eds.), Designing health messages (pp. 186 198). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578 596. Steward, W. T., Schneider, T. R., Piazarro, J., & Salovey, P. (2003). Need for cognition moderates responses to framed smoking cessation messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2439 2464. Strecher, V. J., Kreuter, M., Den Boer, D. J., Kobrin, S., Hospers, H. J., & Skinner, C. S. (1994). The effects of computer tailored smoking cessation messages in family practice settings. Journal of Family Practice, 39, 262 270. Sung, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Increasing power and preventing pain. The moderating role of self construal in advertising messa ge framing. Journal of Advertising, 40 (1), 71 85. Tajfel, H, (Ed,), (1982), Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press Thackeray, R., Neiger, B. L., Hanson, C. L., & McKenzie, J. F. (2008). Enhancing promo tional strategies within social marketing programs: Use of web 2.0 social media. Health Promotion Practice, 9, 338 343. Thombs, D. L. & Hamilton, M. J. (2002). Effects of a social norm feedback campaign on the drinking norms and behavior of division I st udent athletes (2002). Journal of Drug Education, 32 (3), 227 244.

PAGE 127

127 Thombs, D. L., Wolcott, B. J., & Farkash, L. G. E. (1997). Social context, perceived norms and drinking behavior in young people. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9, 257 267. Toch, H. & Klofas, J. (1984). Pluralistic Ignorance, Revisited. In GM Stephenson and JH Davis (Eds), Progress in Applied Social Psychology, Vol 2, New York: Wiley. drinking rituals: An alternative framework for PSA developers. Journal of Advertising, 28, 17 31. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403 421. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychologica l distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 83 95. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453 458. Valliant, P. M. & Scanlan P. (1996) Personality, l iving a rrangements, and a lcohol u se b y f irst y ear u niversity s tudents. Social Behavior and Personality 24 151 156. Viswanath, K., & Emmons, K. M. (2006). Message effects and social determinants of health: Its appl ication to cancer disparities. Journal of Communication, 56, S238 S264. Wallack, I. (1989). Mass communication and health promotion: A critical perspective. In R. E. Rice & C. K. Atkin (eds.), Public communication campaigns, 2 nd ed. (pp. 353 367). Newbur y Park, CA: Sage. Wallston, K. A., Wallston, B. S., & Devellis, R. (1978). Development of multidimensional health locus of control (MHLC) scales. Health Education Monographs, 6, 160 170. Wang, J., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). The role of regulatory focus in pref erence construction. Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (February) 28 38. Wechsler, H Dowdall, G. W., Davenport A., & Castillo S. (1995) Correlates of c ollege s tudent b inge d rinking. American Journal of Public Health 85 921 926. Wechsler, H., Kuo M., Lee, H. & Dowdall, G. W. (2000a). Environmental c orrelates of u nderage a lcohol u se and r elated p roblems of c ollege s tudents. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 19 24 29.

PAGE 128

128 Wechsler, H., Lee, J. E., Kuo, M., & Lee, H. (2000 b ). College binge dr inking in the 1990s: A continuing problem: Results of the Harvard School of Public Health 1999 College Alcohol Study. Journal of American College Health, 48, 199 210. Wechsler, H., Lee, H. E., Kuo, M., Seibring, M., Nelson, T., & Lee, H. (2002). Trends i n college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts: Findings from 4 Harvard School of Public Health college alcohol study surveys: 1993 2001. Journal of American College Health, 50, 203 217. Wechsler, H., & Nelson, T. (2001). Binge drinking and the American college student: Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15, 287 291. Wechsler, H., Seibring, M., Liu, I., & Ahl, M. (2004). Colleges respond to student binge drinking: Reducing student demand or limiting access Journal of American College Health, 52, 159 168. Wood, M D., Sher K. J., & Strathman A. (1996) Alcohol o utcome e xpectancies and a lcohol u se and p roblems. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 57 283 288. Wol bu rg, J. (2001). The risky business of binge d rinking among college students: Using risk models for PSAs and anti drinking campaigns. Journal of Advertising, 30, 23 40. Yanovitzky, I., Stewart, L. P., & Lederman, L. C. (2006). Social distance, perceived drinking by peers, and alcohol use by college students. Health Communication, 19 (1), 1 10. Zaichkowsky, J. L. ( 1985 ). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (4), 341 352. Zhao, G., & Pechmann, C. (2007). The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents response to ant ismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (4), 671 687.

PAGE 129

129 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Sun Young Park born in Seo ul, South Korea graduated from Sogang University where she received her triple degree s of Bachelor of Arts in French Eng lish and mass communication in February 2004. After graduation, she worked as an account executive at a major advertising agency, such as Diamond Ogilvy Group and Innocean W orldwide for two and a half years After the industry experience, she earned a Ma ster of Arts in advertising at the University of Texas at Austin in 2008. During her four years in the Ph.D. program at University of Florida, she received the Grinter Fellowship from the College of Journalism and Communications, and taught advertising res earch, advertising strategy and international advertising courses in the Department of Advertising. She was married to Mark Yi Cheon Yim, who is now an assistant professor in Marketing & Information Systems at Canisius College, and they have one lovely son Philip, age 1. For this dissertation project, she won the 2012 American Academy of Advertising D octoral Dissertation Proposal Award. Sun Young has accepted a position as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Communication at Drury University and wi ll teach undergraduate advertising courses and graduate integrated marketing communications courses in the Fall of 2012.