American political behavior is replete with examples of situations in which people’s political behaviors are influenced by their perceptions of the attitudes or experiences of mass collectives.” For instance, being informed that voter turnout is likely to be high in an upcoming election has also been shown to significantly increase actual turnout (Gerber and Rogers 2009). As defined above, efficacy refers to beliefs about whether one’s own actions exert an influence on collective outcomes. Prior research has shown that individuals base their actions, in part, on perceptions about the likely actions of others, as well as using their own behavior as a diagnostic cue of how others will act (e.g., see Quattrone and Tversky 1984, experiment 2). Thus, a pro-energy-conservation norm should provide a context in which taking action is perceived as efficacious. Consequently, I predict that a pro-conservation norm will moderate (i.e., strengthen) the impact of an appeal for action to conserve energy - increasing favorable attitudes, intentions, and actions (relative to the appeal alone and to the appeal in conjunction with a “con” norm behavioral cue) (hypothesis 4). Experimental Procedure and Design To test the hypotheses previously stated, I designed a survey- experiment. The was implemented by Bovitz Research Group in December of 2009, using a web-based panel that draws a sample demographically representative of the overall U.S. population. Each respondent (n = 500) agreed to participate in an IRB-approved “study about political learning” and was informed he or she would be paid $1 for completing the survey. The main dependent variables consisted of measures for: (a) attitudes about the importance and (b) efficacy of conserving energy, (c) intentions talk with others about ways to reduce energy consumption, and (d) a measure of overt behavior – i.e., whether at the conclusion
Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat.” American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 959-978. Brouwers, Melissa C., and Richard M. Sorrentino. 1993. “Uncertainty Orientation and Protection Motivation Theory: The Role of Individual Differences in Health Compliance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 102-112. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007a. “A Theory of Framing and Opinion Formation in Competitive Elite Environments.” Journal of Communication 57: 99-118. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007b. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101: 637-655. Cialdini, Robert B. 2005. Social Influence is Underestimated.” Psychological Inquiry 16: 158-161. Cialdini, Robert B. 2001. .Influence: Science and Practice. Boston, MA: & Bacon. 4th ed. Druckman, James N., and Arthur Lupia. 2000. “Preference Formation.” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 1-24. Druckman, James N. 2001a. “The Implications of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23(3): 225-256. Druckman, James N. 2001b. “On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?” Journal of Politics 63(4): 1041-1066. Druckman, James N. 2001c. “Evaluating Framing Effects.” Journal of Economic Psychology 22: 91-101. Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98 (November): 671-86.
Efficacy: A Revised Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 19: 242-253. Marcus, George E., William R. Neuman, and Michael B. MacKuen. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miller, Joanne M., and Jon A. Krosnick. 2004. “Threat as a Motivator of Political Activism.” Political Psychology 25(4): 507-533. Milne, Sarah, Paschal Sheeran, and Sheina Orbell. 2000. “Prediction and Intervention in Health- Related Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of Protection Motivation Theory.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30: 106-143. Mutz, Diana C. 1998. Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Attitudes. Cambridge University Press. Nisbet, Matthew C., and Dietram A. Scheufele. 2009. “What’s Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions.” American Journal of Botany 96(10): 1-12. Nisbet, Matthew C. 2009. “Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement.” Environment 51: 12-23. Jessica, P. Wesley Schultz, Robert B. Cialdini, Noah J. Goldstein, and Vladas Griskevicius. 2008. “Normative Social Influence is Underdetected,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34: 913 – 23. Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1984. The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion – Our Social Skin. University of Chicago Press O’Keefe, Daniel J. 2002. Persuasion: Theory and Research. London: Sage Publications. O’Keefe, Daniel J., and Jakob D. Jensen (n.d.). “The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed
of Wisconsin, and Harvard University. Available at http://gking.harvard.edu/ Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211: 453-458. Kim. 1992a. “Putting the Fear Back into Fear Appeals: The Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM).” Communication Monographs 59: 329-349. Witte, Kim 1992b. “The Role of Threat and Efficacy in AIDS Prevention.” International Quarterly of Community Health Education 12: 225-249. Witte, Kim, and Mike Allen. 2000. “A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns.” Health Education and Behavior 25: 571-585. Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press. Table 1. Experimental Conditions, Treatments, and Expectations Condition Treatment Predicted effect on behavior N No Norm + Benefit appeal editorial baseline 50 Pro-action norm + Benefit-appeal press-release (pro) & editorial increase action 100 Con-norm + Benefit-appeal press-release (con) & editorial no effect 100 Threat appeal editorial no effect (above baseline) 50 Pro-norm + Threat-appeal press-release (pro) & editorial increase action 100 Con-norm + Threat-appeal press-release (con) & editorial no effect 100 N=500