‘Do not read this Master thesis, unless you want to learn something new!’
An experiment about the effectiveness of the use of reverse psychology in a green campaignand the mediating effects of involvement and reactance.
Soumaya Zaroual 12338885 Master’s thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Dr. M. L. Fransen 31/01/2020
Abstract
The present study was among the first to examine whether the use of reverse psychology in a green campaign has an effect on people’s attitudes and behavioral intentions towards quitting the single use of plastic and whether this effect is mediated by the variables reactance and involvement. For this study, an experiment was carried out with two conditions. Thereby, the participants were either presented a campaign containing reverse psychology or a campaign using traditional methods. An online survey was used to gather data from a total of 161 participants. The results indicated that the reverse psychology campaign did indeed elicit a lower level of reactance, a higher level of involvement and a higher level of attention compared to the traditional campaign. However, against expectations, a lower level of reactance and a higher level of attention did not lead to more positive attitudes or behavioral intentions towards quitting the single use of plastic. An interesting finding of this study was that unlike in the other cases, a significant mediation effect was actually found in the case of involvement. It appeared that the campaign containing reverse psychology led to a higher level of involvement and in turn, also to a more positive attitude and a higher behavioral intention towards quitting the single use of plastic.
Keywords: Reverse psychology, reactance, resistance to persuasion, involvement, attention, non-traditional advertisements, reverse psychology marketing.
Introduction
Over the last few decades, the environment has been changing, and not for the better. Especially environmental plastic pollution has increasingly become a widespread issue. The use of plastic is problematic because it can cause serious harm to sea life, human health and well-being (Eagle et al., 2015). This wave of environmental vulnerability has recently led to a significant amount of concern amongst consumers (D’ souza et al., 2005; Peattie, 2001). However, despite the fact that environmental awareness about plastic use and its persistence in the environment has grown immensely, several studies have shown that the majority of the Dutch population still has not made a shift to a more sustainable lifestyle (CBS, 2019;
Monitor duurzaamheid, 2019). Especially looking from a communication perspective, it has appeared to be very challenging to persuade consumers into changing their current habits and into making more sustainable choices (Cushman-Roisin, 2012). Consequently, it can be concluded that the current strategies that are used to persuade consumers into changing their behavior are not sufficient, as they appear to have had a minimal impact over the last couple of years (Eagle et al.,2015; Crushman-Roisin, 2012, Banerjee et al., 1999). This indicates the need for insights into new, more effective communication strategies, to aid the development of successful interventions and campaigns.
One reason that could explain the limited effectiveness of current green campaigns is that organizations are still targeting audiences using traditional marketing methods and that these have become too mainstream overtime. The overload of advertisements in the current media era has resulted in an increased level of insensitiveness and skepticism towards persuasive attempts with the consequence that consumers develop feelings of distrust and aversion towards ads (Fransen et al., 2015). It appears that this advertisement clutter has increasingly led people to experience resistance when being exposed to persuasive attempts. Resistance, as defined by Knowles and Linn (2004, p.5), entails that people can get into a
motivational state that leads them to want to “oppose and counter pressures to change”, as it is seen as a limitation of one’s choice. Furthermore, it has appeared that when behavior is imposed on individuals, chances are that they will perceive this as a threat to their personal autonomy resulting in a feeling of so-called reactance (Brehm, 1966). As individuals do not appreciate the feeling of their control being endangered, the best strategy to persuade them seems to be preserving their perception of choice, and a way to do that is reverse psychology.
Reverse psychology marketing (RPM) is an upcoming, less established tool that is increasingly being used by organizations in a persuasive context. Macdonald et al., (2011) describe reverse psychology as a technique whereby the intent of a message is the opposite of what it states. An example of RPM is a 2016 recruitment campaign created by Karmarama on behalf of the British Army, aiming to target 16-24-year-olds to join the army. The campaign stated the following: “Don’t join the army. Don’t become a better you”. The campaign’s unusual move of stating the opposite of its actual goal, drew a lot of attention, indicating the success of reverse psychology (Swift, 2016).
In the present study, an experimental approach will be used to examine the
effectiveness of reverse psychology in a green campaign, as a means to persuade consumers not to use single use plastic. In practice, and especially in commercial contexts, the use of reverse psychology has appeared to be very effective in the past (Tcherenkov, 2017). However, very little scientific studies can be found showing whether reverse psychology is truly effective. In this study, it is therefore explored whether reverse psychology is a strategy that could also be of influence on individuals’ attitudes and intentions when removed from a commercial context, and if so, which factors are behind its success. Thereby, the expectation is that green campaigns containing reverse psychology will positively affect people’s
attitudes and behavioral intentions towards green behavior. Moreover, Knowles and Linn (2004) state that because individuals experience such high levels of reactance in persuasive
contexts, it is crucial for us to ascertain how to still draw people’s attention without causing them to experience as much reactance. Understanding the processes of reactance and attention can shed light on how reverse psychology works exactly and how it can be most effective in a persuasive (green) context. Therefore, it is explored whether an individual’s level of involvement and reactance with regards to a green campaign can explain the effectiveness of reverse psychology, as these variables might have mediating roles in this study.
The aim of the current study is to fill the lacuna of knowledge with regards to the effectiveness of reverse psychology and to shed light on the role of the mediators that were mentioned. From a practical point of view, this study is useful for the determination of factors that influence people’s behavior. This knowledge can be used for the design of successful campaigns to persuade audiences to change their behavior as desired. In this case, to stop using single use plastic. Based on the previous, the research question central to this study is:
RQ: ‘Does the use of reverse psychology in green campaigns have an effect on attitudes and behavioral intentions towards the single use of plastic and can this effect be explained by the variables reactance and involvement?
Theoretical Background Resistance and reverse psychology
In this section an explanatory framework on resistance and persuasion is discussed, elaborating on the reasons why traditional, e.g. direct persuasive attempts may generate negative responses and resistance. Moreover, it is discussed why it is expected that reverse psychology can be a successful strategy in tackling this issue.
In the context of the current study, the objective is to persuade people to stop using single use plastic. The current campaigns promoting green behavior have in common that
they mostly use direct and controlling persuasive messages in an attempt to get people to change their behavior. According to Brehm and Brehm (1981), these traditional and assertive campaigns spur individuals to “resist the pressures that are threatening their freedom of choice” (Kim et al., 2017, p.552; Knowles and Linn, 2004). Meaning that the public will protest against someone telling them what to do by acting in the opposite way. It is believed that non-assertive messages, in the form of reverse psychology for instance, can assure the receivers of a message that they have the freedom to choose whether they want to engage in certain behavior or not.
Knowles & Linn (2004) refer to reverse psychology as a paradoxical ‘omega
strategy’, that occurs when one tries to persuade another into engaging in desired behavior by stating the opposite of that behavior, hiding his or her actual intentions. However, before proceeding, it is necessary to firstly note that there is a difference between the use of reverse psychology in a marketing context, and in a social context. For instance, when a mother uses reverse psychology by telling her child not to play with a toy in order to get him or her to actually play with it, the child is clearly not conscious of the use of reverse psychology or its effectiveness. When used in advertising on the other hand, such as in the campaign
promoting the army that was discussed earlier, people are fully aware of the fact that reverse psychology is used as a head-scratcher. In this case, the individual understands that even though the opposite of the desired action is stated, the goal is to persuade him to actually engage in the desired behavior (MacDonald et al., 2011).
Nail and colleagues (2000) explain that the effectiveness of reverse psychology lies in the fact that it is a resistance-based technique, aiming to remove people’s urge to be resistant (Knowles and Linn, 2004). A very simple illustration of the use of reverse psychology and its resistance neutralizing effect, could be a swimming instructor telling a fearful child to jump into the water. When the child refuses, the instructor has the choice from two persuasive
strategies, e.g. ‘you need to jump now!’, or he could say: ‘Don’t jump in the water, you won’t learn to swim then.’ It is believed that the latter phrase using reverse psychology will lead to less resistance from the child, as the factor that causes him to be resistant, namely, someone forcing him to jump into the water while he is fearful, is removed (Knowles and Linn, 2004). In conclusion, it can be said that the non-assertive wording of the message in RPM gives away that the actual objective of the message is persuasive, without being controlling, hence making it more effective (Wei et al., 2008).
In the next section, I will further elaborate on the possible underlying processes (i.e. reactance and involvement), that could explain the effectiveness of reverse psychology and its ability to neutralize resistance.
Reactance theory
In line with the previous, Knowles & Linn (2004) mention an important aspect of resistance, that could even more explain the effectiveness of reverse psychology in advertising. They refer to this process as being one of the ‘faces’ of resistance, namely reactance theory.
According to Brehm (1966), reactance theory posits that when people experience a perceived threat to their (behavioral) freedom, they will experience a feeling of psychological
reactance. This feeling is explained as an aversive motivational state of irritation, resistance, distress and more importantly, the inherent desire to restore the freedom that was taken away from that individual.
According to reactance theory, when people feel as if their sense of authority is being imposed, or when they feel as if certain behavior is enforced on them, they will likely react against the enforced behavior and generate a preference for the behavior that is restrained. This is also referred to as the ‘boomerang effect’ (Schuzo, 2002; Kim & Wilson, 1994).
Reactance theory is crucial in advertising because the persuasive and controlling nature of advertisements is imminently what may cause receivers to experience reactance,
and the last thing a persuader wants is for the receiver to behave opposite of what is promoted in the persuasive message. A simple illustration of this problem could be that of an individual experiencing such high levels of reactance because of an enforcing message about green behavior, such as recycling, that he or she purposefully decides not to recycle. It is fair to say that this is the nightmare of every marketeer and that this needs to be avoided.
The best way to counter this motivational state of reactance is to let people think that their freedom of choice is not being enforced and that they are not being controlled in any way. In this regard, it is plausible that the use of reverse psychology in a (green) persuasive message will diminish the feeling of reactance that one would usually experience, because the receiver is not directly being told what to do, e.g. stop using single use plastic. Therefore, the individual will also not feel as if his freedom of choice is affected and he will be more likely to act according to the desired behavior.
Likewise, Quick and Stephenson (2008) state that persuasive messages are more likely to generate reactance when using controlling language. The effect of reactance can be illustrated by a study from 2008, in which Quick & Considine (2008) tried to convince members of a gym to participate in a specific type of exercise. In an experimental study with two conditions: a forceful and a non-forceful message, it was shown that the participants who received a forceful message, such as: ‘You have to do this exercise’, experienced a
significantly higher level of reactance than people who were exposed to a non-forceful message such as: ‘Consider trying these exercises’. Furthermore, it appeared that the participants in the condition with the forceful message and thus, experiencing more reactance, also were less convinced to actually try the exercises. As the indirect nature of reverse psychology is deemed to be non-forceful and controlling, it is assumed that this advertising strategy will not lead to reactance, and thus will be more effective than traditional, forceful strategies in changing people’s attitudes and behavioral intentions.
Steindl et al (2015) furthermore explain that the problem with reactance is that it is a cognitive-reflective process that leads to negative attitudes towards the message. As a consequence, this will only backfire and result in lower behavioral intentions to follow the aim of the message. In order to bring about positive attitudes and actual behavioral change, it is thus important to create a message that will generate a minimal amount of reactance.
In conclusion it can be said that when certain behavior is imposed on a consumer, chances are that they will perceive a threat to their personal autonomy (Brehm, 1966). Because individuals do not appreciate others endangering their feeling of control, the best strategy to persuade them seems to be reverse psychology. Based on the previous findings it is expected that the indirect, unthreatening nature of reverse psychology will lead to less reactance, and that the use of this method in a green campaign aiming to convince people to change their behavior, e.g. stop using single use plastic will be very effective.
Based on the previous section the following hypothesis was drawn:
H1: Exposure to an advertisement with reverse psychology will lead to a lower level of reactance (H1a) compared to a traditional advertisement, which, in turn will lead to a more positive attitude (H1b) and a higher behavioral intention (H1c) with regards to the green behavior.
Campaign involvement
Aside from the fact that reverse psychology is perceived as less direct and forceful than traditional campaigns, there is another characteristic aspect that distinguishes reverse
psychology from conventional campaigns, namely: its divergent and unexpected nature. It is said that this unusual aspect of reverse psychology generates more attention and involvement amongst consumers (Hutter, 2015). This is an interesting starting point, as these two
constructs could form the underlying processes explaining the effectiveness of reverse psychology.
In this study, involvement refers to one’s attentiveness to the message. The variables involvement and attention are very closely related, and in some cases, as Rosen (1990) states, indistinguishable. It is sometimes even said that attention is an essential component of
involvement, which makes the two concepts inextricably linked to each other. Rosen (1990) furthermore explains that in a natural setting, these two constructs are likely to be very highly correlated. Therefore, they can be seen as belonging to the same family and they should both be mentioned, but not distinguished. Especially in studies adopting a cognitive definition of involvement, similar to the current study, they should not be separated (Cohen, 1981). For the purposes of this study, both terms (i.e. involvement and attention) will be used intertwined.
In terms of persuasion, Kahneman (1973) states that one’s level of attentiveness concerns the amount of mental effort one allocates to a certain task. A substantial amount of advertising research has been conducted on advertisement properties that result in a high level of attention allocation, as these are deemed more effective (Kahneman, 1973). Holbrook and Lehmann (1980), for instance, have reported that advertisements containing surprising, unexpected, complex or incongruent elements, were perceived to be more effective in the sense that people were more likely to read and remember the message displayed in the ad, because of their increased level of attention.
As advertisements or campaigns containing reverse psychology are divergent, in the sense that they promote a behavior that is opposite to the one that is desired, it can be said that they contain an element of surprise which is unusual. This, in turn, is expected to lead to a higher level of attention allocation by the consumer than in the case of a traditional
advertisement. A large amount of empirical evidence can be found in support of this assumption (Hutter, 2015). Meyer and colleagues (1991), for example, state that the use of
advertisements containing creative or divergent elements can make consumers more susceptible and more open towards them. This can be explained by the fact that
non-traditional ads deviate from the existing advertising schemes that the public has. In the case of traditional advertising, consumers’ advertising schemes are more likely to be activated sooner, which will lead them to recognize its persuasive intent. Rauwers & Van Noort (2016) furthermore explain that because people are more open to creative ads, they will pay more attention to them, experience more involvement and thus also interpret them differently, making that their attitudes will also be changed in a different way.
Moreover, Rodafinos et al. (2005) have demonstrated that divergent ads, such as reverse psychology ads or campaigns, significantly attract more interest than traditional ads, which should facilitate the understanding of the ad’s claims. In line with the previous it is reasoned that the use of a divergent campaign using reverse psychology in this study will also generate more interest, or involvement towards the green message. This will in turn lead to the consumer spending more time elaborating on the message, which will lead to a significant attitudinal and behavioral change.
Previous research has furthermore shown that divergent messages, in this case a green message containing reverse psychology, can lead to strong feelings of personal relevance and involvement. It appears that a “certain motivational state is created that drives consumers’ overt and cognitive behaviors”, including involvement, attention and comprehension.’ (Richins and Bloch 1986, Celsi & Olson, 1988).
It is furthermore important to note that several independent studies have suggested that the amount of thought or attention that is allocated when processing information, has an effect on how what is conveyed in the message is evaluated. In other words, the strength of one’s attention allocation is very closely related to a consumer’s attitude towards the
promoted matter (e.g., Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Greenwald 1968; Wilkie and Pessemier 1973; Wright 1980; Mackenzie, 1986).
Likewise, Hutter (2015) noted that creative advertisements or ads containing
divergent elements, in this case reverse psychology, significantly lead to more attention and also to more favorable cognitive and affective reactions than traditional ads. This can be explained by the occurrence of a so-called surprise effect. One of the characteristic features of reverse psychology that will stand out, is that it is indirect, unexpected, surprising and that it can fulfill a mind distorting function (Hutter, 2015). Hutter furthermore explains that the surprising element in for example, reverse psychology can make the receiver more interested and less weary, which in turn arouses positive attitudes towards the message and even the brand (Smith & Yang, 2004). Based on the Theory of planned behavior model it is expected that more positive attitudes will also lead to a higher behavioral intention towards conducting the promoted behavior.
Based on the previous, the following hypothesis was drawn:
H2: Exposure to a campaign with reverse psychology will lead to higher level of involvement (H2a) compared to a traditional campaign, which, in turn will lead to a more positive
attitude (H2b), and a higher behavioral intention with regards to the green behavior.
Methods Research design
For this experiment a one factor between-subjects design was used with two different conditions: ‘a campaign containing reverse psychology’ versus a ‘traditional, or direct
campaign’. The advantage of this design is that the participants only get to see one version of the campaign, which prevents them from determining the actual goal of the research. This process rules out any alternative explanations and guarantees that the findings are based on causal claims and not on coincidence, which guarantees the internal validity of the research.
The participants were randomly assigned to either the condition with the traditional campaign (N = 79), or the reverse psychology condition (N = 82). The number of participants was not evenly distributed among the conditions because of the exclusion of some
participants.
Participants
The research population in this study consisted of Dutch citizens, both male and female, in the age group of 18-70 years old. This broad age group was chosen because the topic of the study, single-use plastic, concerns all age groups. A total of 181 participants started the survey. However, only 168 participants actually completed the questionnaire, of which 72 males and 89 females. Participants who did not complete the survey were excluded from the experiment. Furthermore, as the survey contained a manipulation check question to check whether participants looked at the campaign attentively, all the participants who did not answer this question correctly were also excluded from the survey (N = 6). Furthermore, one participant was deleted because he or she stated to be under the age of 18. This amounts to a total number of 161 participants who were actually included in the experiment. The mean age
of the participants was 35.7, (SD = 13.05) with a minimum age of 18 and a maximum age of 66. With regards to education level, the largest part of the participants said to have a
university degree (44.1%), followed by (42.2%), who have a HBO (university of applied sciences) degree. The experiment was conducted online using Qualtrics and was spread through social media such as LinkedIn and Facebook. The sampling technique used for this study is a probability sampling method, namely convenience sampling. In this case the
sample is based on the availability of the desired participants. The choice for this sample does have consequences for the external validity of the study. Despite the broad population, people who don’t use the social media accounts stated above, are left out of the research, which in turn, has consequences for the generalizability of the study.
Procedure
As stated before, the questionnaire and the manipulation material were digitally imported in Qualtrics and thereafter distributed online. The link to the experiment was shared with participants in several Facebook groups. To increase the internal validity of the research, the exact topic and the field of study were not mentioned. The duration of the data collection was approximately 4 weeks, from the 18th of December until the 8th of January and participation in the experiment was individual. After clicking on the link to the experiment, participants were firstly shown a fact sheet, in which they were informed about the procedure and the duration of the research (approximately 6 minutes). In this part, the participants were also instructed to read the questions carefully and to fill in the survey according to their feelings, as it did not concern knowledge questions.
Thereafter, a consent form was shown, in which was stated that participation is voluntary and that the processing of the data would be completely anonymous. Participants could either agree or disagree to continue with the study.
After agreeing with the consent form, the participants were firstly asked to answer some questions regarding demographics, such as their gender, age and their level of
education. After these questions the participants were told that they would be presented with a campaign and that they needed to look at it attentively, as they couldn’t go back to the campaign after proceeding to the questions. Subsequently, the participants were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions and were thus shown the stimulus material (traditional campaign vs. campaign containing reverse psychology). After being exposed to the
campaign, participants were asked to answer some questions with regards to the mediators in this study, namely: reactance, involvement, and attention.
Afterwards, the participants were asked to answer some questions measuring the dependent variables in this study, which concerned their attitude and behavioral intention towards quitting the single use of plastic. Lastly, the questionnaire included a manipulation check and it ended with a page in which the participants were kindly thanked for their participation and in which they were debriefed about the actual goal of the research. Manipulation
The independent variable that was manipulated in this study is the campaign type. For the creation of the stimulus material an existing campaign by Mainstream, an organization promoting green behavior, was used. Only the message from the original campaign was altered from its original form. The original design and image used in the campaign were left as they were. The original message stated: ‘If you want to eat fish on Fridays in 30 years, stop using single use plastic now. First of all, the order of the sentence was changed and the imperative was put at the front. As eating fish can also be seen as unsustainable behavior, this specific sentence was changed into: ‘Stop using single use plastic, if you want to maintain sea life in 30 years. As for the campaign containing reverse psychology, the message was: ‘Don’t stop using single use plastic, unless you want to maintain sea life in 30 years.’ To eliminate
any chances of possible third, interfering variables, the two campaigns that were used were completely identical, apart from the manipulation, e.g. the message. The manipulation material can be found in Appendix A.
Measurement Dependent variables Attitude
The dependent variable attitude measured participants’ attitude towards single use plastic. In other words, it refers to the extent to which participants perceive the use of single use plastic positively or negatively. Participants were asked how they felt about the single use of plastic. Their attitude was measured using a 6- item semantic differential scale developed by Hoeken, Hornikx, and Hustinx (2012). The statements were answered on a 7-point semantic
differential scale, whereby 1 was the negative adjective and 7 was the opposite, positive adjective (wise – unwise, useless - useful, bad - good, not annoying - annoying, unnecessary- necessary, negative - positive).
The reliability of the scale was good, Cronbach’s alpha = .89 (M = 2.21, SD = 1.13). The lower the score on this scale, the more negative the participants are towards the single use of plastic and thus also the more positive towards green behavior. One item (not annoying - annoying) was reverse coded.
Behavioral intention
Behavioral intention was measured using 3 items on a 7-point Likert scale (completely disagree - completely agree). The statements used to measure behavioral intention are: ‘I am planning to stop using single use plastic from now on, ‘I am contemplating to stop using single use plastic’ and I am prepared to stop using single use plastic. The reliability of the three items was very good, Cronbach’s alpha = .91 (M = 5.31, SD = 1.27).
Mediators Reactance
Reactance is a variable consisting of two measures, namely anger and perceived threat to freedom. Both measures were developed by and derived from Dillard & Shen (2005). Anger was measured using 4 items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). The items that were used were questions about respondents’ level of anger, irritation, aggravation and annoyance after exposure to either one of two campaigns. The reliability of this scale was good (α = .91., M = 2.54, SD = 1.32)
Furthermore, four items were presented on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), to measure the variable freedom threat. The statements that were used are: ‘The message tried to make a decision for me’, ‘the message tried to pressure me’, ‘the message threatened my freedom to choose’ and ‘the message tried to manipulate me’. The reliability of the scale was good, Cronbach’s alpha = .91 (M = 3.31, SD = 1.58)
Involvement and attention
Theoretically, involvement and attention are described as the same concept. However, in this study, the constructs are measured using two different, yet very similar scales.
For the measurement of the involvement construct a scale consisting of 3 items was used (Wang, 2006). The items questioned respondents’ level of engagement, involvement and attention on a 7-point bipolar scale, whereby 1 = not at all and 7 = extremely. In this case, a higher score on the scale indicates a higher level of experienced involvement by the
participant. The reliability of the scale was good (α = .87, M = 4.93, SD = 1.40). The statements used are as follows: ‘How much attention did you pay to the message in the
campaign?’, ‘how engaging is it for you to process the message in the campaign?’ and ‘how involving was it for you to process the message in the campaign?’.
For the measurement of attention, 4 items on a 7-point Likert scale were used. This scale was derived from a study by Smith et al., (2007). Participants were asked to answer the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statements presented to them. The
statements they were asked to answer are: ‘I spent considerable time analyzing the message in the campaign’, ‘I tried to carefully evaluate the message in the campaign’, ‘the campaign demanded my attention’, and I have examined the main elements of the campaign very carefully’. The reliability of the scale was good, Cronbach’s alpha = .88 (M = 5.37, SD = 1.29)
Manipulation check
The questionnaire ended with a manipulation check question to measure whether the
participants understood the actual purpose of the campaign, which in both conditions was to persuade people to stop the single use of plastic.
The participants were asked to answer the following statement: ‘The overall goal of the campaign was…’ as for the answer, the participants were given two choices. Either: The overall goal of the campaign was to… 1) persuade people to stop using single use plastic, or 2) to persuade people not to stop using single use plastic.
Results Randomization check
Prior to running the statistical analyses, a randomization check was conducted to determine whether the randomization across conditions was successful. This check was done for the variables that could be of influence on the results, e.g. age, education level and gender. A Chi-square test showed that gender was equally distributed across conditions X2 (1, N = 161)
= 1.88, p = .205. Education level also appeared to be equally distributed across both conditions X2 (5, N = 161) = 2.02, p = .847. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test showed that age also did not differ across conditions t(159) = 1.34, p = .183 95% CI [-1.31, 6.80]. As all the variables tested above did not significantly differ between the two
experimental conditions, it can be concluded that these variables may be eliminated as being possible interfering variables.
Manipulation check
As mentioned before, a manipulation check was performed to determine to what extent the manipulation of the campaigns was successful. A chi-square test was used to test whether participants truly understood the purpose of the campaign, which was to persuade people to stop using single use plastic. The chi-square test showed that participants who were exposed to the campaign containing reverse psychology assessed the campaign differently than the people who were exposed to the traditional campaign X2 (1, N = 161) = 92.14, p < .001. In the case of a successful manipulation, all participants would have had to answer the question by stating that the actual goal of the campaign was to persuade people to stop using single use plastic. However, especially in the reverse psychology condition (N = 82), there seemed to be some confusion. In this condition, 60 participants answered the question by stating that the goal of the campaign was to persuade the reader not to stop the single use of plastic. This means that only 22 participants would have understood the actual goal of the campaign.
Based on these results, this manipulation would normally be regarded as unsuccessful. However, in this case it is reasoned that the manipulation can be seen as successful, as the manipulation check question used for this study is not a standard control question. Therefore, it is likely that people found the formulation of the question ambiguous, hence thinking too deeply into the answer. In other words, it is very likely that the 60 participants who gave the
wrong answer did understand that the campaign had a persuasive intent, but probably thought that they had to answer the question based on what they saw (‘Don’t stop the single use of plastic’), and not according to what the goal of the campaign was.
Main analysis
The research question central to this study examined whether the use of reverse psychology in a green campaign has an effect on attitudes and behavioral intentions towards the single use of plastic, and furthermore whether this effect is mediated by reactance, involvement and attention. For the analysis of the two hypotheses the PROCESS model by Hayes (2013, model 4) was used. All three mediators were tested in the same model. However, two separate models were run for the dependent variables attitude and behavioral intention. For the analyses that were run using PROCESS, a bootstrap sample of 5000 was taken with a confidence interval of 95%.
Attitude
Both hypotheses 1 and 2 predicted that exposure to an advertisement containing reverse psychology would lead to a more positive attitude with regards the single use of plastic, and that this effect would be mediated by reactance, involvement and attention. The expected mediation effect in hypothesis 1 and 2 was tested using the macro Process by Hayes with reverse psychology as the independent variable, attitude as the dependent variable and reactance, involvement and attention as mediators. The analysis firstly showed that
campaigns containing reverse psychology significantly lead to a lower level of reactance b = .68 t(159) = 3.45, p = .001. However, this lower level of reactance does not seem to lead to more positive attitudinal responses b = .11, t(156) =1.64, p = .103. In this case, the
PROCESS model showed a non-significant mediation effect on attitude (indirect = .07 boot SE = .06 95% BCI [-.03, .22]), towards the single use of plastic.
In the case of attention, the analysis showed that the campaign containing reverse psychology does indeed lead to a higher level of attention than a traditional campaign b = -.90, t(159) = -4.69, p < .001. However, a higher level of attention does not appear to lead to a higher attitudinal response b = -.13, t(156) = -1.91, p = .059. Thus, the analysis showed a non-significant mediation effect on attitude (indirect = .12, boot SE = .07 95% BCI [-.01, .26]) towards the single use of plastic.
In line with the previous, the second hypothesis that was drawn, also predicted that the use of reverse psychology would lead to a higher level of involvement and that this would in turn lead to a more positive attitude towards quitting the single use of plastic. The Process model showed that the use of reverse psychology does indeed lead to a higher level of involvement, b = -1.42, t(159) = -7.40, p < .001 and that this in turn, actually also leads to a more positive attitude towards quitting the single use of plastic b = -.30, t(156) = - 4.43, p < .001. It can thus be said that this mediation effect on attitude towards quitting the single use of plastic is significant (indirect = .42 boot SE = .15 95% BCI [.14, .71]).
Additionally, an independent samples t-test was conducted to test the direct effect of reverse psychology on attitude, which yielded a significant overall effect (t(159) = -4.29, p < .001 95% CI [-1.06, -.39]). See Table 1 for the corresponding means and standard deviations.
Furthermore, to get the average scores for reactance, involvement and attention for both conditions, an independent samples t-test was conducted with campaign type as the independent variable and reactance, involvement and attention as the dependent variables. These results are presented in Table 2.
Behavioral intention
A separate PROCESS model was run to test whether the mediators reactance, attention and involvement mediate the relationship between campaign type and individuals’ behavioral intention towards stopping the single use of plastic.
The first hypothesis predicted that the use of reverse psychology would lead to a higher level of reactance and subsequently to a higher behavioral intention towards stopping the use of single use plastic. The analysis showed that the use of reverse psychology does significantly lead to a lower level of reactance b = .68, t(159) = 3.45, p = .001. However, it has appeared that this lower level of reactance does not significantly lead to a higher behavioral intention
b = -.09 t(156) = -1.22, p = .225. This mediation effect is thus not significant, (indirect = -.06 boot SE = .07 95% BCI [-.21, .06]).
As for the second mediator, attention, the PROCESS model showed that the campaign containing reverse psychology does indeed lead to a higher level of attention than a
traditional campaign, b = -.90, t(159) = -4.69, p < .001. However, the results show that this does not subsequently lead to a higher behavioral intention b = .05, t(156) = .61, p = .542. This mediation effect was thus also found to be non-significant (indirect = -.04 boot SE = .07 95% BCI [-.21, .11]).
Lastly, the PROCESS model showed that the use of reverse psychology does lead to a higher level of involvement b = -1.42, t(159) = -7.40, p <.001 and that this subsequently also leads to a higher behavioral intention among participants, b = .47, t(156) = 6.36, p < .001, meaning that the mediation effect on behavioral intention was found to be significant. (indirect = -.67 boot SE = .14 95% BCI [.96, -.40])
Additionally, an independent samples t-test was conducted to test the direct effect of reverse psychology on behavioral intention, which yielded a significant overall effect (t(159) = 3.97, p < .001 95% CI [.38, 1.14]). (See Table 1 for the corresponding means and standard deviations).
The results have thus shown that a campaign containing reverse psychology does indeed lead to a lower level of reactance and a higher level of attention, but that this effect does not subsequently lead to a higher attitude or behavioral intention with regards to stopping the single use of plastic. However, it has appeared that involvement does in fact mediate the relationship between campaign type and attitude and behavioral intention, in the sense that a campaign containing reverse psychology leads to a higher level of involvement, which in turn leads to both a more positive attitude and a higher behavioral intention towards stopping the single use of plastic.
Conclusion and Discussion
The objective of this research was to study whether a campaign using reverse psychology would have a more positive effect on people’s attitudes and behavioral intentions towards (quitting) the single use of plastic compared to a traditional campaign. Thereby, the variables reactance, involvement and attention were tested as potential mediators in the aforementioned relationship.
As previously mentioned, reverse psychology is an upcoming trend in the advertising world. However, until this day, its effectiveness had yet to be empirically proven. Based on reactance theory, the expectation was that the indirect, unexpected and divergent nature of reverse psychology would lead to a lower level of reactance and a higher level of attention than a traditional campaign and that this would in turn lead to a more positive attitude and a higher behavioral intention towards quitting the single use of plastic.
In line with the predictions, the results showed that the use of reverse psychology does in fact lead to a lower level of reactance and a higher level of attention. This finding corresponds with the discussed theory in the sense that the use of reverse psychology as a means to preserve one’s autonomy of choice is a very effective method that can be used to diminish reactance (Brehm, 1961). Furthermore, in line with previous literature (Hutter 2015), it is confirmed that the divergent and unexpected nature of reverse psychology generates more attention than a traditional campaign. However, in both cases, the positive effect of reverse psychology on reactance and attention does not seem to translate to people’s attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions. This finding challenges the notion that more attention and less reactance would lead to more favorable attitudes and intentions, as stated by Rauwers and Van Noort (2016) and Rodafinos et. al, (2005).
An explanation for this could be the topic of the present study. This study examined attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions in the context of quitting the use of single use
plastic. It is very likely that the significant effects found for reactance and attention did not translate further to attitudes and behavioral intentions because all the participants were already positive towards quitting the single use of plastic to start with (See Table 1 for the corresponding means and standard deviations). When merely looking at the means, it can be said that the people who were exposed to the reverse psychology campaign actually have more positive attitudes and higher behavioral intentions towards quitting the single use of plastic than the people who saw the traditional campaign. However, it is very likely that the results turned out to be non-significant anyway, because even the people who were exposed to the traditional campaign already had very positive attitudes and high behavioral intentions, as everyone probably agrees that single use plastic is not good for the environment and should be avoided.
Moreover, this study predicted that the use of reverse psychology would lead to a higher level of involvement and that this would in turn lead to a more positive attitude and a higher behavioral intention towards quitting the single use of plastic. In line with the
expectations, the reverse psychology campaign did actually lead to a higher level of involvement and more positive attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions than the traditional campaign. Therefore, this hypothesis was accepted. This finding is also in correspondence with previous findings, as both Hutter (2015) and Smith and Yang (2004) found and stated that surprising or divergent ads (i.e. reverse psychology campaigns) can significantly lead to a higher level of involvement, which can subsequently arouse more positive attitudes and behavioral intentions towards the communicated message.
Despite the fact that the variables involvement and attention were measured using different scales in this study, they were theoretically deemed as being related. Even though the differences between the significance levels are not substantial, it is interesting that involvement mediates the relationship between campaign type and attitude and behavioral
intention while attention does not. As a result, this finding leads us to think that despite the similarities, these two concepts are less related than expected and that for future references, both concepts should be viewed as separate constructs measuring different things. An explanation for this could lie in the way that the two constructs were measured. When
comparing the separate scales, the different items seem very similar. However, when looking more in depth, small differences can be noticed. In the case of the attention scale, all four items are quite straightforward, as they all more or less question whether and to what extent the reader paid attention to the message in the campaign. In the case of involvement however, it could be said that some of the wording used in the items, (e.g. involving and engaging) can be perceived as quite ambiguous
Especially because the survey was distributed in The Netherlands, with the likelihood that many of the participants have the Dutch nationality and Dutch as their mother tongue, the wording discussed above could be seen as jargon, or at least, subject to interpretation. For future research, it is advised to repeat the study at hand with a different scale to examine whether these two mediators would still generate different results and to use a larger and broader sample to obtain more generalizable results.
For future research, it might also be interesting to measure attention using additional methods. For instance, the time spent looking at the campaign could be measured to get a clearer idea of whether participants actually paid attention to the campaign, or whether they just said that they did because they were asked to do so.
Another limitation of this study is that this campaign may not be representative and generalizable for other campaigns or advertisements. As briefly mentioned before, quitting the single use of plastic is a very difficult topic, that brings forth many implications. Another, less ‘difficult’ or controversial topic may have brought forth completely different results.
Future research could focus on other types of (green) behaviors, to see whether reverse psychology would be effective in changing behavior in that sense. An example of such a behavior could be an experiment in which people are persuaded to stop eating meat. In the case of plastic use, it is reasoned that the majority of the people can agree on its detrimental effect on the environment and the will to do better. In the case of eating meat however, it appears that there is a larger division and that many still do not think it is necessary to reduce their meat consumption for the sake of the environment. A topic with more division may be more suitable to show the effectiveness of reverse psychology (Sanchez-Sabaté & Sabaté, 2019).
Another limitation that can be discussed is that the manipulation check question that was used for this study was probably not worded correctly, which possibly led to
misunderstanding and confusion amongst participants. The majority of the participants stated that the goal of the reverse psychology campaign was not to be persuasive, while it clearly was. It is reasoned that this question was unclear, and that participants might have thought that it was a trick question. As this can be regarded as a threat to internal validity, future research can focus on conducting a pretest on a select group of people prior to the study, to ascertain that the goal of the campaign is understood correctly.
Overall it can be said that despite the fact that this study did not necessarily lead to the expected results, it did actually contribute to theoretical and practical knowledge. Firstly, this experiment was the first to research the role of reverse psychology in a non-commercial context. Furthermore, this study aimed to explore some of the possible underlying processes explaining the effectiveness of reverse psychology. The current research forms a starting point in understanding the relationship between reverse psychology and the mediating effect of involvement, reactance and attention. The study did prove that reverse psychology can be more effective in drawing more attention, more involvement and less reactance than a
traditional campaign. Future research could focus on exploring other possible mediators of the relationship between campaign type, attitude and behavioral intention as there is still a large gap in the literature on the effectiveness of RPM.
Aside from the theoretical implications, this study also brings forth some practical implications for sustainable organizations and marketeers in general. In the implementation of campaigns and advertisements, it is definitely recommended to use reverse psychology when trying to persuade the public to change their behavior or to engage in certain desired behavior. Despite the fact that in two cases, the effectiveness of reverse psychology did not seem to translate to people’s attitudinal and behavioral responses, reverse psychology was proven to lead to positive attitudes and higher behavioral intentions when people are more involved.
Also, reverse psychology was proven to at least lead to a lower level of reactance and higher level of involvement and attention compared to a traditional campaign. This suggests that the implementation of reverse psychology marketing will at least draw people’s
attention, make sure that people are more involved and generate less reactance than traditional campaigns.
However, this does not mean that there are no risks involved when implementing reverse psychology marketing. As the current study has shown, the majority of the people who participated in the study, did not answer the manipulation check question correctly, which leaves uncertainty as to whether the persuasive intent of the message in the campaign was understood. If this happens in practice, this could have some detrimental effects for the promoted message, as there is a possibility that the message will be misunderstood or will only lead to more confusion amongst the public. Therefore, it is necessary for marketers to firstly ascertain whether the persuasive message using reverse psychology is actually understood correctly by the public. Conducting a pretest before implementing the campaign
could be a way to rule out these issues. In conclusion it can be said that if used correctly, reverse psychology can be a very successful, effective and original way to reach one’s goals.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Alniacik, U., & Yilmaz, C. (2012). The effectiveness of green advertising: influences of claim specificity, product's environmental relevance and consumers' pro-environmental orientation. Amfiteatru Economic Journal, 14(31), 207-222.
Banerjee, S. B. (1999). Sustainable development and the reinvention of nature. In Critical Management Studies Conference (Environment Stream) Manchester, UK.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (2013). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
CBS: Meeste afval per inwoner in minst stedelijke gemeenten (2019, October, 28). Retrieved from:
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2019/44/meeste-afval-per-inwoner-in-minst-stedelijke-gemeenten
Celsi, R. L., & Olson, J. C. (1988). The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. Journal of consumer research, 15(2), 210-224.
Chan, W. T. Y., & Leung, C. H. An empirical study on reverse psychology applied in advertising messages.
Cohen, J. B. (1983). Involvement and you: 1000 great ideas. ACR North American Advances. Cushman-Roisin, B. (2012). Environmental transport and fate. Thayer School of Engineering Dartmouth College, University Lecture.
Darke, P. R., & Ritchie, R. J. (2007). The defensive consumer: Advertising deception, defensive processing, and distrust. Journal of Marketing research, 44(1), 114-127.
Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144-168.
D’souza, C., & Taghian, M. (2005). Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of advertising themes. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 17(3), 51-66.
Eagle, L., Hamann, M., & Low, D. R. (2016). The role of social marketing, marine turtles and sustainable tourism in reducing plastic pollution. Marine pollution bulletin, 107(1), 324-332.
Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen (1975) “Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research”, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts.
Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W., Kirmani, A., & Smit, E. G. (2015). A typology of consumer strategies for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for countering
them. International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 6-16.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. Psychological foundations of attitudes, 147-170.
Holbrook, M. B., & Lehmann, D. R. (1980). The role of message content versus mechanical features in predicting recognition of print advertisements. Journal of Advertising
Research, 20(1), 53-62.
Hoeken, H., Hornikx, J. M. A., & Hustinx, L. G. M. M. (2012). Overtuigende teksten: Onderzoek en ontwerp.
Hutter, K. (2015). Unusual location and unexpected execution in advertising: A content analysis and test of effectiveness in ambient advertisements. Journal of Marketing Communications, 21(1), 33-47.
Imajo, S. (2002). Reactance proneness, collectivism, uniqueness, and resistance to persuasion. Shinrigaku kenkyu: The Japanese journal of psychology, 73(4), 366-372.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort (Vol. 1063). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Kim, M. S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross‐cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communications Monographs, 61(3), 210-235.
Kim, M. S., & Wilson, S. R. (1994). A cross‐cultural comparison of implicit theories of requesting. Communications Monographs, 61(3), 210-235.
Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). Resistance and persuasion. Psychology Press.
MacDonald, G., Nail, P. R., & Harper, J. R. (2011). Do people use reverse psychology? An exploration of strategic self-anticonformity. Social Influence, 6(1), 1-14.
MacKenzie, S. B. (1986). The role of attention in mediating the effect of advertising on attribute importance. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 174-195.
Meyer, W. U., Niepel, M., Rudolph, U., & Schützwohl, A. (1991). An experimental analysis of surprise. Cognition & Emotion, 5(4), 295-311.
Mitchell, A. A. (1979). Involvement: a potentially important mediator of consumer behavior. ACR North American Advances.
Monitor duurzaamheid: Nederlander wil duurzaam leven, maar het moet wel leuk
blijven. (2019, 19 March). Retrieved from https://www.kwaliteit-in-bedrijf.nl/artikelen/1525-monitor_duurzaamheid_nederlander_wil_duurzaam_leven_maar_het_moet_wel_leuk_blijve
n
Nail, P. R., MacDonald, G., & Levy, D. A. (2000). Proposal of a four-dimensional model of social response. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3), 454.
Niesta Kayser, D., Graupmann, V., Fryer, J. W., & Frey, D. (2016). Threat to Freedom and the Detrimental Effect of Avoidance Goal Frames: Reactance as a Mediating
Variable. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 632.
Peattie, K. (2001). Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(4), 187-199.
Petty, R., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion: in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, L. Berkowitz.
Rauwers, F., & van Noort, G. (2016). The underlying processes of creative media
advertising. In Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. VI) (pp. 309-323). Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden.
Richins, M. L., Bloch, P. H., & McQuarrie, E. F. (1992). How enduring and situational involvement combine to create involvement responses. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 1(2), 143-153.
Rodafinos, A., Vucevic, A., & Sideridis, G. D. (2005). The effectiveness of compliance techniques: Foot in the door versus door in the face. The Journal of social
psychology, 145(2), 237-240.
Roser, C. (1990). Involvement, attention, and perceptions of message relevance in the response to persuasive appeals. Communication Research, 17(5), 571-600.
Quick, B. L., & Considine, J. R. (2008). Examining the use of forceful language when designing exercise persuasive messages for adults: A test of conceptualizing reactance arousal as a two-step process. Health communication, 23(5), 483-491.
Quick, B. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). Examining the role of trait reactance and sensation seeking on perceived threat, state reactance, and reactance restoration. Human
Communication Research, 34(3), 448-476.
Sanchez-Sabate, R., & Sabaté, J. (2019). Consumer attitudes towards environmental concerns of meat consumption: A systematic review. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(7), 1220.
Sinha, I., & Foscht, T. (2006). Reverse psychology marketing: The death of traditional marketing and the rise of the new “pull” game. Springer.
Sinha, I., & Foscht, T. (2007). Reverse psychology marketing. The Death of traditional Marketing and the Rise of the new „Pull “Game, Houndmills.
Sinha, J. I., & Foscht, T. (2016). Reverse psychology tactics in contemporary marketing. The Marketing Review, 16(3), 343-353.
Smith, R. E., & Yang, X. (2004). Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory, 4(1-2), 31-58.
Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psychological reactance. Zeitschrift für Psychologie.
Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2009). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of environmental psychology, 29(3), 309-317. Swift, J. (2016, January 19). Army goes after generation Z with reversed psychology. Retrieved from: https://www.campaignlive.com/article/army-goes-generation-z-reverse-psychology/1379826
Tcherenkov, P. (2017). The impact of Reverse Psychology Marketing on a Brand.
Wang, A. (2006). Advertising engagement: A driver of message involvement on message effects. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4), 355-368.
Wei, M. L., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert
marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 34-44.
Wilkie, W. L., & Pessemier, E. A. (1973). Issues in marketing's use of multi-attribute attitude models. Journal of Marketing research, 10(4), 428-441.
Appendix
Appendix A Factsheet
Dear participant,
I would like to invite you to participate in a research study for my Master thesis at the graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam.
The questionnaire will take about 6 minutes of your time. First, you will be asked some questions about demographics and then you will see a message. After seeing the message, you will be asked to read the questions attentively and to answer them. Kindly answer the questions according to your instinct, as there are no right or wrong answers.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the Graduate School of Communication, University of Amsterdam, I can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions.
2) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 7 days after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research. 3) Participating in the research will not entail you’re being subjected to any appreciable
risk or discomfort, the researcher will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, I will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research. Should you be interested in these results, then I kindly ask you to send me your e-mail address at
soumaya.zaroual@student.uva.nl. For more information about the research, you are welcome to contact me at the same e-mail address at any time.
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact the designated member of the Ethics committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR Sectretariaat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-5253680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
Any complains or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance with your assistance with this research, which I greatly appreciate.
Appendix B Consent form
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the invitation for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Soumaya Zaroual (soumaya.zaroual@student.uva.nl). Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
√ I understand the text presented above and I agree to fill in the survey. I disagree and I would like to quit the survey
Appendix C Debriefing
Thank you for your participation in my study on the effectiveness of reverse psychology. Reverse psychology is a tool that is increasingly used in the field of Communication and Marketing. The idea behind reverse psychology is that one states the opposite of what is actually desired to draw the public’s attention.
The advertisement that was used in this study was altered from its original form. What you did not know is that two different versions of the advertisement were made, one containing reverse psychology and one which did not. You were exposed to one of the two.
The overall aim of this study is to determine which method is more effective in persuading people to change their attitude and their behavior about recycling/single use plastic.
Once again, I would like to thank you for participating. If you have any further questions regarding this research, please feel free to contact me via: soumaya.zaroual@student.uva.nl
Appendix D
Manipulation material
Figure 1. Campaign containing reverse psychology
Appendix E Survey
1. What is your gender? o Female
o Male o Other
2. What is your age? ……… (e.g 24)
3. What is your current or your highest level of education? o Primary school
o VMBO o HAVO o VWO o MBO
o HBO (University of Applied Sciences) o University
4. Where are you from? o European o African
o North-America o South-American o Asian
Manipulation- advertising is shown (2 conditions: reverse psychology, traditional ad
After clicking NEXT, you will be shown an advertisement. Please take your time when viewing the advertisement and look the advertisement attentively. You will not be able to go back to the advertisement after you proceed to the questions.
Attention (Smith et al., 2007)
1) The campaign demanded my attention Strongly disagree- strongly agree
2) I have examined the main elements of the campaign very carefully Strongly disagree- strongly agree
3) I spent considerable time analyzing the campaign’s message Strongly disagree- strongly agree
4) I tried to carefully evaluate the message in the campaign Strongly disagree- strongly agree
Reactance
Freedom Threat Measure (Dillard & Shen, 2005)
5) The message tried to make a decision for me Strongly disagree- strongly agree
6) The message tried to pressure me Strongly disagree- strongly agree
7) The message threatened my freedom to choose Strongly disagree- strongly agree
8) The message tried to manipulate me Strongly disagree- strongly agree
Anger Measure (Dillard & Shen, 2005)- To measure reactance 9) I felt angry while viewing the message
Strongly disagree- strongly agree
10) I felt annoyed while viewing the message Strongly disagree- strongly agree
11) I felt irritated while viewing the message Strongly disagree- strongly agree
12) I felt aggravated while viewing this message? Strongly disagree- strongly agree
Attitude and intention (Hoeken, Hornikx en hustinx, 2012) Attitude
13) I think the single use of plastic is Useless 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 useful
14) I think the single use of plastic is Negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Positive
15) I think the single use of plastic is Bad 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Good
16) I think the single use of plastic is Not annoying 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 annoying
17) I think the single use of plastic is Unwise 12 3 4 5 6 7 wise
18) I think the single use of plastic is Unnecessary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Necessary Intention
19) I am planning to stop using single use plastic from now on Completely disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree
20) I am contemplating to stop using single use plastic. Completely disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree
21) I am prepared to stop using single use plastic
Completely disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree
Involvement (Wang, 2006)
22) How much attention did you pay to the message in the campaign? Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely
23) How engaging was it for you to process the message in the campaign? Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely
24) How involving was it for you to process the message in the campaign? Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely
Manipulation check
The overall goal of the campaign was 1. To persuade the reader to recycle 2. To persuade the reader not to recycle
