In this study, we assess an alternative strategy for health interventions, namely, two-sided messages. A 3 × 2 between-subjects factorial experimental design investigates the effect of three different anti-binge drinking messages (i.e., one-sided, two-sided non-refutational, and two-sided refutational) on strongly and weakly issue-involved adolescents’ binge drinking intentions after exposure to peer pressure. A sample of 185 adolescents between the age of 15 and 19 participated in the experiment. The results show that when adolescents’ involvement with binge drinking is strong, a two-sided refutational as well as non-refutational message result in lower binge drinking intentions than a one-sided message. When adolescents’ involvement with binge drinking is weak, binge drinking intentions are not influenced by message sidedness.
AhnH. Y.WuL.KellyS.HaleyE. (2011). A qualitative study of college student responses to conflicting messages in advertising: Anti-binge drinking public service announcements versus wine promotion health messages. International Journal of Public Health, 56, 271-279.
2.
BeattyS. E.TalpadeS. (1994). Adolescent influence in family decision making: A replication with extension. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 332-341.
3.
BelchG. E. (1981). An examination of comparative and noncomparative television commercials: The effects of claim variation and repetition on cognitive response and message acceptance. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 333-349.
4.
BohnerG.EinwillerS.ErbH.SieblerF. (2003). When small means comfortable: Relations between product attributes in two-sided advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 454-463.
5.
ChebatJ. C.PicardJ. (1985). The effects of price and message-sidedness on confidence in product and advertisement with personal involvement as mediator variable. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2, 129-141.
6.
CraigsC. L.BewickB. M.GillJ., O’MayF.RadleyD. (2011). UK student alcohol consumption: A cluster analysis of drinking behavior typologies. Health Education Journal. Advance online publication.
7.
CrowleyA. E.HoyerW. D. (1994). An integrative framework for understanding two-sided persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 561-574.
8.
DevlinE.EadieD.SteadM.EvansK. (2007). Comparative study of young people’s response to anti-smoking messages. International Journal of Advertising, 26, 99-128.
9.
DufurM. J.ParcelT. L.McKuneB. A. (2013). Does capital at home matter more than capital at school? The case of adolescent alcohol and marijuana use. Journal of Drug Issues, 43, 85-102.
10.
DworkinJ. (2005). Risk taking as developmentally appropriate experimentation for college students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 219-241.
11.
EisendM. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 187-198.
12.
EisendM. (2007). Understanding two-sided persuasion: An empirical assessment of theoretical approaches. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 615-640.
13.
EtgarM.GoodwinS. A. (1982). One-sided versus two-sided comparative message appeals for new brand introductions. Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 460-465.
14.
FaulknerS.HendryL. B.RoderiqueL.ThomsonR. (2006). A preliminary study of the attitudes, triggers and consequences of hazardous drinking in university students. Health Education Journal, 65, 159-169.
15.
GoldenL. L.AlpertM. I. (1987). Comparative analysis of the relative effectiveness of one-and two-sided communication for contrasting products. Journal of Advertising, 16, 18-25.
16.
GotliebJ. B.SarelD. (1991). Comparative advertising effectiveness: The role of involvement and source credibility. Journal of Advertising, 20, 38-45.
17.
HastakM.ParkJ. W. (1990). Mediators of message sidedness effects on cognitive structure for involved and uninvolved audiences. In GoldbergM. E.GornG.PollayR. W. (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 17, pp. 329-336). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
18.
HolmilaM.RaitasaloK. (2005). Gender differences in drinking: Why do they still exist?Addiction, 100, 1763-1769.
19.
HovlandC. I. (1954). Effects of the mass media of communication. In LindzeyG. (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 327-335). Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
20.
JaccardJ. (1981). Attitudes and behavior-implications of attitudes toward behavioral alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 286-307.
21.
JohnsonP. B.BolesS. M.VaughanR.KleberH. D. (2000). The co-occurrence of smoking and binge drinking in adolescence. Addictive Behaviors, 25, 779-783.
22.
KaminsM. A.AssaelH. (1987). Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: A cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 29-39.
23.
LeippeM.ElkinR. (1987). When motives clash: Issue involvement and response involvement as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 266-278.
24.
LeyP.WitworthM.WoodwardR.YorkeR. (1977). The effect of sidedness and fear arousal on willingness to participate in a slimming scheme. Health Education Journal, 36, 67-69.
25.
McGuireW. (1961). Resistance to persuasion conferred by active and passive prior refutation of the same and alternative counterarguments. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 63, 326-332.
26.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
27.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York, NY: Springer.
28.
QuickB. L.BatesB. R. (2010). The use of gain-or loss frame 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.
29.
RagsdaleK.PorterJ. R.MathewsR.WhiteA.Gore-FeltonC.McGarveyE. L. (2012). “Liquor before beer, you’re in the clear”: Binge drinking and other risk behaviors among fraternity/sorority members and their non-Greek peers. Journal of Substance Use, 17, 323-339.
30.
ReynoldsB.SeegerM. W. (2005). Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of Health Communication, 10, 43-55.
31.
SmithR. E.HuntS. O. (1978). Attributional processes and effects in promotional situations. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 149-158.
32.
StaymanD.HoyerW.LeonR. (1987). Attribute importance in discounting product features in advertising. In DouglasS. P.. (Eds.), AMA Educators’ Proceedings No. 53, American Marketing Association Summer Educator’s Conference. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: American Marketing Association.
33.
SwahnM.SimonT.HammigB.GuerreroJ. (2004). Alcohol-consumption behaviors and risk for physical fighting and injuries among adolescent drinkers. Addictive Behaviors, 29, 959-963.
34.
TreynorW. (2009). Towards a general theory of social psychology: Understanding human cruelty, human misery, and, perhaps, a remedy (a theory of the socialization process). Redondo Beach, CA: Euphoria Press.
35.
VikP. W.CellucciT.IversH. (2003). Natural reduction of binge drinking among college students. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 643-655.
36.
WestS. L.O’NealK. K. (2004). Project D.A.R.E. outcome effectiveness revisited. American Journal of Public Health, 94, 1027-1029.
37.
WickiM.KuntscheE.GmelG. (2010). Drinking at European universities? A review of students’ alcohol use. Addictive Behaviors, 35, 378-384.
38.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349.
39.
ZhangY.BudaR. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28, 1-15.
