The current study investigated how individuals process aggressive and humorous video messages communicating childhood vaccination and climate change. Employing psychological reactance, message discounting and expectancy violation, we built a theoretical model that explains the effects of communication styles on individuals’ activism intentions. Two online experiments in the United States (N = 441 and N = 533) using self-created videos on the topics of childhood vaccination and climate change were conducted to examine this model. The results showed that both perceived aggressiveness and humorousness of the videos led to higher message discounting, which then resulted in stronger activism intentions. Perceived aggressiveness led to higher expectancy violation, while perceived humorousness led to lower expectancy violation, which negatively affected activism intentions. The role played by psychological reactance was inconsistent across the two contexts. The findings provide theoretical implications for understanding how individuals process aggressive and humorous communication styles, especially in relation to discussions on science issues.
BippusAMDunbarNELiuS-J (2012) Humorous responses to interpersonal complaints: Effects of humor style and nonverbal expression. The Journal of Psychology146: 437–453.
4.
Booth-ButterfieldSBooth-ButterfieldM (1991) Individual differences in the communication of humorous messages. Southern Journal of Communication56: 205–218.
5.
BoukesMBoomgaardenHGMoormanMDe VreeseCH (2015) At odds: Laughing and thinking? The appreciation, processing, and persuasiveness of political satire. Journal of Communication65(5): 721–744.
6.
BrehmSSBrehmJW (1981) Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control. New York, NY: Academic Press.
7.
BrooksDJGeerJG (2007) Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 1–16.
8.
BrossardD (2013) New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(Suppl. 3): 14096–14101.
9.
BurgoonJHaleJL (1988) Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs55(1): 58–79.
10.
BurgoonJKWaltherJB (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Communication Research17(2): 232-265.
11.
BurgoonMMillerGR (1985) An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In: GilesHClairR (eds) Recent Advances in Language, Communication, and Social Psychology. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 199–229.
12.
ChoHSalmonCT (2007) Unintended effects of health communication campaigns. Journal of Communication57: 293–317.
13.
De VriesREBakker-PieperAAlting SibergRvan GamerenKVlugM (2009) The content and dimensionality of communication styles. Communication Research36(2): 178–206.
14.
De VriesREBakker-PieperAKoningsFESchoutenB (2011) The Communication Styles Inventory (CSI): A six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality. Communication Research40(4): 506–532.
15.
DennisSAGoodsonBMPearsonCA (2020) Online worker fraud and evolving threats to the integrity of MTurk data: A discussion of virtual private servers and the limitations of IP-based screening procedures. Behavioral Research in Accounting32(1): 119–134.
16.
DiCioccioRL (2012) Humor as aggressive communication. In: DiCioccioRL (ed.) Humor Communication: Theory, Impact and Outcomes. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt, pp. 94–108.
17.
DillardJPShenL (2005) On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs72(2): 144–168.
18.
EdwardsHNollerP (1998) Factors influencing caregiver-care receiver communication and its impact on the well-being older care receivers. Health Communication10(4): 317–341.
19.
FerreiraPd C Veiga SimaoAMPereiraNSPaulinoPOliveiraS (2021) Online verbal aggression, social relationships, and self-efficacy beliefs. New Media & Society23(5): 960–981.
20.
GraeferAKilbyAKalviknes BoreI-L (2019) Unruly women and Carnivalesque countercontrol: Offensive humor in mediated social protest. Journal of Communication Inquiry43(2): 171–193.
21.
HayesAF (2017) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford publications.
22.
HolbertRLHmielowskiJJainPLatherJMoreyA (2011) Adding nuance to the study of political humor effects: Experimental research on juvenalian satire versus horatian satire. American Behavioral Scientist55(3): 187–211.
23.
InfanteDA (1987) Aggressiveness. In: McCroskeyJDalyJ (eds) Personality and Interpersonal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 157–192.
24.
JanesLMOlsonJM (2000) Jeer pressure: The behavioral effects of observing ridicule of others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26(4): 474–485.
25.
JasanoffS (2011) Cosmopolitan knowledge: Climate science and global civic epistemology. In: DryzekJNorgaardDSchlosbergD (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–143.
26.
JohnsonDI (2012) Swearing by peers in the work setting: Expectancy violation valence, perceptions of message, and perceptions of speaker. Communication Studies63(2): 136–151.
KönigLJucksR (2019) Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science28(4): 401–416.
29.
LaMarreHLLandrevilleKDYoungDGilkersonN (2014) Humor works in funny ways: Examining satirical tone as a key determinant in political humor message processing. Mass Communication and Society17: 400–423.
30.
LauRRSigelmanLRovnerIB (2007) The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics69(4): 1176–1209.
31.
LeventhalH (1970) Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology5: 119–186.
32.
LuHYuanS (2021) What motivates information sharing about disaster victims on social media? Exploring the role of compassion, sadness, expectancy violation, and enjoyment. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction63: 102431.
33.
LynchOH (2002) Humorous communication: Finding a place for humor in communication research. Communication Theory12(4): 423–445.
34.
McNairB (2011) An Introduction to Political Communication. London: Taylor & Francis.
35.
MillerCHLaneLTDeatrickLMYoungAMPottsKA (2007) Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research33(2): 219–240.
36.
MutzDCReevesB (2005) The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review99(1): 1–15.
37.
NabiRLMoyer-GuséEByrneS (2007) All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs74: 29–54.
38.
NissenbaumAShifmanL (2020) Laughing alone, together: Local user-generated satirical responses to a global event. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 29September. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2020.1804979.
39.
O’KeefeDJHoekenH (2021) Message design choices don’t make much difference to persuasiveness and can’t be counted on—Not even when moderating conditions are specified. Frontiers in Psychology12: 664160.
40.
ShapiroMAParkHW (2015) More than entertainment: YouTube and public responses to the science of global warming and climate change. Social Science Information54(1): 115-145.
41.
SchoeppeJCheadleAMeltonMFaubionTMillerCMatthysJ, et al. (2017) The Immunity Community: A community engagement strategy for reducing vaccine hesitancy. Health Promotion Practice18: 654–661.
42.
ShenL (2011) The effectiveness of empathy-versus fear-arousing antismoking PSAs. Health Communication26(5): 404–415.
43.
ShenL (2015) Antecedents to psychological reactance: The impact of threat, message frame, and choice. Health Communication30(10): 975–985.
44.
SidelingerRJ (2014) Using relevant humor to moderate inappropriate conversations: Maintaining student communication satisfaction in the classroom. Communication Research Reports31(3): 292–301.
45.
SkalskiPTamboriniRGlazerESmithS (2009) Effects of humor on presence and recall of persuasive messages. Communication Quarterly57: 136–153.
46.
SkurkaCNiederdeppeJNabiR (2019) Kimmel on climate: Disentangling the emotional ingredients of a satirical monologue. Science Communication41: 394–421.
47.
SkurkaCNiederdeppeJRomero-CanyasRAcupD (2018) Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: Benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions. Journal of Communication68(1): 169–193.
48.
SmithNJoffeH (2013) How the public engages with global warming: A social representations approach. Public Understanding of Science22(1): 16-32.
49.
SparksJRAreniCSCoxKC (1998) An investigation of the effects of language style and communication modality on persuasion. Communications Monographs65(2): 108–125.
50.
ThorsonKVragaEEkdaleB (2010) Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society13(3): 289–313.
WalterNCodyMJXuLZMurphyST (2018) A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a bar: A meta-analysis of humor effects on persuasion. Human Communication Research44: 343–373.
53.
Walther-MartinW (2015) Media-generated expectancy violations: A study of political humor, race, and source perceptions. Western Journal of Communication79(4): 492–507.
54.
YuanSBesleyJC (2017) Talking aggressively about GMOs? Examining the effect of aggressive risk communication with communicator’s facial expression and gender. Journal of Risk Research21: 1592–1607.
55.
YuanSLuH (2020) “It’s global warming, stupid”: Aggressive communication styles and political ideology in science blog debates about climate change. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly97: 1003–1025
56.
YuanSBesleyJCMaW (2018) Be mean or be nice? Understanding the effects of aggressive and polite communication styles in child vaccination debate. Health Communication34: 1212–1221.
57.
YuanSMaWBesleyJC (2019) Should scientists talk about GMOs nicely? Exploring the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and preexisting attitude. Science Communication41: 267–290.
ZieglerR (2013) Mood and processing of proattitudinal and counterattitudinal messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin39(4): 482–495.
60.
ZivA (1984) Personality and Sense of Humor. Berlin: Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
