The current study examined the effects of aggressive communication styles on individuals’ pro-environmental behavioral intentions. Two underlying mechanisms—psychological reactance and expectancy violation—as well as the moderating role played by political ideology were investigated. An online experiment (N = 423) was conducted and the results showed that more aggressive style was more likely to trigger psychological reactance and violation of expectation, liberals responded more negatively to the aggressive message than conservatives, and expectancy violation was an important mediator. The findings provide explanations for how communication styles affect individuals’ information processing and offer implications regarding selecting communication styles wisely.
BlankenshipK. L.HoltgravesT. (2005). The role of different markers of linguistic powerlessness in persuasion. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 3–24.
5.
BliucA.-M.McGartyC.ThomasE. F.LalaG.BerndsenM.MisajonR. (2015). Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nature Climate Change, 5, 226–229.
6.
BolsenT.ShapiroM. A. (2018). The U.S. news media, polarization on climate change, and pathways to effective communication. Environmental Communication, 12, 149–163.
7.
BoudetH.ClarkeC.BugdenD.MaibachE.Roser-RenoufC.LeiserowitzA. (2014). “Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing. Energy Policy, 65, 57–67.
8.
BowersJ. W. (1963). Language intensity, social introversion, and attitude change. Communications Monographs, 30, 345–352.
9.
BrehmS. S.BrehmJ. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
10.
BrooksD. J.GeerJ. G. (2007). Beyond negativity: The effects of incivility on the electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 51, 1–16.
11.
BurgoonJ.HaleJ. L. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communications Monographs, 55, 58–79.
12.
BurgoonJ.WaltherJ. B. (1990). Nonverbal expectancies and the evaluative consequences of violations. Human Communication Research, 17, 232–265.
13.
BurgoonM.MillerG. R. (1985). An expectancy interpretation of language and persuasion. In GilesH.St. ClairR. N. (Eds.), Recent advances in language, communication, and social psychology (pp. 199–229). Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
CampoS.CameronK. A. (2006). Differential effects of exposure to social norms campaigns: A cause for concern. Health Communication, 19, 209–219.
15.
CarmichaelJ. T.BrulleR. J.HuxsterJ. K. (2017). The great divide: Understanding the role of media and other drivers of the partisan divide in public concern over climate change in the USA, 2001–2014. Climatic Change, 141, 599–612.
16.
ChoH.SalmonC. T. (2006). Unintended effects of health communication campaigns. Journal of Communication, 57, 293–317.
17.
Chory-AssadR. M. (2004). Effects of television sitcom exposure on the accessibility of verbally aggressive thoughts. Western Journal of Communication (Includes Communication Reports), 68, 431–453.
18.
ColsonV. (2011). Science blogs as competing channels for the dissemination of science news. Journalism, 12, 889–902.
19.
DerksD.FischerA. H.BosA. E. (2008). The role of emotion in computer-mediated communication: A review. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 766–785.
20.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72, 144–168.
21.
DunwoodyS. (2014). Science journalism: Prospects in the digital age. In BucchiM.TrenchB. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (pp. 43–55). Routledge.
22.
EricksonB.LindE. A.JohnsonB. C.O’BarrW. M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of “powerful” and “powerless” speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266–279.
23.
FeldmanL. (2017). Assumptions about science in satirical news and late-night comedy. In JamiesonK. H.KahanD.ScheufeleD. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 321–332). Oxford University Press.
24.
FeldmanL.HartP. S. (2016). Using political efficacy messages to increase climate activism: The mediating role of emotions. Science Communication, 38, 99–127.
25.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
26.
GreenbergB. S. (1976). The effects of language intensity modification on perceived verbal aggressiveness. Communications Monographs, 43, 130–139.
HamiltonL. C.HartterJ.Lemcke-StamponeM.MooreD. W.SaffordT. G. (2015). Tracking public beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. PLOS ONE, 10(9), Article e0138208.
29.
HamiltonM. A.HunterJ. E.BurgoonM. (1990). An empirical investigation of an axiomatic model of the relationship between language intensity on attitude change. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9, 235–255.
30.
HansenG. J.KimH. (2011). Is the media biased against me? A meta-analysis of the hostile media effect research. Communication Research Reports, 28, 169–179.
31.
HayesA. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
32.
HmielowskiJ. D.FeldmanL.MyersT. A.LeiserowitzA.MaibachE. (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 866–883.
InfanteD. A. (1987). Aggressiveness. In McCroskeyJ.DalyJ. (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 157–192). SAGE.
35.
JarreauP. B.PorterL. (2018). Science in the social media age: Profiles of science blog readers. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 95, 142–168.
36.
JohnsonD. I. (2012). Swearing by peers in the work setting: Expectancy violation valence, perceptions of message, and perceptions of speaker. Communication Studies, 63, 136–151.
37.
KahanD. M. (2015). Climate science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36, 1–43.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
40.
KönigL.JucksR. (2019). Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates. Public Understanding of Science, 28, 401–416.
41.
KronrodA.GrinsteinA.WathieuL. (2012). Go green! Should environmental messages be so assertive?Journal of Marketing, 76, 95–102.
42.
KrosnickJ. A.HolbrookA. L.VisserP. S. (2000). The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 239–260.
43.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
44.
LauR. R.SigelmanL.RovnerI. B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69, 1176–1209.
45.
LeventhalH. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 119–186.
46.
LiangY.KeeK. F.HendersonL. K. (2018). Towards an integrated model of strategic environmental communication: Advancing theories of reactance and planned behavior in a water conservation context. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 135–154.
47.
LuH.McComasK. A.BesleyJ. C. (2017). Messages promoting genetic modification of crops in the context of climate change: Evidence for psychological reactance. Appetite, 108, 104–116.
48.
LuH.SchuldtJ. P. (2016). Compassion for climate change victims and support for mitigation policy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45, 192–200.
49.
LuoY.ZhaoJ. (2019). Motivated attention in climate change perception and action. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1541.
50.
MahrtM.PuschmannC. (2014). Science blogging: An exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of Science Communication, 13, A05.
51.
MartinM. M.AndersonC. M.CosG. C. (1997). Verbal aggression: A study of the relationship between communication traits and feelings about a verbally aggressive television show. Communication Research Reports, 14, 195–202.
52.
MartinM. M.MottetT.MyersS. (2000). Students’ motives for communicating with their instructors and affective and cognitive learning. Psychological Reports, 87, 830–834.
53.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1163–1172.
54.
McNairB. (2011). An introduction to political communication. Routledge.
55.
MutzD. C.ReevesB. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99, 1–15.
56.
MyersS. (2002). Perceived aggressive instructor communication and student state motivation, learning, and satisfaction. Communication Reports, 15, 113–121.
57.
MyersS.RoccaK. (2000). Students’ state motivation and instructors’ use of verbally aggressive messages. Psychological Reports, 87, 291–294.
NewmanT. P. (2017). Tracking the release of IPCC AR5 on Twitter: Users, comments, and sources following the release of the working group I summary for policymakers. Public Understanding of Science, 26, 815–825.
60.
O’KeefeD. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. SAGE.
61.
QuickB. L.BoschD.MorganS. E. (2012). Message framing and medium considerations for recruiting newly eligible teen organ donor registrants. American Journal of Transplantation, 12, 1593–1597.
62.
RainsS. A. (2013). The nature of psychological reactance revisited: A meta-analytic review. Human Communication Research, 39(1), 47–73.
SchuldtJ. P.RohS.SchwarzN. (2015). Questionnaire design effects in climate change surveys: Implications for the partisan divide. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658, 67–85.
SeiterJ. S.GassR. H. (2010). Aggressive communication in political contexts. In AvtgisT. A.RancerA. S. (Eds.), Arguments, aggression, and conflict (pp. 239–262). Routledge.
68.
ShenL. (2011). The effectiveness of empathy-versus fear-arousing antismoking PSAs. Health Communication, 26, 404–415.
69.
SilviaP. J. (2006). Reactance and the dynamics of disagreement: Multiple paths from threatened freedom to resistance to persuasion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 673–685.
70.
SlaterD. M.PeterJ.ValkenburgP. M. (2015). Message variability and heterogeneity: A core challenge for communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 39, 3–31.
71.
ThorsonK.VragaE.EkdaleB. (2010). Credibility in context: How uncivil online commentary affects news credibility. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 289–313.
72.
TuC.-H. (2002). The measurement of social presence in an online learning environment. International Journal on E-learning, 1, 34–45.
73.
YuanS.BesleyJ. C. (2017). Talking aggressively about GMOs? Examining the effect of aggressive risk communication with communicator’s facial expression and gender. Journal of Risk Research, 21, 1592–1607.
74.
YuanS.BesleyJ. C.MaW. (2018). Be mean or be nice? Understanding the effects of aggressive and polite communication styles in child vaccination debate. Health Communication, 34, 1212–1221.
75.
YuanS.MaW.BesleyJ. C. (2019). Should scientists talk about GMOs nicely? Exploring the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and preexisting attitude. Science Communication, 41, 267–290.
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.
