Book of ABSTRACTS - Institut für Journalistik und ...

For a pretest we extracted arguments from 21 audiovisual PSA and 19 print PSA, resulting in 36
arguments (18 factual / 18 emotional). We pretested the arguments in regard of loading and
affectiveness (n=49); age M=25 (SD = 7,286); gender-balanced. The study is a 2x2 experimental
design varying form of presentation (rhetorical / testimonial) and type of argument (factual /
emotional). The manipulated treatment is a ca. 350 words text, integrating the top 5 factual and top
5 emotional arguments (pretest) presented in rhetorical and testimonial condition. We used a
random cluster-sample (initial sample n= 605; response rate (completed) n=383); age = Md 26 (M =
28,9; SD = 10,447), 72,2 % female participants.
We tested Message Judgement (11 items, α = ,725 (Burke & Edell, 1989), Perceived Effectiveness (8
items, α = ,889) (Dillard & Ye, 2008)), Transportation (9 items, α = ,698) (Green & Brock, 2000)
and Reactance (4 items, α = ,877) (Dillard & Shen, 2005) (see also Busselle & Bilandzic, 2009;
Bilandzic, Hastall, Kinnebrock, & Busselle, 2010; Keer, van den Putte, & Neijens, 2012).
We replicated the hypothesis-set (Keer, van den Putte, de Wit, & Neijens, in press), which has been
used in order to test argumentation in regard of binge-drinking:
H1 (Message Judgement): Probands who read the testimonial-based text, evaluate the text‘s
messages more positive than probands who read the rhetorical-based text.
H2 (Perceived Effectiveness): Probands who read the testimonial-based text, perceive the text‘s
effectiveness higher than probands who read the rhetorical-based text.
H3 (Message Judgement): Probands who read the emotional text, evaluate the text‘s messages more
positive than probands who read the factual text.
H4 (Perceived Effectiveness): Probands who read the emotional text, perceive the text‘s
effectiveness higher than probands who read the factual text.
H5 (Message Judgement): Texts that feature congruency of presentational characteristics and type of
argument are evaluated more positive than mismatching texts. (Congruency = rhetorical+factual vs.
testimonial-based+emotional)
H6 (Perceived Effectiveness). Texts that feature congruency of presentational characteristics and
type of argument are perceived more effective than mismatching texts.
H7 (Transportation): Congruency of presentational characteristics and type of argument cause higher
transportation measures than mismatching texts.
H8 (Reactance): Congruency of presentational characteristics and type of argument cause lower
reactance measures than mismatching texts.
Results show a dissonant picture of campaign-features’ effectiveness in comparison to the original
study. While the original research showed significant interaction-effects, such interactions are
entirely missing in regard of IPV-messages. Diametrically opposite, main effects indicate
dysfunctional text-features.
Exemplarily, as transportation of messages is regularly supposed to be more effective within
emotional and testimonial-based texts, main effects of emotional as well as testimonial-based
Book of Abstracts I 15