Individual differences

According to Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revised RST and the separable

subsystem hypothesis, individuals with a stronger Behavioural Approach System (BAS) are more sensitive to reward cues and thus, are more likely to approach rewards than those with a weaker BAS. As such, individuals with a stronger reward system should attend to, and

37 process, health messages that focus on incentive cues to a greater extent and, in turn, be more

persuaded by these messages compared to those with a weaker reward system. In contrast, individuals with a stronger Fight-Flight-Freeze System (FFFS) are more sensitive to cues of punishment and, should attend to, and process, health messages that focus on aversive cues to a greater extent and, in turn, be more persuaded by these messages than those with a weaker punishment system. Previous research has explored the relative effectiveness of message frames (i.e., gain-framed and loss-framed) by different personality types for various types of health messages including dental hygiene (Mann et al., 2004; Sherman, Mann, & Updegraff, 2006; Updegraff, Sherman, Luyster, & Mann, 2007), obesity, influenza, smoking, glaucoma, pedestrian safety (e.g., Shen & Dillard, 2007, 2009), alcohol consumption (Van ‘t Riet et al., 2011) and skin cancer prevention (Hevey & Dolan, 2013; Shen & Dillard, 2007, 2009; Shen

& Kollar, 2013).

Mann et al. (2004) and Sherman et al. (2006) each conducted two separate studies to examine the effect that Gray’s original RST traits had on compliance with messages that promoted dental hygiene. They found that individuals who were more sensitive to reward cues (as measured by self-report ratings) were more likely to comply with a gain-framed dental flossing message. In turn, participants who were sensitive to punishment cues were more likely to comply with a loss-framed dental flossing message. Further, Sherman et al.

(2006) found that the intention to floss predicted subsequent self-reported flossing behaviour.

These findings support the theoretical predictions of Gray’s original RST and suggest that individual differences in approach and avoidance motivation influence message acceptance according to message frame.

Shen and Dillard (2009) conducted two studies to examine if individual differences would influence responses to messages addressing health issues including skin cancer, obesity, and influenza in Study 1, and smoking, glaucoma, and pedestrian safety in Study 2.

38 The messages were presented to participants as written text-only based messages in Study 1

(n = 286) and in Study 2 (n = 252), participants viewed televised public service

announcements. In each study, half of the participants were exposed to either gain-framed or loss-framed messages, while the other half of the participants viewed a mixture of both gain-framed and loss-gain-framed messages. In both studies, the findings supported Gray’s original RST with reward sensitivity associated with greater processing (as measured by a self-reported thought listing task) of the gain-framed messages and punishment sensitivity associated with greater processing of loss-framed messages.

Similarly, Van ‘t Riet et al. (2011) and Hevey and Dolan (2013) found support for Gray’s original RST using alcohol messages and sun safety messages, respectively.

Specifically, Van ‘t Riet et al. (2011) found that the individuals who scored as stronger original Behavioural Inhibition System (BIS) reported greater intentions to abide by a high threatening alcohol message (presented as written text) compared to the corresponding low threatening message. In Hevey and Dolan (2013), those with a stronger BAS reported greater intentions to abide by the gain-framed sun safety messages compared to those with a stronger original BIS. In turn, those with a stronger original BIS reported greater intentions to abide by the loss-framed sun safety messages than those with a stronger BAS.

While, collectively, these studies support the theoretical predictions of the RST, in that those with a stronger BAS were more sensitive to reward messages compared to those with a weaker BAS and those with a stronger original BIS appear more sensitive to

punishment than those with a weaker original BIS, further research is still required in this area. A limitation of past research that has applied Gray’s original RST to assessing message processing is that studies have often relied upon self-report questionnaires to assess cognitive processing (e.g., Shen & Dillard, 2007; Van ‘t Riet et al., 2011). However, it has been argued that information processing may be an automatic process that occurs in the unconscious (e.g.,

39 Chaumon, Drouet, & Tallon-Baudry, 2008; Kihlstrom, 1987; van Gaal, Ridderinkhof,

Scholte, & Lamme, 2010) and may, therefore, be inaccessible to individuals’ self-report.

Thus, to avoid such limitations associated with self-report measures (e.g., Fox, Cahill, &

Zougkou, 2010), Studies 2 and 3b included objective assessments of cognitive differences to assess if the processing of information (aligned with the revised RST traits) would influence individuals’ acceptance of negatively and positively framed messages.

Additionally, previous research that has investigated sensitivity to reward and sensitivity to punishment traits in relation to the processing of gain-framed and loss-framed messages has focused on Gray’s original RST. However, it is worthwhile noting that not only have all the listed RST and message framing studies applied Carver and White’s BIS/ BAS Scales to measure the RST traits but, these studies have reported the BIS to reflect

behavioural avoidance instead of behavioural inhibition. Given that Carver and White’s BIS scale was created to measure behavioural inhibition as defined by Gray’s RST (i.e., inhibition towards stimuli instead of avoiding the stimuli per se; Carver & White, 1994), further

research is required that incorporates additional measures of punishment/ avoidance to assess more accurately the potential influence that fearful and anxious personality traits may have on the processing of loss-framed messages.

With the exception of Kaye et al. (2013), limited research has applied Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revised RST to examine the effectiveness of message frames in a road safety context by reward and punishment personality types. However, similar to previous RST and message framing studies, the BAS in Kaye et al. (2013) was examined as a whole construct rather than examining the influence of each underlying BAS process separately (e.g., as represented by BAS: Drive, BAS: Reward Responsiveness, and BAS: Fun Seeking in Carver and White’s BAS component of the BIS/ BAS Scales). As suggested by Shen and Kollar (2013) and supported by research previously discussed in chapter 2, section 2.4.1,

40 which emphasised the different roles played by these underlying BAS processes (e.g., Corr &

Cooper, 2013; Smillie et al., 2006b), the current program of research assessed each BAS component separately to further examine any potential relationships that may exist between the BAS and processing of gain-framed messages.

Research has yet to examine Gray and McNaughton’s (2000) revised BIS in relation to the processing of conflicting message cues. Thus, Study 2 extends upon past research by applying the revised RST to examine the BIS by exposing some individuals to both the social loss-framed message (i.e., a message aimed to reduce speeding behaviour by emphasising the social consequences of speeding) and a promotional motor vehicle message (i.e., a fictitious advertisement that was designed to promote a high performance vehicle and do so by

potentially ‘promoting’ less safe behaviours). It was anticipated that by exposing participants to these conflicting message cues, the BIS would become activated (due to goal conflict between the BAS and the FFFS).