FOUR GROUPS OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS (TOTAL N=441) WERE EACH EXPOSED TO ONE OF THE FOLLOWING FILMS: A HIGH-THREAT, MEDIUM-THREAT, OR LOW-THREAT APPEAL ABOUT IMPAIRED DRIVING; OR AN IRRELEVANT CONTROL FILM. THE THREATENING FILMS EVOKED VARYING DEGREES OF GENERAL UPSET (ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, LOSS OF PLEASURE, AND DISGUST) RATHER THAN JUST FEAR. ALL THREE EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS OUTSCORED CONTROL SUBJECTS ON AN IMMEDIATE POST-TEST MEASURE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DRINKING AND DRIVING; HOWEVER, THIS ADVANTAGE DISSIPATED BY THE DELAYED POST-TEST, SIX MONTHS LATER. THE HIGH- AND LOW-THREAT FILMS ACTUALLY EVOKED MORE PERMISSIVE ATTITUDES TO IMPAIRED DRIVING THAN THE CONTROL FILM DID ON THE IMMEDIATE POST-TEST; HOWEVER, NO ATTITUDINAL DIFFERENCES AMONG TREATMENTS APPEARED ON THE DELAYED POST-TEST. THE EXPERIMENTAL FILMS ALSO FAILED TO AFFECT SELF-REPORTS OF IMPAIRED-DRIVING FREQUENCY OVER THE SIX MONTHS BETWEEN THE TWO POST-TESTS. POSSIBLE REASONS WERE SUGGESTED FOR THE EVIDENT INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE THREAT APPEALS, AND POSSIBLE ISSUES FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION WERE IDENTIFIED.(Author/publisher).
Abstract