Asymmetric negative influence of cynicism and skepticism: a study of preventative communication

Abstract

It has been known that skepticism and cynicism are similar with each other as part of a continuum from trust to distrust in the message and that both skeptics and cynics are typified by beliefs that they could be misled by the marketing communication. However, skepticism and cynicism differ from each other in the distrust in communication contents versus communication motives. Skeptics tend to search information to discern truth of the communication content while cynics who tend to infer a selfish motive behind the communication when they are pressured by others in authority. The present study emphasizes the difference between skeptics and cynics in responding to public and commercial communications, by focusing on the compliance with preventative communications. In general, literature finds that the increase in threat or fear level contributes to the persuasion of preventative communication. However, past studies also suggested that increasing the level of threat or fear may backfire. Given the controversy over the positive and negative effects of increases in the level of threat or fear, the present study compares the effect of threat-appeal communication on attenuating and accentuating the negative effects of skepticism and cynicism. Study one shows that, exposed to a public communication that lacks threat, cognitive elaboration on the message has a positive effect on compliance with the communication, only for skeptics. Study two shows that, in the context of public communication, increases in threat level attenuate the negative effect of skepticism on persuasion while they accentuate the negative effect of cynicism. Study three replicates study two in the context of commercial advertising. Extending the failure of threat appeal to persuade cynics, study four shows that the preventative communication employing a humor appeal on the threatening issue is effective in persuading cynics but not skeptics.