ABSTRACT
Previous research on risk-glorifying media has provided encompassing evidence for a positive connection between risk-glorifying contents and (a) risk-positive emotions, (b) risk-positive cognitions and attitudes, and (c) risk-positive behavioral inclinations. Nevertheless, little evidence shows whether risk-glorifying content increases actual risk behavior. We conducted three experimental studies to assess whether risk-glorifying commercials increase risk behavior. In all studies, participants were randomly assigned to a risk-glorifying or a neutral commercial. Additionally, in Study 2 participants were randomly assigned to an arousal or a non-arousal condition to test the mediating effect of arousal. In Study 3, we tested the mediating effect of the accessibility to risk-positive cognitions. We measured participants' risk behavior via the risk assessment ramp (RAR). Our results revealed that participants who watched the risk-glorifying commercial walked faster to the jumping-off point (Studies 1, 2, & 3) and would have jumped from a higher level (Studies 2 & 3), thus, indicating the exposure to risk-glorifying media content increases people's risk behavior. Neither arousal nor the accessibility to risk-positive cognitions mediated the effect of risk-glorifying media content. Beyond our findings, we offer a new tool to assess risk behavior that is effective and easy to apply.
Subject(s)
Advertising , Cognition , Mass Media , Risk-Taking , Adult , Arousal , Female , Humans , MaleABSTRACT
The Trier Social Stress Test (TSST) is the most widely used laboratory stress protocol in psychoneuroendocrinology. Despite its popularity, surprisingly few attempts have been made to explore the ecological validity of the TSST. In the present study, 31 young healthy subjects (24 females) were exposed to the TSST about 4 weeks before completing an oral exam on a separate day. Salivary cortisol levels increased significantly in response to both stimuli (TSST: F(2.21, 66.33)=5.73, p=0.004; oral exam: F(1.98, 59.28)=4.38, p=0.017) with similar mean response curves and significant correlations between cortisol increases and areas under the response curves (increase: r=0.67; AUC: r=0.56; both p≤0.01). Correspondingly, changes in positive and negative affect did also show significant correlations between conditions (increase: positive affect: r=0.36; negative affect: r=0.50; both: p≤0.05; AUC: positive affect: r=0.81; negative affect: r=0.70; both p≤0.01) while mean time course dynamics were significantly different (positive affect: F(2.55, 76.60)=10.15, p=0.001; negative affect: F(1.56, 46.82)=23.32, p=0.001), indicating that the oral exam had a more pronounced impact on affect than the TSST. Our findings provide new evidence for the view that cortisol as well as subjective stress responses to the TSST are indeed significantly associated with acute stress responses in real life.