How social media amplify campaign message evaluation: peer reaction and binge drinking prevention.

Abstract

Although alcohol over-consumption is a serious health and safety issue, college students mock anti-binge drinking campaigns, dismiss the threats, and declare heavy drinking a major aspect of the college experience. In light of recent theorizing, this paper implicates conversation as a primary mechanism influencing the success or failure of health campaigns, particularly those embedded within college environments. Two research designs help test conditions that facilitate the spread of negative campaign commentary, how such commentary influences message evaluation, and pinpoints relevant sub-groups likely to play a role in the process. Using a between-subjects postonly experimental design, the first study explores how exposure to positive versus negative (or no) social commentary located on a blog influences peers’ message evaluations and campaign reactions. The second study uses a post-campaign field evaluation to examine individual differences in the amount and type of campaign commentary, and the aggregate effects of peer discussions on message acceptance. Results indicated students have favorable evaluations of the campaign, and a majority talked about the campaign with friends. Both studies support the reciprocal causation of inner dispositions and social situations on influencing the type (supportive or derisive) and frequency of campaign discussions. Individual differences in self-monitoring and sensation seeking are discussed as important considerations when examining the social diffusion of campaign influence. Theoretical and practical implications for the design and evaluation of anti-binge drinking campaigns are discussed.