Instructions for the Review

Training for the Unthinkable: Examining Message Characteristics on Motivations to Engage in an Active-Shooter Response Video Jessica L. Ford & Seth S. Frei

Campus safety is becoming an increasing concern for academic institutions due to numerous recent tragedies. To prepare students, staff, and faculty for these events, schools are beginning to use active shooter response training videos such as Run, Hide, Fight—a 5-minute video created by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Framed in protection motivation theory, this study employs a 3 x 2 factorial design to test the influence of message medium (email, text, or tweet) and frame (direct or fear- based message) on students' completion of the safety training video. The findings suggest that the combination of message frame and message medium influence training com- pletion. Additionally, the video itself led to a significant increase in participants’ self- efficacy, safety knowledge, and campus safety salience.

Keywords: Campus Safety; Protection Motivation; Safety Training; School Schootings

Unthinkable tragedies are occurring on our nation’s campuses at a frightening frequency (Midlarsky & Klain, 2005). The rise in school shootings in America has sparked a particular focus on protecting and planning for these events (Kingshott & McKenzie, 2013). In fact, according to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), 1999), all higher education institutions actively accepting government funds are required to put in place emergency response plans. An integral part of preparing for these events

Jessica L. Ford is an Assistant Professor in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University. Seth S. Frei is a Lecturer in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas State University. Correspondence: Jessica L. Ford, School of Communication Studies, Ohio University, 400 Schoonover Center, 20 E. Union, Athens, OH 45701, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Communication Studies Vol. 67, No. 4, September–October 2016, pp. 438–454

ISSN 1051-0974 (print)/ISSN 1745-1035 (online) © 2016 Central States Communication Association DOI: 10.1080/10510974.2016.1196381

from a safety-personnel perspective is the training of civilians to react effectively to these emergencies (Kingshott & McKenzie, 2013). Despite the considerable need to train our schools’ students, staff, and faculty for these events, few studies have examined the effectiveness of organizational training initiatives (see Sattler, Kirsch, Shipley, Cocke, & Stegmeier, 2014 for a notable exception).

In many cases, campuses simply offer information about how to respond to an active-shooter situation through a Web site, brochure, video, or e-mail. Thus, under- standing proper emergency response behavior is placed on the individual’s motivation to learn this vital information on his or her own time (Sattler et al., 2014). Clearly, there are inherent problems with this design. For instance, if those on campus are unaware of these training materials, the influence of this information is limited. Besides the need to effectively promote active-shooter response-training programs, campuses must work against the dominant belief that the likelihood of these events occurring is slim-to-none. Time and again, this is the overwhelming response from those affected by school shootings (Oksanen, Räsänen, Nurmi, & Lindström, 2010).

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Recognizing that schools must prepare their students, faculty, and staff for potential active-shooter emergencies, the present study focuses on the effectiveness of messages prompting the completion of a safety training video. The first goal of this study is to understand which media—e-mail, text, or Twitter—and which message frame—fear- based or direct information—are most effective on messages designed to promote participation in an active-shooter response-training initiative. The second objective of this study is to test the impact of this training video on participants’ (a) safety knowledge, (b) safety self-efficacy, and (c) personal campus safety salience. We define personal campus safety salience as an individual’s active concern for their safety at school. For instance, someone who has a high level of personal campus safety salience may avoid areas of campus due to safety reasons, or even worry about an active shooter event happening at his or her school. Taken together, understanding the effectiveness of different media used to promote participation in training, as well as the impact of these videos, carries important implications for all academic institutions plagued by the fear of these potential events. The following sections describe the guiding theoretical framework in detail and provide a review of literature on message characteristics, threat appraisal, and coping appraisal.

PROTECTION MOTIVATION THEORY AND ACTIVE-SHOOTER RESPONSE TRAINING

Protection motivation theory (PMT) helps explain why people respond to similar threats differently (Rogers, 1975). The extensive use of PMT as a framework in health studies for assessing how individuals decide to make behavioral modifications to either promote or suppress their well-being (e.g., Gaston & Prapavessis, 2012) lends

Message Characteristics and Protection Motivation 439

itself well to studying safety-related messages. As such, this framework is especially useful in understanding the cognitive process that mediates the response to fear-based messages, where individuals assess the severity of a threat and their ability to cope with it. Rogers (1975) offers three phases of protection motivation, where individuals (a) evaluate the information they know about the threat, (b) appraise the severity and their ability to cope with the threat and (c) decide to either respond in an effective or ineffective manner (see Figure 1). All three of these processes are important in assessing how the same fear-based stimuli can produce vastly different responses.

The first component of PMT is the assessment of both environmental and intra- personal factors that relate to the threat (Rogers, 1975). The environmental factors include what someone hears from others about the likelihood of the event as well as their observations of potential hazards or threats (Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, & Rogers, 2000). In relation to protection motivation against school shootings, students may hear others (i.e., faculty, parents, or peers) talk about national events and subsequently have concern for their campus. Students may also observe an increase in safety-related features around campus (e.g., blue-light warning systems, emergency-siren installa- tion, and availability of mental-health services) in response to the rise in school shootings. Beyond environmental considerations, PMT states that intrapersonal fac- tors, such an individual’s personality and prior experience with the threat, affect the cognitive-mediating processes for protection motivation (Rogers, 1975). Referring to school safety, students may have prior experience with an active shooter on campus or know someone that has been affected by a similar event (Floyd et al., 2000).

In the PMT model, the environmental and interpersonal factors are the primary sources of information used to assess the credibility of the threat. This makes sense given that this model is nearly 40 years old. In light of the myriad media and sources available today, we consider two additional message characteristics in assessing the credibility of a threat. In particular, we focus on how the message medium (e.g., e-mail, text, or Twitter), and message frame (e.g., fear-based or direct information) of announcements encouraging participation in such training initiatives impact safety- training completion. In addition, we examine how the video itself affects participants’ safety knowledge, safety self-efficacy, and personal campus safety salience.

Figure 1 Rogers (1975) original model of protection motivation

440 J. L. Ford & S. S. Frei

The threat and coping appraisal involves three components that Rogers (1975) believes happen simultaneously. According the theory, an individual will assess the perceived magnitude of the threat, the probability the event will occur if no preventa- tive action is taken, and the extent of an individual’s response efficacy at the same time. Floyd and colleagues (2000) describe response efficacy as “the belief that the adaptive response will work, that taking the protective action will be effective in protecting the self or others” (p. 411). As the mediating processes that impact an individual’s coping response, these items each play an important role in the appraisal stage. Though each aspect of the appraisal is important, when applied to active- shooter response training, we believe individuals will assess the perceived severity and likelihood of an active-shooter event on their campus before evaluating their perceived ability to respond effectively.

The final phase of protection motivation theory is the decision to adapt to the situation either through an effective or ineffective behavioral change (Rogers, 1975). For instance, in relation to the present study, an effective reaction to the message promoting the active-shooter response training is the completion of the training video. Additionally, an effective response is measured by an increase in one’s (a) safety knowledge, (b) safety self-efficacy, and (c) personal campus safety salience. Contrarily, participants who stop watching the video early, or choose to click past it altogether, constitute an ineffective response to the initial message.

The validity of PMT as a framework for research is demonstrated through its extensive use in studies addressing health-based threats and responses (see Frisby, Veil, & Sellnow, 2014; Lwin, Stanaland, & Chan, 2010, for notable examples). Thus, using PMT to guide research on the effectiveness of fear-based messages promoting active-shooter response training preserves both the integrity of the theory and our research. The present study employs PMT as a framework for understanding why individuals decide to complete this training while others do not. Using PMT, we first discuss the importance of message characteristics in evaluating threat credibility.

Message Characteristics

The reason why individuals may respond differently to messages that encourage them to participate in training for an active shooter may be due, in part, to the message characteristics. Previous research on safety-message characteristics advances the idea that source credibility and message framing are integral aspects of a message’s persuasive capacity (Sattler et al., 2014). For instance, Sutton and colleagues (2015) found that Tweets during the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing were most likely to be passed along to others if they contained emotional, evaluative, or prescriptive content. In relation to the present context, research on campus safety finds that effective message placement, speed, and character- istics are essential for effective postevent notifications (Lachlan, McIntyre, & Spence, 2016; Lachlan & Spence, 2014). While prior research advances our understanding of the role message characteristics play during emergency

Message Characteristics and Protection Motivation 441

situations, less is known about the influence of message frames and media on promoting the completion of safety-training initiatives prior to an emergency. As such, we extend the present literature by focusing on the impact of source credibility and message framing on training completion, campus safety salience, safety knowledge, and self-efficacy.

Source credibility Source credibility is defined as the “judgments made by a perceiver concerning the believably of a communicator” (O’ Keefe, 2002, p. 181). While the study of credibility has shaped the development of the academy since ancient Greece (Aristotle, 1954), the proliferation of sources now available at our fingertips calls for a reexamination of this construct (Rains & Karmikel, 2009). Recent research indicates that social-media platforms (i.e., Twitter) produce higher levels of infor- mation trust due to the nature of the shared network (Crowe, 2011). As a result, many organizations use social media as a way to connect and communicate with their stake holders in order to build trust. In fact, the Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency has an active Twitter account and uses it to communicate urgent information (Wukich & Steinberg, 2013).

Yet, more traditional forms of distributing training-related information to organi- zational constituents are still relevant. Although social-media platforms can have a wide reach (Vieweg, Hughes, Starbird, & Palen, 2010), they require individuals to sign up and have been attributed with spreading false information, which may decrease the credibility of this medium (Mendoza, Poblete, & Castillo, 2010). In addition, not all organizational members may be active users of these tools. Thus, the use of organiza- tion-wide e-mails and text messages are still used for distributing information about emergency training programs. In addition to source credibility, the frame contributes to the characteristics of the message.

Message Framing When an individual sends a message to someone, the words and descriptions they use help frame the idea. Research on the effectiveness of fear-based appeals on subsequent behavior is inconsistent. On one hand, fear-based appeals are shown to encourage healthy behaviors (Nan, Xie, & Madden, 2012). Contrarily, some scho- lars indicate that fearful frames on health-related messages have the opposite intended effect (Brennan & Binney, 2010). Considering the potential implications of active-shooter response-training videos on improving campus safety, we manip- ulate message framing in our experimental design in order to see if it impacts the completion of the training video. Beyond looking at the message framing, there are additional factors that may alter an individual’s motivation to complete the training for an active-shooter emergency. According to PMT, the two components of the cognitive-mediating process, threat and coping appraisal, are important considerations.

442 J. L. Ford & S. S. Frei

Threat and Coping Appraisal

The reasons why individuals decide not to evacuate in a flood (Dash & Gladwin, 2007) may be similar to the reasons why some individuals may not complete a potentially life-saving training video on responding to an active shooter. According to PMT, individuals will assess the threat and their ability to cope with it before altering their behavior (Rogers, 1975). For the present study, the threat appraisal is measured by an individual’s personal campus safety salience. This is an individual’s active concern for their safety on campus. The trend of school-shooting assailants employing public media to broadcast their justification for their attacks perpetuates a national preoccupation with fear (Altheide, 2009). For instance, both the Virginia Tech and University of California Santa Barbara shooters created a YouTube video that warned of their attacks just minutes before they began their killing rampage (Lindgren, 2011). Few researchers have sought to measure the impact of school shootings on student fear, but recent research after Virginia Tech indicates that this event produced an increase in student fear (Kaminski, Koons-Witt, Thompson, & Weiss, 2010). This heightened level of fear, which we refer to as personal campus safety salience, may motivate the participants in this study to complete the active- shooter response-training video.

Another factor to consider when examining how an individual perceives the threat of an active shooter on campus is their prior experience with a similar event. Whereas some researchers have found that prior victimization has no significant effect on one’s level of fear on campus (Jennings, Gover, & Pudzynska, 2007), others have found that the type of victimization (e.g., robbery versus sexual assault) does impact one’s perception of fear on campus (Wilcox, Jordan, & Pritchard, 2007). If an individual has experienced an active-shooter emergency, knows someone who has, or perhaps attends a school where there was a threat of an active-shooter event, he or she may have a heightened sense of fear toward these types of crimes. With this in mind, the present study controls for individuals’ prior experience in order to assess the true impact of the training video on personal campus safety salience, safety knowledge, and safety self-efficacy.

Lastly, the concept of self-efficacy has received considerable attention as a predictor of health-related behavioral change (Nabi & Thomas, 2013). Self-efficacy is generally defined as the perceived capacity to handle or cope with a given situation. In the present study, we refer to an individual’s judgment of their ability to have an adaptive response to a school shooting as safety self-efficacy. Research shows that resources (e.g., brochures, videos, Web sites) addressing the preparation for a school shooting help promote a sense of safety self-efficacy (Benight & Harper, 2002). However, scant research has addressed whether there is a particular type of media and frame that produces greater safety self-efficacy. Applying the literature of self-efficacy and source credibility, the present study begins to fill this research gap. Specifically, we offer several research questions directed toward examining the impact of the medium and frame used in promoting active-shooter safety-training initiatives.

Message Characteristics and Protection Motivation 443

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Bearing in mind the implications of completing these potentially life-saving training videos, it is crucial for communication scholars to investigate how individuals interpret and respond to these messages. Framed in terms of PMT, the present study is concerned with the influence of media (i.e., e-mail, text, or Twitter) and message frame (i.e., fear-based or direct information) on the completion of an active-shooter response-training video. Furthermore, this study assesses the impact of the training video on participants’ (a) safety knowledge, (b) safety self-efficacy, and (c) personal campus safety salience. Previous research indicates that higher levels of fear arousal are more persuasive in motivating individuals to respond effectively (Rogers, 1975). We expect this finding to extend to the context of fear- based messages in this study, which encourage individuals to complete the active- shooter response-training video. However, the way a message is delivered though a particular medium may influence whether or not individuals decide to complete the training video. Additionally, the message frame and medium used may produce varying levels of change in all of our variables of interest. Based on the exploratory nature of this experiment, the following research questions are proposed:

RQ1: Which combination of message frame (fear-based or direct information) and message medium (e-mail, text, or Tweet) influences individuals to complete the training video?

RQ2: Which combination of message frame (fear-based or direct information) and message medium (e-mail, text, or Tweet) produces the greatest change in (a) personal campus safety salience, (b) safety knowledge, and (c) safety self- efficacy after individuals view the training video?

RQ3: Controlling for (a) prior campus safety experience, (b) having watched the video before the experiment, and (c) the treatment condition, does watching the training video change individuals’ safety salience, safety knowledge, or safety self-efficacy?

METHOD

To test the proposed research questions, we ran an experiment using a 3 x 2 factorial design. In the experimental conditions, we altered the message medium (e-mail, text, or Twitter), and frame (fear-based or direct information) in prompts encouraging students to watch a safety-training video. Regardless of the type of message the participants received, there was a pretest and posttest that measured their change in personal campus safety salience, safety knowledge, and safety self-efficacy. Addition- ally, we measured prior campus safety experience, prior viewing of the video, and extent of video completion. The following reviews the experimental conditions and participant pool in detail.

444 J. L. Ford & S. S. Frei

Participants

The sample for this study consisted of 242 undergraduate college students recruited from a large public university in the Southwest United States. Participants consisted of 14.5% (n = 35) males and 84.7% (n = 205) females with 0.4% (n = 1) choosing not to reveal their gender. The age of participants ranged from 18–34 (M = 20.3) and they represented all class levels at the university with 11.6% (n = 28) freshman, 18.2% (n = 44) sopho- mores, 40.5% (n = 98) juniors, 28.5% (n = 69) seniors, 0.4 % (n = 1) graduate students, and 0.4 % (n = 1) choosing not to answer. The video used in the experiment is available through the school’s campus safety and security Web site, but only 14.0% (n = 34) of the sample had seen it before, representing a small portion of the sample size.

Experimental Conditions

Each of the experimental conditions were created by the authors to replicate actual messages that a student could receive from the university. The first manipulation was the message media, which varied among the following three options: a formal university e-mail, text message, or an official university Tweet. All three of the conditions mirrored the university’s format and design to replicate the types of messages students actually receive. The second manipulation in the experiment was the frame of the message, which was either fear based or direct information. The frame was manipulated by adjusting the tone of the message. The direct-information e-mail condition read:

The university is dedicated to the safety and well-being of its students, faculty, and staff. Should an emergency occur on campus, we hope that you will take the appropriate protocol. Please watch the following 5-minute video, using the link below to prepare yourself in case of an active-shooter emergency on campus.

The frame of the second e-mail condition conveyed the same information but used a fear-based frame. The message stated:

In the past year, 68 school shootings have taken place on America’s schools and universities, leaving 65 dead, and dozens more injured. No one expects these incidents to happen at their school, but we must prepare for the unexpected. Please watch the following 5-minute video, using the following link to prepare yourself in case of an active-shooter emergency on campus.

Similar to the manipulation of the message frame for the e-mail, the Twitter messages were created using a fear-based or a direct-information frame, but these messages used less than 140 characters. The direct information Tweet stated, “Stay up to date on the universities safety protocol for an active-shooter emergency. Watch the following 5- minute training video.” The second Tweet conveyed the same information but used a fear-based frame and read “Since Sandy Hook, there have been 68 school shootings— leaving 65 dead and dozens injured. Prepare yourself for the unthinkable by watching the following 5-minute training video.” In addition to exploring the influence of the manipu- lated experimental conditions, we were also interested in examining the impact of the video intervention on campus safety salience, safety knowledge, and safety self-efficacy.

Message Characteristics and Protection Motivation 445

Video-Training Intervention

Run, Hide, Fight, is a training video for active-shooter response (Ready Houston, 2012). The video was produced by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the City of Houston Mayor’s Office of Public Safety in 2012. The video is 5-minutes long and contains high-intensity action training for individuals that might possibly be victims in active-shooter scenarios. The video follows the story of a typical office building that is overtaken by an active shooter. Throughout the video, viewers see at least three victims directly shot by the active shooter and they hear multiple other shots, presumably at other victims. Throughout the video, viewers are reminded of the three response actions to take if they encounter an active shooter: run, hide, or fight. This is reinforced through demonstrations of these response actions by the actors in the video and by the narrative voiceover. To date, there is no available research on the effectiveness of this video in preparing individuals for an active-shooter emergency. To assess the experimental conditions, an appropriate instrument was created and administered to participants.

Instrumentation

Before and after viewing an experimental condition, each participant was asked to respond to three measures focusing on their safety self-efficacy, perceived personal campus safety salience, and their safety knowledge. Following the video, the posttest also included items to assess whether participants had any prior experience with a school shooting. Demographic information was requested in the last section of the questionnaire. Correlations of all scales are presented in Table 1.

Safety self-efficacy

To assess safety self-efficacy, we adapted two items from the general self-efficacy scale from Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) to focus specifically on campus safety. Partici- pants used a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree) to respond to the items such as “I am confident in my ability to handle an emergency on campus” and “I feel prepared to manage my safety during an active-shooter emer- gency on campus.” Cronbach’s alpha for the scale of safety self-efficacy in the pretest was .73 (M = 3.14, SD = 0.88). The scale reliability of safety self-efficacy in the posttest was .76 (M = 3.51, SD = 0.75).

Campus safety salience

This scale was created by the researchers for this study based off of items from multiple safety-climate surveys. In the pretest and in the posttest participants used a four-item scale. Items included prompts like “In general, I feel safe as a student at this university” and “I typically don’t think about my safety on campus.” Participants responded using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree).

446 J. L. Ford & S. S. Frei

Cronbach’s alpha for the scale in the pretest was .70 (M = 3.43, SD = 0.72), and, for the four-item posttest, it was .68 (M = 3.42, SD = 0.68).

Safety knowledge

To determine the participant’s knowledge of appropriate response behaviors in an active-shooter emergency, a test was created based on the information in the video. The researchers created an eight-item quiz that participants took before and after viewing the intervention based directly on information conveyed through the video. There were seven true/false prompts and one multiple-choice question. For instance, some of the true/false statements read: “Even if others insist on staying in the building, you should try and get out” and “Never fight with an active shooter.” A paired- samples t test was calculated to compare the mean pretest score to the mean posttest score. The mean on the pretest was 4.09 (SD = 1.17), and the mean on the posttest was 5.81 (SD = 1.90). A significant increase from the pretest to the posttest was found, t (240) = 12.95, p < .001.

Procedure

Participants were informed about the opportunity to participate in this study through a Web-administered extra-credit system within the Department of Communication Studies at a large Southwestern university in the United States. After accepting the informed consent, participants completed the questions in the pretest. Next, they were randomly assigned to one of the six experimental conditions where they read a message encouraging participation in the training and were subsequently given a link to view the video. Participants made the decision of how long they wanted to watch the 5-minute video, if they chose to watch it at all. Following the posttest, they were asked approximately how many minutes of the video they watched. Finally, they

Table 1 Correlations of Scales

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Safety Self-Efficacy (Pre) 3.17 0.42

2. Safety Self-Efficacy (Post) 3.10 0.44 .67**

3. Safety Self-Efficacy (Change) −.07 0.35 −.34** .48**

4. Campus Safety Salience (Pre) 3.43 0.72 .12 .15* .04

5. Campus Safety Salience (Post) 3.42 0.68 .10 .14* .05 .78**

6. Campus Safety Salience (Change) −.01 0.47 −.04 −.03 .00 −.41** .25**

7. Knowledge (Pre) 4.10 1.17 .05 .13 .12 −00 .00 .01

8. Knowledge (Post) 5.81 1.90 −.01 −.04 −.02 .07 −.08 −.22** .15*

9. Knowledge (Change) 1.73 2.07 −.03 −.09 −.06 .06 −.09 −.21** −.43** .83**

10. Prior Experience 1.57 0.50 −.01 .02 .04 .10 .09 −.03 .06 −.02 −.06

*p < .05. **p < .001.

Message Characteristics and Protection Motivation 447

completed a posttest that measured changes in the variables of interest, as well as asked for demographic information. Names and personal information were collected only by the extra-credit system. Thus, the participants remained anonymous to the researchers.

Manipulation Check

To find whether the experimental manipulations were effective, a chi-square test of independence was performed. For message medium, participants were asked, “What type of message did you receive when you were told about the safety video?” and selected (a) e-mail, (b) Tweet, or (c) text message. The chi-square indicated that the manipulations for message medium were successful. There was a meaningful difference between participants’ perception of the medium and those who received the message via e-mail, Tweet, and text message, X2 (4) = 252.34, p < .001.

For the message frame, participants were asked to respond to an item that assessed their affective response to the message. The item measuring participant’s affective response to the condition read, “The message I received about the safety video (i.e., e-mail, text, or Tweet) creates a feeling of fear in me.” This item was answered using a 5-point Likert type scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). Although there was a difference between the means in the fear-based message (M = 3.24, SD = 0.96) and the direct message (M = 3.08, SD = 1.03), the t test did not result in a significant difference, t(236) = −1.28, p = .202.

RESULTS

Research Question 1 asked which combination of message frame (fear-based or direct information) and message medium (e-mail, text, or Tweet) influenced individuals to complete the training video. To answer this research question, we used a 3 x 2 between-subjects factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the completion of the training video based on message frame (fear-based or direct information) and message medium (e-mail, text, or Tweet). The main effect for message frame was not significant, F(1, 239) = 0.33, p > .05. The main effect for message medium was significant, F(2, 238) = 3.82, p < .05. Post hoc analysis revealed that those receiving the email (M = 1.56, SD = 0.50) were more likely to complete the video than those in the text-message condition (M = 1.36, SD = 0.48). Further, a significant interaction effect was found, F(5, 235) = 2.76, p < .05. This means that the combination of message frame and message medium influenced the completion of the training video. Specifically, an e-mail with a fear-based frame was more likely to lead to video completion than a Tweet with a fear-based message (Mdn = 0.35, SE = 0.11, p < .05). This was the only significant difference among the experimental conditions and video completion. The effect size for this analysis (r2 = .06) indicated a small-to- medium effect size.

448 J. L. Ford & S. S. Frei

Research Question 2 asked which combination message frame (fear-based or direct information) and message medium (e-mail or Tweet) produced the greatest change in (a) personal campus safety salience, (b) safety knowledge, and (c) safety self-efficacy. To answer this research question, we used a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to examine the combination of fear-based frames and message medium in the outcome measures. In the analysis, we controlled for prior campus safety experience, having watched the video before, and completion of the entire training video. No significant effect was found, λ(12, 426) = 0.94, p > .05. Follow-up univariate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAS) indicated that neither personal campus safety salience, safety knowledge, nor safety self-efficacy were influenced by the combination of fear appeals and media. In other words, there are no significant differences between the outcome measures based on the various message frames presented.

The final research question asked if the single predictor variable of watching the training video changed the three target variables (individuals’ safety salience, knowledge, or safety self-efficacy), while controlling for the three variables (prior campus safety experience, watching the video before the experiment, and the treatment condition). To answer this question, we used three separate simple linear regressions. The first regression was significant, F(4, 230) = 3.86, p < .01, R2 = .06. Thus, completing the training video (β = 1.48, p < .05) was a significant predictor of change in personal campus safety salience. The second regression was signifi- cant, F(4, 233) = 32.96, p < .001, R2 = .36. This indicates that watching the training video (β = 1.34, p < .001) was a significant predictor of change in safety knowledge. The third regression was also significant, F(4, 227) = 2.55, p < .05, R2 = .04. Thus, the training video was a significant predictor of change in safety self-efficacy. This means that individuals who watch the training video increase their knowledge of appropriate active-shooter response behaviors, increase their awareness of safety on campus and feel more proficient in their ability to respond to these events effectively.

DISCUSSION

This experiment extends the literature on safety-training interventions by consider- ing whether the frame and medium of the initial message promoting training participation has a role in training completion. This applied research aids campus safety managers and police personnel tasked with preparing the staff, faculty, and students of U.S. campuses to appropriately respond to an active-shooter emergency. The following offers several practical and theoretical implications based on the findings from this study. In particular, we address how our findings resonate with the extant scholarship on protection motivation, message characteristics, and safety self-efficacy. Toward this end, we begin with a discussion of the practical implications.

Message Characteristics and Protection Motivation 449

Practical Implications

As active-shooter scenarios become more commonplace in campuses and schools across the country, efforts to train responders are increasing (Kingshott & McKenzie, 2013). Through videos like the one used in this study, campus administrators are preparing their members to respond appropriately to these events. This study focuses on the characteristics of messages promoting video-based safety training. Based on our findings, the message frame and medium do not affect an individual’s motivation to protect themselves and others in a campus safety context. The findings indicate that e-mails with fear-based frames compared to fear-based Tweets led more individuals to complete the training video, but that fear-based messages alone are not responsible for increasing personal campus safety salience, safety knowledge, or safety self-efficacy. Consequently, safety practitioners ought to use this information to better disseminate safety messages using a variety of mediums.

In addition to the message frame and medium, we were also interested in how the training video affected various outcomes related to protection motivation—personal campus safety salience, safety knowledge, and safety self-efficacy. We found that the video led to a positive change in all three of these outcomes. This is encouraging information for administrators considering using Run, Hide, Fight as an active- shooter response-training video. Regardless of the message used to promote the video, it appears that when students completed the video, they became more knowl- edgeable of what to do in emergency situations, felt more confident in their abilities to respond and became more aware of safety on campus. Taken as a whole, these findings carry enormous implications for campuses tasked with the responsibility of preparing organizational members for these events. Giving active-shooter response training videos more widespread attention could help better prepare schools for these unthinkable events. In fact, campuses ought to consider ways to make viewing these videos mandatory (e.g., during student orientation, employee training, or on the first day of class) considering the improved safety knowledge, efficacy, and awareness of safety on campus. Beyond offering practical implications for individuals tasked with managing campus safety, the present study encourages scholars interested in safety- training initiatives to consider the utility of protection motivation theory.

Theoretical Implications

Protection motivation theory posits that individuals must deal with the noxious feelings fear causes by either responding effectively or ineffectively (Rogers, 1975). This decision is mediated by an individual’s cognitive assessment of the threat and their ability to effectively handle the situation (see Figure 1). Despite using PMT to guide our experiment, the results did not consistently support this model. Whereas PMT advances the idea that fear-based frames will have the most impact on partici- pants’ completion of this training video, this was only true for fear-based messages sent via e-mail when compared to fear-based messages sent via text or Twitter. Yet, when each fear-based message medium was assessed individually, no single medium

450 J. L. Ford & S. S. Frei

led to a significant effect on the completion of the safety-training video. Considering the message medium alone, this study supports the use of e-mail messages over text messages to encourage individuals to watch a training video on active-shooter responses. Though previous research indicates that Twitter is an effective medium for sending emergency messages (Crowe, 2011), this study does not replicate the usefulness of this medium. In fact, there was no significant difference between this medium and the two other media tested on video completion.

In light of the discrepancies between the study’s findings and PMT, we offer several explanations. First, it is conceivable that any message referencing a potential school shooting, regardless of the type of frame, will induce fear. Thus, including a fear-based frame on messages encouraging participation in active-shooter response training is redundant. Bearing in mind that the prevalence of school shootings has produced a heighted sense of fear among college students (Kaminski et al., 2010), it may be difficult to divorce the effects of fear-based messages from the fear induced by the thought of such events.

Second, the results of this study expose a problem with the midpoint of Rogers’ (1975) model when used in this context. The original model suggests that message characteristics should have led participants to a more heightened assessment of their personal campus safety salience. Yet, there was a nonsignificant relationship between these variables. A closer look at the cognitive mediating variables in this model reveals that personal safety salience is significantly related to perceived safety self-efficacy. Accordingly, individuals who are actively concerned about their safety on campus feel more confident in their ability to manage potential safety situations. Surprisingly, an individual’s prior experience with a campus emergency does not produce higher safety self-efficacy. Perhaps facing the uncertainty of a similar crisis does not make one feel more prepared for another campus emergency. Future research, especially studies guided by PMT, should investigate the relationship between prior experience and self- efficacy.

Limitations

This experiment was designed to capture whether the nuances of message character- istics affect individuals’ protection motivation. Despite the intent of the experiment, we recognize that there are inherent limitations to its design. First, the nonsignificant manipulation check for fear-based messages limits our ability to draw conclusions from these conditions. Seeing as the results reported in this study are from the second attempt at data collection because of a previous ineffective manipulation check, it is evident that there is an inability to effectively manipulate fear-based messages around the topic of school shootings. Thus, messages about school shootings may produce fear regardless of the message frame. Second, the sample in this study was over- whelmingly female, which was also seen in the previous data collection. Perhaps females are more concerned about their safety on campus than males, leading them to participate in this safety study. This is an area ripe for future research.

Message Characteristics and Protection Motivation 451

Third, the data were collected from a single institution that has experienced an active shooter within the past 4 years. This may have influenced some of the results and skewed perceptions of safety self-efficacy and personal campus safety salience. It is important to consider such broad environmental factors when replicating this experiment in future studies.

Future Directions

To better understand how to train the staff, faculty, and students at our nation’s schools to respond to active-shooter emergencies, future research should consider how an individual’s perceptions of organizational preparedness affects protection motiva- tion. In other words, when schools make observable efforts to prepare and equip their members for a potential school shooting, does this diminish the safety information- seeking efforts of individuals? Additionally, considering the pervasiveness of message overload within our personal and organizational lives, future research should continue to investigate the effects of message overload on an individual’s attention to safety- related information (Stephens, Barrett, & Mahometa, 2013). If message overload limits our attention to these messages, it is imperative to investigate ways to reach these individuals with this potentially life-saving information.

Another area for future research is to assess participants’ motivation for training as a possible control in this experiment. Motivation for training has been studied extensively in organizational settings, though often within corporations and nonprofit organizations (Beier & Kanfer, 2010). Research indicates that there is a relationship between self-efficacy and motivation for training (Lim & Morris, 2006), leading us to reason that safety self-efficacy in this experiment may be moderated by an individual’s motivation to learn. Taken together, a further examination of the relationship between self-efficacy, motivation to learn, and the motivation to share information learned with others has serious implications for campus safety officials.

The impetus for creating safer, more active-shooter-prepared schools has never been greater. This study represents an effort toward producing safer schools by expanding our understanding of protection motivation theory to a new context. In addition, this research broadens future use of this theory by incorporating the relationship between message characteristics and subsequent protection motivation actions. The evidence in this study provides a compelling argument for shifting our previous ways of conceptua- lizing fear-based frames as a material characteristic to an event-based characteristic. The context of a school shooting may already produce enough fear to influence individuals to prepare for these unthinkable events. The current study demonstrates the value in exploring how more granular factors, like message characteristics and personal campus safety salience, influence the completion of these training initiatives.

References

Altheide, D. L. (2009). The Columbine shootings and the discourse of fear. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1354–1370. doi:10.1177/0002764209332552

452 J. L. Ford & S. S. Frei

Aristotle. (1954). Rhetoric (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). New York, NY: The Modern Library Press. Beier, M. E., & Kanfer, R. (2010). Motivation in training and development: A phase perspective. In S.

W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 65–97). New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

Benight, C. C., & Harper, M. L. (2002). Coping self-efficacy perceptions as a mediator between acute stress response and long-term distress following natural disasters. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 177–186. doi:10.1023/A:1015295025950

Brennan, L., & Binney, W. (2010). Fear, guilt, and shame appeals in social marketing. Journal of Business Research, 63, 140–146. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.006

Crowe, A. (2011). The social media manifesto: A comprehensive review of the impact of social media on emergency management. Journal of Business Continuity & Emergency Planning, 5, 409–420.

Dash, N., & Gladwin, H. (2007). Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: Individual and household. Natural Hazards Review, 8, 69–77. doi:10.1061/1527-6988-8.3.69

Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 407–429. doi:10.1111/ j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x

Frisby, B. N., Veil, S. R., & Sellnow, T. L. (2014). Instructional messages during health-related crises: Essential content for self protection. Health Communication, 29, 247–254. doi:10.1080/ 10410236.2012.755604

Gaston, A., & Prapavessis, H. (2012). Using a combined protection motivation theory and health action process approach intervention to promote exercise during pregnancy. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 37, 173–184. doi:10.1007/s10865-012-9477-2

Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. §1092 (f). (1999).

Jennings, W. G., Gover, A. R., & Pudrzynska, D. (2007). Are institutions of higher learning safe?: A descriptive study of campus safety issues and self-reported campus victimization among male and female college students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18, 191–208. doi:10.1080/ 10511250701383327

Kaminski, R. J., Koons-Witt, B. A., Thompson, N. S., & Weiss, D. (2010). The impacts of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University shootings on fear of crime on campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 88–98. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.11.011

Kingshott, B. F., & McKenzie, D. G. (2013). Developing crisis management protocols in the context of school safety. Journal of Applied Security Research, 8, 222–245. doi:10.1080/ 19361610.2013.765339

Lachlan, K. A., McIntyre, J. J., & Spence, P. R. (2016). Responding to a campus emergency: The effect of alert sources on learning, message speed, and perceptions of campus safety. Inter- national Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 34, 95–112.

Lachlan, K. A., & Spence, P. R. (2014). Does message placement influence risk perception and affect? Journal of Communication Management, 18, 122–130. doi:10.1108/JCOM-12-2012-0097

Lim, D. H., & Morris, M. L. (2006). Influence of trainee characteristics, instructional satisfaction, and organizational climate on perceived learning and training transfer. Human Resource Devel- opment Quarterly, 17, 85–115. doi:10.1002/hrdq.1162

Lindgren, S. (2011). YouTube gunmen?: Mapping participatory media discourse on school shooting videos. Media, Culture & Society, 33, 123–136. doi:10.1177/0163443710386527

Lwin, M. O., Stanaland, A. J., & Chan, D. (2010). Using protection motivation theory to predict condom usage and assess HIV health communication efficacy in Singapore. Health Commu- nication, 25, 69–79. doi:10.1080/10410230903473540

Mendoza, M., Poblete, B., & Castillo, C. (2010, July). Twitter under crisis: Can we trust what we RT? In Proceedings of the first workshop on social media analytics (pp. 71–79). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. doi:10.1145/1964858.1964869

Message Characteristics and Protection Motivation 453

Midlarsky, E., & Klain, H. M. (2005). A history of violence in the schools. In F. Denmark, H. Krauss, R. Wesner, E. Midlarsky, & U. Gielen (Eds.), Violence in schools: Cross-national and cross- cultural perspectives (pp. 37–57). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Nabi, R. L., & Thomas, J. (2013). The effects of reality-based television programming on diet and exercise motivation and self-efficacy in young adults. Health Communication, 28, 699–708. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.711510

Nan, X., Xie, B., & Madden, K. (2012). Acceptability of the H1N1 vaccine among older adults: The interplay of message framing and perceived vaccine safety and efficacy. Health Communica- tion, 27, 559–568. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.617243

O’ Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P., Nurmi, J., & Lindström, K. (2010). “This can’t happen here!”: Community

reactions to school shootings in Finland. Research on Finnish Society, 3, 19–27. Rains, S. A., & Karmikel, C. D. (2009). Health information-seeking and perceptions of website

credibility: Examining web-use orientation, message characteristics, and structural features of websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 544–553. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.11.005

Ready Houston. (2012, July 23). RUN. HIDE. FIGHT.® Surviving an active shooter event. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtube/5VcSwejU2D0

Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91, 93–114. doi:10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803

Sattler, D. N., Kirsch, J., Shipley, G., Cocke, P., & Stegmeier, R. (2014). Emergency preparedness on campus: Improving procedural knowledge and response readiness. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, 11, 257–268. doi:10.1515/jhsem-2013-0075

Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio: Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.

Stephens, K. K., Barrett, A. K., & Mahometa, M. J. (2013). Organizational communication in emergencies: Using multiple channels and sources to combat noise and capture attention. Human Communication Research, 39, 230–251. doi:10.1111/hcre.12002

Sutton, J., Gibson, C. B., Spiro, E. S., League, C., Fitzhugh, S. M., & Butts, C. T. (2015). What it takes to get passed on: Message content, style, and structure as predictors of retransmission in the Boston Marathon bombing response. Plos One, 10, 1–20. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134452

Vieweg, S., Hughes, A. L., Starbird, K., & Palen, L. (2010). Microblogging during two natural hazards events: What twitter may contribute to situational awareness. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1079–1088). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

Wilcox, P., Jordan, C. E., & Pritchard, A. J. (2007). A multidimensional examination of campus safety victimization, perceptions of danger, worry about crime, and precautionary behavior among college women in the Post-Clery Era. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 219–254. doi:10.1177/ 0097700405283664

Wukich, C., & Steinberg, A. (2013). Nonprofit and public sector participation in self‐organizing information networks: Twitter hashtag and trending topic use during disasters. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 4, 83–109. doi:10.1002/rhc3.12036

454 J. L. Ford & S. S. Frei

Copyright of Communication Studies is the property of Central States Communication Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.