English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A normative appeal indicates that one should (or should not) do a certain action in a concrete situation. According to the Evaluative Model of Normative Appeals (EMNA), willingness to comply with these messages depends on an appraisal formed by two dimensions: formality and protection. In this work we center on the dimension of protection, proposing that it can be divided into two components: avoiding physical or psychological damage ( scutum ) and affording the performance of the main intended action ( caligae ). We conducted two studies to test this twofold meaning of protection. In Study 1 ( N  = 525), we manipulated the coherence of regulatory focus (promotion vs. control vs. prevention) with salience of the components of protection ( caligae vs. control vs. scutum ). In Study 2 ( N  = 513), we separately measured the perception of each component referred to an actual normative appeal (i.e., "To get into a class punctually"). The results showed that the manipulated salience and the measured perception of caligae and scutum elicits (Study 1) and predicts (Study 2) higher willingness to comply with normative appeals. Theoretical and applied implications of the results are discussed.

Dissecting the dimension of protection: Caligae and Scutum in the evaluative model of normative appeals