A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health
Campaigns (Witte & Allen, 2000)
Fear appeal is a message that has the goal to arouse fear in order to motivate attitude
and behavior change
Extended parallel process model
- Leventhal’s model forms the basis of the theory, PMT explains the danger control
side of the model (when and why fear appeals work) and portions of Janis and
McGuire’s explanations can be accounted for under the fear control side of the
model (i.e. when and why fear appeals fail)
- EPPM attempts to predict how individuals will react when confronted with fear
inducing stimuli
- The EPPM explains both successes and failures of fear appeals, and fear is
reincorporated as a central variable in the model.
The evaluation of a fear appeal initiates two appraisals of the message, which result in
one of three outcomes.
1. Message
- First, individuals appraise the threat of an issue from a message. The
more individuals believe they are susceptible to a serious threat, the more
motivated they are to begin the second appraisal.
- Evaluation of the efficacy of the recommended response. If the threat is
perceived as irrelevant or insignificant (i.e., low perceived threat), then there is no
motivation to process the message further, and people simply ignore the fear
appeal.
2. Threat appraisal
o Susceptibility: the degree to which one feels at risk for experiencing the
threat
o Severity: the magnitude of harm expected from the threat
High = fear efficacy appraisal
Low = no fear disregard
3. Efficacy appraisal
o Self-efficacy: one’s beliefs about his or her ability to perform the
recommended response
o Response efficacy: one’s beliefs about whether the recommended
response works in averting the threat)
High = danger control message acceptance
Motivated to control the danger and consciously think about
ways to remove or lessen the threat
Low = fear control message rejection
Denial, defensive avoidance or reactance
Appealing to Fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories
(Tannenbaum et al., 2015)
Fear appeals definition:
,Fear appeals are persuasive messages that attempt to arouse fear by emphasizing the
potential danger and harm that will befall individuals if they do not adopt the messages’
recommendations
Amount of depicted fear
The linear model: high depicted fear is more effective than moderate depicted fear
The curvilinear model: high levels of depicted fear should be less effective than moderate
levels of depicted fear
An efficacy message is a statement that assures message recipients that they are
capable of performing the fear appeal’s recommended actions will result in desirable
consequences.
Results:
Meta-analysis demonstrated fear appeals become more effective when:
- The communication depicts relatively high amounts of fear (partially supported)
- the message included efficacy statements (predicted by EPPM)
- weak hypothesis
- depicted high susceptibility and severity (predicted by EPPM)
- recommended one-time only (vs repeated) behaviors
, - targeted audiences included a larger percentage of females
- prevention will more effective for females
Social Psychology Applied: Politics, Theories, and the Future (Kok et al., 2016)
His arguments:
- No random assignment to scary pictures vs non-scary pictures cigarette packages
conditions
- What is the appropriate comparison condition?
- No measure of real quitting behavior
-When efficacy was high: high threat compared to low → more desirable
behavior change
- When efficacy was low: high threat compared to low → effect in the
wrong direction
strong hypothesis
Why do we still use fear appeals?
- That people intuitively believe that fear appeals work
- The idea that fear appeals work is both intuitive and persistent
- Debate in the field is fierce: some researchers still argue in favor of the use of
fear appeals in general, and scary pictures in particular.
There are two solutions:
- The execution of methodologically appropriate research
- The correct application of theories
Sequencing the threat and recommendation components of persuasive messages differentially improves the
effectiveness of high- and low-distressing imagery in an anti-alcohol message in students (Brown & West,
2015)
1. Self-efficacy techniques:
- Read an extensive, persuasive text about how they can perform the behaviour:
- Work actively to increase their confidence to perform the desired behavior by:
2. Self-affirmation techniques:
- People talk about their own values or positive characteristics Feel better about
themselves Buffer against a threatening message
Results
- High-distress: message evaluation and intention are more positive in
recommendation-threat sequence condition than in threat-recommendation
sequence condition
- Partially mediated by participants’ greater self-exposure to the threat
component of the message, which we attribute to the effect of sequence in
reducing attentional avoidance.
- Self-determined exposure to the threat message mediated the
experimental effects on intention
- Low-distress: intention is more positive in threat-recommendation sequence
condition than in recommendation-threat sequence condition
WEEK 2
Campaigns (Witte & Allen, 2000)
Fear appeal is a message that has the goal to arouse fear in order to motivate attitude
and behavior change
Extended parallel process model
- Leventhal’s model forms the basis of the theory, PMT explains the danger control
side of the model (when and why fear appeals work) and portions of Janis and
McGuire’s explanations can be accounted for under the fear control side of the
model (i.e. when and why fear appeals fail)
- EPPM attempts to predict how individuals will react when confronted with fear
inducing stimuli
- The EPPM explains both successes and failures of fear appeals, and fear is
reincorporated as a central variable in the model.
The evaluation of a fear appeal initiates two appraisals of the message, which result in
one of three outcomes.
1. Message
- First, individuals appraise the threat of an issue from a message. The
more individuals believe they are susceptible to a serious threat, the more
motivated they are to begin the second appraisal.
- Evaluation of the efficacy of the recommended response. If the threat is
perceived as irrelevant or insignificant (i.e., low perceived threat), then there is no
motivation to process the message further, and people simply ignore the fear
appeal.
2. Threat appraisal
o Susceptibility: the degree to which one feels at risk for experiencing the
threat
o Severity: the magnitude of harm expected from the threat
High = fear efficacy appraisal
Low = no fear disregard
3. Efficacy appraisal
o Self-efficacy: one’s beliefs about his or her ability to perform the
recommended response
o Response efficacy: one’s beliefs about whether the recommended
response works in averting the threat)
High = danger control message acceptance
Motivated to control the danger and consciously think about
ways to remove or lessen the threat
Low = fear control message rejection
Denial, defensive avoidance or reactance
Appealing to Fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories
(Tannenbaum et al., 2015)
Fear appeals definition:
,Fear appeals are persuasive messages that attempt to arouse fear by emphasizing the
potential danger and harm that will befall individuals if they do not adopt the messages’
recommendations
Amount of depicted fear
The linear model: high depicted fear is more effective than moderate depicted fear
The curvilinear model: high levels of depicted fear should be less effective than moderate
levels of depicted fear
An efficacy message is a statement that assures message recipients that they are
capable of performing the fear appeal’s recommended actions will result in desirable
consequences.
Results:
Meta-analysis demonstrated fear appeals become more effective when:
- The communication depicts relatively high amounts of fear (partially supported)
- the message included efficacy statements (predicted by EPPM)
- weak hypothesis
- depicted high susceptibility and severity (predicted by EPPM)
- recommended one-time only (vs repeated) behaviors
, - targeted audiences included a larger percentage of females
- prevention will more effective for females
Social Psychology Applied: Politics, Theories, and the Future (Kok et al., 2016)
His arguments:
- No random assignment to scary pictures vs non-scary pictures cigarette packages
conditions
- What is the appropriate comparison condition?
- No measure of real quitting behavior
-When efficacy was high: high threat compared to low → more desirable
behavior change
- When efficacy was low: high threat compared to low → effect in the
wrong direction
strong hypothesis
Why do we still use fear appeals?
- That people intuitively believe that fear appeals work
- The idea that fear appeals work is both intuitive and persistent
- Debate in the field is fierce: some researchers still argue in favor of the use of
fear appeals in general, and scary pictures in particular.
There are two solutions:
- The execution of methodologically appropriate research
- The correct application of theories
Sequencing the threat and recommendation components of persuasive messages differentially improves the
effectiveness of high- and low-distressing imagery in an anti-alcohol message in students (Brown & West,
2015)
1. Self-efficacy techniques:
- Read an extensive, persuasive text about how they can perform the behaviour:
- Work actively to increase their confidence to perform the desired behavior by:
2. Self-affirmation techniques:
- People talk about their own values or positive characteristics Feel better about
themselves Buffer against a threatening message
Results
- High-distress: message evaluation and intention are more positive in
recommendation-threat sequence condition than in threat-recommendation
sequence condition
- Partially mediated by participants’ greater self-exposure to the threat
component of the message, which we attribute to the effect of sequence in
reducing attentional avoidance.
- Self-determined exposure to the threat message mediated the
experimental effects on intention
- Low-distress: intention is more positive in threat-recommendation sequence
condition than in recommendation-threat sequence condition
WEEK 2
