382:
degree to which the person believes that they will be harmed if the threat is experienced. These threat components form the perceptual trigger for the fear reaction. Higher levels of perceived susceptibility have been found to increase the degree to which people are critical of the message. An example of a fear appeal of a message that emphasizes perceived severity would be the quote "AIDS leads to death". These threat components form the perceptual trigger for fear reaction. Higher levels of perceived susceptibility have been found to increase the degree to which people are critical of the message. However, subjects report more positive thoughts about the recommendation and negative emotions associated with the threat when susceptibility is high. Higher levels of perceived susceptibility are associated with greater intention to change behavior in the manner recommended in the fear appeal message, and are a strong determinant of intentions and behavior, even in the face of weak arguments. It is thought that when perceived susceptibility is high, defense motivations prevent even poor information or weak arguments from detracting from the message's impact on intention. As influential as it appears to be, susceptibility has still been found in some cases to have a much less direct effect on motivation to act on the message than, for instance, self efficacy beliefs or response efficacy.
278:
studied thus far include trait anxiety, age, ethnicity, gender, coping style, locus of control, self-esteem, perceived vulnerability, need for cognition and uncertainty orientation. Of these, uncertainty orientation and need for cognition have been found to interact with the level of threat. Uncertainty orientation is an individual's characteristic response to uncertainty. That is, whether one attends to or avoids and ignores the source of the uncertainty. Those with an uncertainty orientation tend to be more motivated to deeply process the information presented as the personal relevance increases, whereas those with a certainty orientation will actively avoid it. Some early studies examined other characteristics, such as individual thresholds for fear arousal, to see if they moderated the effect of fear on persuasion. A study by Janis and
Feshbach (1954) found that those with lower fear arousal thresholds were the least compelled to act by the high fear appeals, as they tended to react with defensive control responses. Lower threshold subjects were also more easily persuaded by counterarguments following the fear appeal. Trait anxiety has also been the subject of some of the early research, which has since been found to have no discernible effect on persuasion.
395:
intent to change their behavior. However, when either self or response efficacy is low, the individual, perceiving that they are unable to avert the threat, may rely on defensive avoidance to lower their fear. Some have argued that fear appeals are unnecessary as defensive avoidance reactions have been found in some studies to be positively correlated with strength of fear and negatively with perceived efficacy. The required balance of fear and efficacy levels has been the subject of much research, with some finding that moderate to high levels of fear are unnecessary in changing intentions. In fact, they argue, what is important is the ratio of these to each other. Gore and
Bracken (2005) found that even with low levels of threat, they were able to take individuals who had started to exhibit defensive fear control reactions to move toward danger control (intention change) reactions. Another way of defending yourself against fear appeals is prior knowledge, according to one study, individuals are less likely to be influenced by a fear appeal if they have prior knowledge.
117:(EPPM) is a theory that explains how cognitive and emotional mechanisms trigger distinct motivational and coping responses such as fear control and danger control responses. Fear control responses minimize fear through emotional coping that generates reassurance through denial of the threat or derogation of the persuasive message. Fear control is a process of denial that does not involve physically averting behavior to the perceived threat. Danger control is a cognitive process also oriented towards reducing the presented threat. However, unlike fear control response, danger control response may prompt protective action. Thus according to the extended parallel process model, the experience of fear is considered an emotional reaction, and the perceptions of threat are a set of cognitions. The extended parallel process model differs from many other fear appeal arguments because it suggests that fear arousal and danger control processes are distinct processes where fear arousal need not precede the danger control process that underpin precautionary behaviors.
386:
at-risk for AIDS because you share needles while using intravenous drugs". In some cases, persuasion has been found to be aided by lowering severity, the majority of the fear appeal research has found just the opposite. However, it is important to distinguish perceived severity of the threat from the actual fear elicited. The former is considered to be an entirely cognitive process, while the latter is an emotional process. Some have even argued that cognitive processes in the context of fear appeals are more important than emotional ones. Research has found that the effect of fear on intentions is mediated by the perceived severity. That is, fear does not act directly on intentions, but increases the level of perceived severity, which in turn raises intentions to act on the message. Indeed, the strength of the fear appeal is believed to be positively correlated with the perceived severity of the threat. Severity seems to produce the strongest effects on perceptions.
431:
from the fear appeal. While there have been mixed results regarding whether fear appeals elicit a defense response, it is important to note that studies exploring this relationship are done in a laboratory setting free of external distractions and where participants are told to focus on the health messages. It may be that people may have stronger defense responses in real life situations where they must navigate a complex range of competing messages and where they have the option of ignoring the message or looking for competing explanations. In addition to this, no studies have followed responses to fear appeals over the longer term, and it possible that repetition of fear appeals may lead to habituation and annoyance, therefore cause individuals to tune out to the messages of the health promotion campaign. Furthermore, even if they do work, some authors question whether it is ethical to frighten people in to behaving in a certain way, as this may compromise their
362:
considered to be an entirely cognitive process. Some early research found that higher levels of fear produced defensive reactions, compelling the researchers to caution that low or moderate levels were the most effective. With rare exception, strength of the fear elicited has been consistently found to be positively correlated with behavior change. This positive linear correlation is ubiquitous in fear appeal research and has laid to rest the curvilinear relationship implied by some of the earliest research. Strength of fear has been found to be positively correlated, as expected, with arousal. Early research has found that low fear appeal strength was the most persuasive. Strength of fear alone is not enough to motivate change in behavior as strong fear with no recommended action, or a recommended action that is not easily performed, may result in the exact opposite effect. According to
Sternthal and Craig, fear strength affects
340:
the suggested actions does not influence their behavior it is the perceived outcome that determines an individual's actions. The enactment of sustained long-term behaviors intended by the fear appeal communication is strongly influenced by the individual perception of treatment efficacy. The extent to which an individual perceives the protection of the recommended action against the health risk determines whether they are persuaded to perform the recommended course of action. A positive perception of treatment efficacy is internalized by the emphasis of the positive aspects of the recommended action. Perceived treatment efficacy is possibly the most integral element of an effectively persuasive fear appeal, and more predictive of action than fear arousal, is perceived efficacy. Some research has found that perceived efficacy is more predictive of intention to change behavior than other elements of perceived threat.
291:
source. The level of self-efficacy an individual has is believed to influence their choice of behavior as well as the amount of time, and the amount of effort expended on that behavior. If the individual does not believe that he or she is capable of averting the threat, it is likely that denial or other defensive responses will be produced in order to lower the fear. The fear of threatening situations may have an adverse effect on the efficacy of a fear appeal. An intimidating situation may cause an individual to believe that he/she is incapable of performing the suggested preventive behaviors that will lead to avoidance behaviors. Bandura's research has demonstrated a positive correlation between changes in behavior and changes in self-efficacy expectancy. He found that behavioral transformations are caused by changes in self-efficacy.
269:"The ultimate goal of fear appeals is to effectively promote reflective message processing and to influence individual affect towards the message". Individual perceptual differences towards the fear appeal are factors that govern the efficacy of the fear appeal. Researchers have examined several variables that have been thought, at one time or another, to influence the persuasive effect of fear appeals. These factors include: individual characteristics, risk perception, perception of self-efficacy, perception of treatment efficacy, perception of norms, the strength of the fear elicited, perceived threat, and defense mechanisms. The results of the research have demonstrated that various, and sometimes multiple factors, affect the efficacy of fear appeals depending on the method used and the individual.
443:, and that maladaptive responses are more likely in those with low self-efficacy. This means that fear appeals work best for those who are equipped, both physically and psychologically, to take appropriate action. Individuals who do not have the resources for health behaviour change are often those who already have negative health status. For example, people who regularly engage in behaviours which are damaging to health (e.g. smoking and other drug use) have been found to typically have lower self-efficacy than others. Therefore, it seems that, in addition to having the potential to cause harm, this harm is more likely to affect groups that would most benefit from health behaviour change, therefore contributing to the widen of health disparities.
163:
According to the theory, the cognitive assessment processes enhance a fear appeal when it provokes protection motivation. Protection motivation is a variable that arouses, sustains, and directs the suggested behavior to avoid danger. In absence of protection motivation, the recommended protective action is judged to be ineffective in averting the threat or impossible to undertake then no intention to act will result. The protection motivation theory predicts that preventive actions will be preferred in a high threat situation when the self-efficacy and the efficacy of the recommended action are both high. Conversely, it is expected that maladaptive actions will be maintained when there is a high threat but the efficacy perceptions are low.
154:
appeal respondents would be asked about the likelihood and severity of harmful outcomes of risk involved. The proposed severity is considered under the conditions of the current behavior and then under the alternative behavior. The efficacy is perceived through the effectiveness of the respondents answer. The subjective expected utility theory is unlike other theories of fear appeal because it does not describe the emotional process involved in fear reduction. It is only used to predict the relative likelihood of action. As previously stated, the subjective expected utility theory can be applied to various contexts such as predicting retirement and child-bearing.
196:, acting on fear appeals begins by consideration of a wider range of consequences of continuing the current behavior beyond the threat of health risks. It also considers a wider range of consequences of the suggested behavior beyond the costs and reduced health risks. The projected consequences vary depending on the situation. The theory of reasoned action differs from other theories because it also incorporates a social influence factor in predicting the efficacy of fear appeals. The social influence is determined by normative beliefs and the desires of other relevant people to perform the given behavior.
34:. It generally describes a strategy for motivating people to take a particular action, endorse a particular policy, or buy a particular product, by arousing fear. A well-known example in television advertising was a commercial employing the musical jingle: "Never pick up a stranger, pick up Prestone anti-freeze." This was accompanied by images of shadowy strangers (hitchhikers) who would presumably do one harm if picked up. The commercial's main appeal was not to the positive features of Prestone anti-freeze, but to the fear of what a "strange" brand might do.
213:
referred to as processes of change. The stages of change are: pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. According to the transtheoretical model, movement through the different stages involves a process called decision balance. Decision balance takes into account the potential gains and costs resulting from the new behavior. It is believed that an individual will not change or continue a behavior unless they perceive advantages to outweigh the disadvantages.
451:
unacceptable, so is being disabled, adding to the stigmatisation of disabled individuals. For example, in responses to a poster campaign stating that "Last year, 1057 teenagers got so drunk they couldn't stand up. Ever." presented alongside a picture of a wheelchair, disabled participants in Wang's study felt that this held them up as an example of how not to be. One participant said "I feel it's an attack on my self esteem and dignity."
370:
it is argued, suggests that fear is not useful and that efficacy may be able to bring about intention and behavior change by itself. Another argument states that since higher levels of personal efficacy are necessary, the target of the fear appeal who is most likely to act is one who is most likely to change his behavior to begin with. The implication is that another tact (other than fear) is necessary.
427:
consent. Hastings, Stead and Webb question whether it is ethically acceptable to expose an entire population to a distressing message intended for a specific subset of that population. For example, a fear appeal message stressing the likelihood of premature death for individuals who smoke may also reach the children of people who smoke, leading to avoidable anxiety in such groups.
304:
Vicarious experience is the observation of others who have performed threatening activities. If others are observed to successfully perform threatening activities, then self-efficacy is expected to increase because the social comparison will reinforce the perception that the behavior can be achieved through effort.
303:
According to the theory of self-efficacy, performance accomplishments are related to the success of personal experience. When strong efficacy expectations are established, then the impact of occasional failures are reduced. If self-efficacy is established, it tends to generalize to other situations.
294:
Research done by others have revealed "a positive, linear effect of fear on overall intentions and behavior", especially when the messages endorse people's self-efficacy. This effect is more positive when behaviors are performed on one-time basis instead of repeatedly. However, other researchers also
290:
theory states that all processes of psychological change alter the level and strength of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is enhanced by performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. Self-efficacy can also be enhanced by the perceived dependability of the
277:
Also of interest in the fear appeals literature has been the contribution of individual characteristics. The goal has been to understand which individual differences in personality or psychological traits contribute or detract from the effectiveness of the fear appeal. Individual moderating variables
212:
of fear appeals explains a dynamic process of health behavior change. Its structure is based on the assumption that behavior change is a systematic process involving a series of stages referred to as stages of change. It also holds that the transition between stages involves a rational coping process
199:
The theory of reasoned action has been applied to alcohol, tobacco, and other drug campaigns. For example, it has helped identify the importance of peer pressure and the normative belief of parents as variables for improving school-based drug campaigns. Although the theory of reasoned action has been
104:
Over the last half century, a substantial amount of research has been done on the influence of fear on persuasion. A multitude of theories and models of fear appeals, also known as cognitive mediating processes, have been derived from this research. The goal of each of these has been to conceptualize
321:
Depending on the circumstances, stressful situations can lessen the feeling of personal competency. Poor performance, for example is usually associated with a state of high arousal. Fear-provoking thoughts can cause an individual to overestimate the intensity of a threatening situation. According to
153:
has been applied to contexts beyond fear appeals. In the context of a fear appeal, the subjective expected utility theory predicts that a fear appeal is successful when the individual believes that the benefits in risk reduction outweigh the expected cost of acting. To assess the efficacy of a fear
369:
Some have even gone so far as to argue that fear is an entirely unnecessary component of an effective appeal as perceived efficacy is more predictive of intention to change behavior than either element of perceived threat. The tendency for higher levels of fear to raise defensive control responses,
312:
Verbal persuasion is widely used because of the potentially persuasive influence of suggestion. The influence of suggestion is expected to boost individual self-efficacy. Research has shown that the effects of verbal persuasion may not prevail through a long history of failure. It has been shown to
132:
Emotional tension is a key characteristic of drive theory. According to the theory, a threat that portrays the negative consequences of non-compliance to a recommended behavior is expected to create fear. In order to relieve the emotional tension of the threat, the "drive" state motivates behavior
120:
It is predicted that a fear appeal will initiate a dominant response of either fear control or danger control processes. The extended parallel process model concludes that cognitions (attitudes, intentions, and behavior changes) result in fear appeal success via the danger control process. It also
430:
Further to this, it is evident that anxiety responses may not even be helpful when elicited in the target group. This is because, while anxiety can motivate positive health behaviour, it can also be maladaptive, as some individuals form a defensive response to mitigate the negative feeling arising
352:
Example: In a study of alcohol abuse on college campuses, students demonstrated heavy alcohol use in response to their peer groups that reinforced the behavior. Students who abused alcohol also believed that their peers were even heavier users than they actually were. Those who believed that heavy
339:
Perceived treatment efficacy is also referred to as response-outcome expectancies. It is conceptualized as a person's estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes. Perception of treatment efficacy differs from self-efficacy because an individual's belief in their ability to perform
385:
Perceived severity, the extent to which the individual believes he/she will be adversely affected by the threat has a significant effect on persuasion. A statement that emphasizes the seriousness of a threat would be a statement directed towards a targeted population. An example would be, "You're
394:
The previous components are thought to determine what response an individual has to the message. One of these potential reactions to the fear appeal that is of the most negative consequence is that of the defensive fear control reaction. In response to the fear appeal, an individual may form the
348:
Even if a health behavior is portrayed as harmful, the behavior may not be altered by fear inducing communication if the individual is convinced that the behavior is common practice. The behavior is unlikely to be changed if the individual's social group models or reinforces the actions. In this
221:
The pre-contemplation stage is a period in which individuals have no intentions to stop a risky behavior or start a healthy behavior. This may be due to a lack in knowledge of the risk involving their current behavior, or an unwillingness to acknowledge that their behavior puts them at risk. The
183:
A fear argument based on the health belief model is typically presented in terms of the likelihood and severity of health consequences if the current behavior is not changed. With the health belief model, it is unclear whether self-efficacy is directly considered a cost of performing a suggested
438:
A concern has also been raised that fear appeals serve to contribute to the widening of health disparities. This is because certain individuals are more likely to develop the maladaptive responses mentioned above. Empirical research suggests that fear appeals work best for individuals with high
381:
Perceived susceptibility, sometimes referred to as perceived vulnerability, is thought to be key in motivating an individual to act in response to a fear appeal. It is the perception of the probability and extent to which he/she might experience the threat. Perceived severity, however, is the
248:
Action is the stage at which the individual engages in behavior change. They have tried to stop their risky behavior. The process of change that helps facilitate progression includes behavioral processes, such as reinforcement management, helping relationships, counterconditioning, and stimulus
361:
The strength of the fear elicited by the message is also an important determinant of the subject's intentions to change the target behavior. Fear strength is distinct from threat severity in that, as mentioned before, fear strength is related to the emotion of fear, whereas threat severity is
426:
A number of ethical concerns regarding the use of fear appeals have been raised, leading to widespread debate regarding the acceptability of their use. For example, it has been questioned whether it is ethical to expose large numbers of people to potentially distressing messages without their
230:
The second stage is contemplation. It is the stage at which an individual is actively considering stopping risky behavior or starting a healthy behavior. It is predicted that individuals will remain at this stage for a long period of time due to the difficulty in evaluating the advantages and
162:
The protection motivation theory is an attitude-based model. It holds that a fear appeal argument initiates a cognitive assessment process that considers the severity of the threatened event, the probability of the occurrence of the event, and the efficacy of a recommended behavior response.
450:
of those who are seen to be already suffering the negative consequences of the undesirable behaviour. For example, injury prevention campaigns often rely on emphasising the negative consequences of potentially becoming disabled. Wang hypothesises that when becoming disabled is portrayed as
166:
The protection motivation theory has been applied to analyzing the efficacy of health campaigns such as those encouraging self-breast examinations for detecting breast cancer. Studies found that perceptions of threat concerning breast cancer prompted adaptive actions, such as performing
330:
Physiological arousal has been predicted to have both positive and negative effects on beneficial or negative coping behaviors. A positive perception of an aroused state may energize, while a negative perception of an aroused state may inhibit coping behaviors.
257:
Maintenance is the final stage for changing risky behavior. This is the stage at which individuals adopt healthy behavior into their lifestyle, and try to prevent regression into the risk behavior. Regression is possible at any point of the stages.
295:
pointed out that in the context of self-efficacy need to be considered carefully in relation to other strategies. The use of other persuasive techniques such as behavioral training might counteract against the efficacy of fear appeal in isolation.
88:. These models are widely used in substance abuse campaigns, sexual health programs, and many other general health contexts. The persuasive effect of fear appeals is thought to be influenced by several factors such as individual characteristics,
239:
This is the third stage at which individuals have been persuaded and commit to change their behavior. The process of change to the action stage involves a self-liberation process in which the fear appeal influences a changed behavior.
826:
Velasquez, M. M.; Carbonari, J. P.; DiClemente, C. C. (1999). "Psychiatric severity and behavior change in alcoholism: The relation of the transtheoretical model variables to psychiatric distress in dually diagnosed patients".
179:
predicts that perceived susceptibility and severity of a risk motivates individuals to engage in preventive actions, and the type of preventive action depends on the perceived benefits and hindrances of performing the action.
92:, perception of norms, fear strength, perceived threat, perception of treatment efficacy, and defense mechanisms. Mixed results have been produced from studies that attempt to demonstrate the effectiveness of fear appeals for
313:
create an enduring sense of self-efficacy in situations where aid is given to facilitate successful action. Failures have a negative effect because it discredits the persuaders and undermines the individual's self-efficacy.
140:
using mild rather than strong fear appeals. When repeated, the reverse effect was true: greater attitude and behavior change occurred when a strong fear appeal was used, versus a moderate or weak fear appeal.
222:
process of change from the pre-contemplation phase to the contemplation phase includes the response of conscious raising, dramatic relief, and an environmental reevaluation process to the argument.
136:
Research has not produced consistent empirical results supporting the drive reduction model. For example, a dental hygiene presentation to a group of high school students reported greater change in
378:
Perceived threat is thought to be an important moderator in the process of fear evoked persuasion. It consists of both the perceived severity of the threat and the perceived susceptibility to it.
1392:
Averbeck, Joshua M; Allison Jones; Kylie
Robertson (2011). "Prior Knowledge and health messages:An Examination Of Affect As Heuristics And Information As Systematic Processing For Fear Appeals".
366:
change more than it does intentions. They argue that although persuasion increases when fear rises from low to moderate levels, when rising from moderate to high levels, it actually decreases.
1046:"Nature, decay, and spiraling of the effects of fear-inducing arguments and HIV-counseling and testing: A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term outcomes of HIV-prevention interventions"
740:
Cho, H. (1999). Unintended effects of fear appeals: The role of stage of change, threat, and efficacy. Michigan State
University). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 146-146 p.
897:
Rogers, R. W.; Mewborn, C. R. (1976). "Fear appeals and attitude change: Effects of a threat's noxiousness, probability of occurrence, and the efficacy of coping responses".
349:
case, there may also be a false perception of norms. Reinforcement of the negative health behavior by the common social group decreases the effectiveness of the fear appeal.
64:, and behavioral responses directed towards alleviating the threat or reducing fear. There are many different theoretical models of fear appeal messages. They include: the
261:
The transtheoretical model has been used to structure various programs for smoking cessation, alcohol abstinence, sunscreen use, dietary change, and contraceptive use.
1349:
Bracken, C. C.; Gore, T. D. (2005). "Testing the theoretical design of a health risk message: Reexamining the major tenets of the extended parallel process model".
664:
Peters, G. J. Y., Ruiter, R. A. C, & Kok, G. (2014). Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory.
1306:
Gore, T.D.; Bracken, C.C. (2005). "Testing the theoretical design of a health risk message: Reexamining the major tenets of the extended parallel process model".
133:
conduct that reduces the tension. According to the drive theory, it is expected that the greater the fear, the greater the compliance to message recommendations.
867:
Brouwers, M. C.; Sorrentino, R. M. (1993). "Uncertainty orientation and protection motivation theory: The role of individual differences in health compliance".
1426:
1622:"Reconceptualizing efficacy in substance use prevention research: refusal response efficacy and drug resistance self-efficacy in adolescent substance use"
353:
intoxication was an element of campus culture may be at a greater risk for personal alcohol abuse due to the desire to conform to the perceived norm.
1263:
Ruiter, R. A. C.; Kok, G.; Verplanken, B.; van Eersel, G. (2003). "Strengthening the
Persuasive Impact of Fear Appeals: The Role of Action Framing".
1096:
Perkins, H. W.; Wechsler, H. (1996). "Variation in perceived college drinking norms and its impact on alcohol abuse: A nationwide study".
41:
that attempts to arouse fear in order to divert behavior through the threat of impending danger or harm. It presents a risk, presents the
1169:
Scharz, N.; Servay, W.; Kumpf, M. (1985). "Attribution of
Arousal as a Mediator of the Effectiveness of Fear-Arousing Communications".
105:
the influence of fear on persuasion so as to better understand how to employ it in addressing the public on a number of social issues.
1134:
Keller, P.A. (1999). "Converting the unconverted: The effect of inclination and opportunity to discount health-related fear appeals".
589:
Ruiter, R. A. C.; Abraham, C.; Kok, G. (2001). "Scary warnings and rational precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals".
503:
Maddux, J. E.; Rogers, R. W. (1983). "Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change".
184:
action because occasionally, a fear appeal is thought to be less effective if a difficulty of acting is considered a cost of acting.
537:
De_Hoog, N.; Stroebe, W.; John, B. F. (2005). "The impact of fear appeals on processing and acceptance of action recommendations".
1196:
Irving, J.L.; Feschback, S. (1954). "Personality
Differences Associated with Responsiveness to Fear-Arousing Communications".
962:
Janis, I. L.; Feshbach, S. (1954). "Personality differences associated with responsiveness to fear-arousing communications".
200:
shown to be a strong predictive utility of social behavior, it is considered to be deficient in explaining behavior change.
1471:
Hastings, G.; Stead, M.; Webb, J. (2004). "Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern".
1437:
689:
Witte, K.; Allen, M. (2000). "A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns".
231:
disadvantages of behavior change. The process of change to the following stage is expedited by self-reevaluation.
114:
65:
1448:
790:
Sharma, M (2007). "Theory of reasoned action & theory of planned behavior in alcohol and drug education".
1672:
Wang, C (1992). "Culture, meaning and disability: injury prevention campaigns and the production of stigma".
1585:
Conrad, K. M.; Flay, B. R.; Hill, D. (1992). "Why children start smoking ciga- rettes: Predictors of onset".
405:
150:
73:
1548:
Tengland, P. A. (2012). "Behavior change or empowerment: on the ethics of health-promotion strategies".
124:
Defensive avoidance is an example of a fear control response that leads to the failure of fear appeals.
1713:
193:
81:
666:
121:
concludes that fear appeals fail when the fear emotion is reduced via the fear control process.
209:
85:
363:
137:
93:
932:
Burnett, J. J. (1981). "Internalβexternal locus of control as a moderator of fear appeals".
167:
self-examinations, and maladaptive actions, such as to avoid thinking about breast cancer.
755:
Weinstein, N. D. (1993). "Testing four competing theories of health-protective behavior".
8:
176:
77:
61:
626:"Drinking on campus: What do we know about reducing alcohol use among college students?"
1646:
1621:
1598:
1530:
1503:"Guarding against threatening HIV prevention messages: An information-processing model"
1409:
1374:
1331:
1288:
1209:
1182:
1113:
1070:
1045:
975:
714:
606:
562:
322:
the self-efficacy theory, diminishing emotional arousal can reduce avoidance behavior.
48:
It is assumed that through a fear appeal the perception of threatening stimuli creates
840:
642:
625:
1689:
1685:
1651:
1602:
1522:
1413:
1366:
1323:
1280:
1213:
1151:
1117:
1075:
1017:
979:
914:
844:
772:
706:
647:
610:
554:
516:
465:
1534:
566:
1681:
1641:
1633:
1594:
1565:
1557:
1514:
1480:
1401:
1378:
1358:
1335:
1315:
1272:
1240:
1205:
1178:
1143:
1105:
1065:
1057:
1009:
1000:
Bandura, A (1977). "Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change".
971:
941:
906:
876:
836:
764:
718:
698:
637:
598:
546:
512:
1427:
Beyond "This Is Your Brain On Drugs": 4 Ways That Scare
Campaigns Can|Fast Company
1292:
52:. The state of fear is believed to be an unpleasant emotional state that involves
1637:
470:
1518:
1147:
1109:
1061:
1013:
945:
880:
768:
702:
475:
460:
1405:
1276:
910:
602:
1718:
1707:
1362:
1319:
550:
447:
440:
287:
96:, and a recent meta-analysis recommended caution in the use of fear appeals.
89:
42:
1655:
1526:
1370:
1327:
1284:
1217:
1155:
1079:
983:
848:
710:
651:
558:
69:
45:
to the risk, and then may, or may not suggest a form of protective action.
1693:
1606:
1231:
Sternthal, B.; Craig, C.S. (1974). "Fear
Appeals: Revisited and Revised".
776:
1561:
1021:
918:
480:
53:
23:
1570:
1484:
57:
31:
27:
1502:
1391:
1244:
432:
414:
38:
1262:
825:
1449:
THE FEAR APEAL (ADVERTISING) β The Visual Communication Guy
49:
446:
There is also a concern that fear appeals give rise to
1129:
1127:
144:
1124:
334:
264:
1620:Choi, H. J.; Krieger, J. L.; Hecht, M. L. (2013).
866:
536:
108:
1470:
1305:
1168:
411:Videos of accidents caused by texting and driving
1705:
1619:
588:
1195:
1095:
157:
1584:
1230:
1043:
298:
281:
16:Motivation and marketing device employing fear
1258:
1256:
1254:
961:
896:
272:
899:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
869:Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
821:
819:
817:
815:
813:
811:
809:
807:
805:
502:
187:
1496:
1494:
1466:
1464:
1462:
1460:
1458:
1456:
1348:
862:
860:
858:
750:
748:
746:
1251:
1091:
1089:
995:
993:
688:
670:, 7 (S1), S8-S31. doi:17437199.2012.703527
539:Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
1645:
1569:
1069:
892:
890:
802:
754:
641:
532:
530:
528:
526:
505:Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
421:
203:
1547:
1500:
1491:
1453:
957:
955:
855:
743:
623:
584:
582:
580:
578:
576:
498:
496:
325:
76:, the protection motivation theory, the
1667:
1665:
1086:
999:
990:
931:
925:
684:
682:
680:
678:
676:
1706:
1133:
887:
789:
523:
343:
170:
952:
792:Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education
783:
736:
734:
732:
730:
728:
573:
493:
389:
1671:
1662:
673:
630:Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment
316:
307:
216:
373:
13:
1599:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1992.tb02684.x
1210:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1954.tb01145.x
1183:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1985.tb02343.x
976:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1954.tb01145.x
725:
151:subjective expected utility theory
145:Subjective expected utility theory
74:subjective expected utility theory
14:
1730:
1171:The Journal of Applied Psychology
1136:The Journal of Applied Psychology
1044:Earl, A.; Albarracin, D. (2007).
1265:The Journal of Social Psychology
356:
335:Perception of treatment efficacy
265:Factors that affect its efficacy
225:
1613:
1578:
1541:
1507:Health Education & Behavior
1442:
1431:
1420:
1385:
1351:Health Education & Behavior
1342:
1308:Health Education & Behavior
1299:
1224:
1189:
1162:
1037:
1028:
691:Health Education & Behavior
435:by manipulating their beliefs.
127:
115:extended parallel process model
109:Extended parallel process model
66:extended parallel process model
1394:Southern Communication Journal
658:
617:
252:
234:
37:A fear appeal is a persuasive
1:
1674:Social Science & Medicine
1438:Fear Appeals|Psychology Today
934:Journal of Applied Psychology
841:10.1016/S0306-4603(98)00103-8
643:10.1016/S0740-5472(00)00101-X
486:
1686:10.1016/0277-9536(92)90221-b
1638:10.1080/10410236.2012.720245
1587:British Journal of Addiction
1233:Journal of Consumer Research
517:10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9
158:Protection motivation theory
7:
454:
406:This is your brain on drugs
398:
299:Performance accomplishments
282:Perception of self-efficacy
10:
1735:
1519:10.1177/109019810002700611
1473:Psychology & Marketing
1148:10.1037/0021-9010.84.3.403
1110:10.1177/002204269602600413
1062:10.1037/0278-6133.26.4.496
1014:10.1037/0033-295x.84.2.191
946:10.1037/0021-9010.66.3.390
881:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.102
769:10.1037/0278-6133.12.4.324
703:10.1177/109019810002700506
273:Individual characteristics
1406:10.1080/10417940902951824
1277:10.1080/00224540309598452
911:10.1037/0022-3514.34.1.54
603:10.1080/08870440108405863
243:
194:theory of reasoned action
188:Theory of reasoned action
99:
82:theory of reasoned action
1501:Blumberg, S. J. (2000).
1363:10.1177/1090198104266901
1320:10.1177/1090198104266901
667:Health Psychology Review
551:10.1177/0146167204271321
1034:Tannenbaum et al., 2013
591:Psychology & Health
56:arousal that motivates
1198:Journal of Personality
1098:Journal of Drug Issues
964:Journal of Personality
422:Ethical considerations
210:transtheoretical model
204:Transtheoretical model
86:transtheoretical model
326:Physiological arousal
94:behavior modification
1626:Health Communication
1550:Public Health Ethics
1002:Psychological Review
624:Walkters, S (2000).
829:Addictive Behaviors
344:Perception of norms
177:health belief model
171:Health belief model
78:health belief model
1562:10.1093/phe/phs022
390:Defense mechanisms
22:is a term used in
1593:(12): 1711β1724.
1485:10.1002/mar.20043
1050:Health Psychology
757:Health Psychology
466:Appeal to emotion
317:Emotional arousal
308:Verbal persuasion
217:Pre-contemplation
192:According to the
1726:
1714:Social influence
1698:
1697:
1680:(9): 1093β1102.
1669:
1660:
1659:
1649:
1617:
1611:
1610:
1582:
1576:
1575:
1573:
1545:
1539:
1538:
1498:
1489:
1488:
1468:
1451:
1446:
1440:
1435:
1429:
1424:
1418:
1417:
1389:
1383:
1382:
1346:
1340:
1339:
1303:
1297:
1296:
1260:
1249:
1248:
1228:
1222:
1221:
1193:
1187:
1186:
1166:
1160:
1159:
1131:
1122:
1121:
1093:
1084:
1083:
1073:
1041:
1035:
1032:
1026:
1025:
997:
988:
987:
959:
950:
949:
929:
923:
922:
894:
885:
884:
864:
853:
852:
823:
800:
799:
787:
781:
780:
752:
741:
738:
723:
722:
686:
671:
662:
656:
655:
645:
621:
615:
614:
586:
571:
570:
534:
521:
520:
500:
374:Perceived threat
1734:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1670:
1663:
1618:
1614:
1583:
1579:
1546:
1542:
1499:
1492:
1479:(11): 961β986.
1469:
1454:
1447:
1443:
1436:
1432:
1425:
1421:
1390:
1386:
1347:
1343:
1304:
1300:
1261:
1252:
1229:
1225:
1194:
1190:
1167:
1163:
1132:
1125:
1094:
1087:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1029:
998:
991:
960:
953:
930:
926:
895:
888:
865:
856:
824:
803:
788:
784:
753:
744:
739:
726:
687:
674:
663:
659:
622:
618:
587:
574:
535:
524:
501:
494:
489:
471:Culture of fear
457:
424:
401:
392:
376:
359:
346:
337:
328:
319:
310:
301:
284:
275:
267:
255:
246:
237:
228:
219:
206:
190:
173:
160:
147:
130:
111:
102:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1732:
1722:
1721:
1716:
1700:
1699:
1661:
1612:
1577:
1556:(2): 140β153.
1540:
1513:(6): 780β795.
1490:
1452:
1441:
1430:
1419:
1384:
1341:
1298:
1271:(3): 397β400.
1250:
1245:10.1086/208597
1223:
1204:(2): 154β166.
1188:
1177:(2): 178β188.
1161:
1142:(3): 403β415.
1123:
1104:(4): 961β974.
1085:
1056:(4): 496β506.
1036:
1027:
1008:(2): 191β215.
989:
970:(2): 154β166.
951:
940:(3): 390β393.
924:
886:
875:(1): 102β112.
854:
835:(4): 481β496.
801:
782:
763:(4): 324β333.
742:
724:
697:(5): 591β615.
672:
657:
636:(3): 223β228.
616:
597:(6): 613β630.
572:
522:
511:(5): 469β479.
491:
490:
488:
485:
484:
483:
478:
476:Fear mongering
473:
468:
463:
461:Appeal to fear
456:
453:
448:stigmatisation
423:
420:
419:
418:
412:
409:
400:
397:
391:
388:
375:
372:
358:
355:
345:
342:
336:
333:
327:
324:
318:
315:
309:
306:
300:
297:
283:
280:
274:
271:
266:
263:
254:
251:
245:
242:
236:
233:
227:
224:
218:
215:
205:
202:
189:
186:
172:
169:
159:
156:
146:
143:
129:
126:
110:
107:
101:
98:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1731:
1720:
1717:
1715:
1712:
1711:
1709:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1668:
1666:
1657:
1653:
1648:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1616:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1581:
1572:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1544:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1497:
1495:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1467:
1465:
1463:
1461:
1459:
1457:
1450:
1445:
1439:
1434:
1428:
1423:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1388:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1345:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1302:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1259:
1257:
1255:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1227:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1192:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1165:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1130:
1128:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1092:
1090:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1040:
1031:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
996:
994:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
958:
956:
947:
943:
939:
935:
928:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
900:
893:
891:
882:
878:
874:
870:
863:
861:
859:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
822:
820:
818:
816:
814:
812:
810:
808:
806:
797:
793:
786:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
751:
749:
747:
737:
735:
733:
731:
729:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
685:
683:
681:
679:
677:
669:
668:
661:
653:
649:
644:
639:
635:
631:
627:
620:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
585:
583:
581:
579:
577:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
533:
531:
529:
527:
518:
514:
510:
506:
499:
497:
492:
482:
479:
477:
474:
472:
469:
467:
464:
462:
459:
458:
452:
449:
444:
442:
441:self-efficacy
436:
434:
428:
416:
413:
410:
407:
403:
402:
396:
387:
383:
379:
371:
367:
365:
357:Fear strength
354:
350:
341:
332:
323:
314:
305:
296:
292:
289:
288:self-efficacy
279:
270:
262:
259:
250:
241:
232:
226:Contemplation
223:
214:
211:
201:
197:
195:
185:
181:
178:
168:
164:
155:
152:
142:
139:
134:
125:
122:
118:
116:
106:
97:
95:
91:
90:self-efficacy
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
63:
59:
55:
54:physiological
51:
46:
44:
43:vulnerability
40:
35:
33:
29:
25:
21:
1677:
1673:
1632:(1): 40β52.
1629:
1625:
1615:
1590:
1586:
1580:
1553:
1549:
1543:
1510:
1506:
1476:
1472:
1444:
1433:
1422:
1397:
1393:
1387:
1357:(1): 27β41.
1354:
1350:
1344:
1314:(1): 27β41.
1311:
1307:
1301:
1268:
1264:
1239:(3): 22β32.
1236:
1232:
1226:
1201:
1197:
1191:
1174:
1170:
1164:
1139:
1135:
1101:
1097:
1053:
1049:
1039:
1030:
1005:
1001:
967:
963:
937:
933:
927:
905:(1): 54β61.
902:
898:
872:
868:
832:
828:
795:
791:
785:
760:
756:
694:
690:
665:
660:
633:
629:
619:
594:
590:
545:(1): 24β33.
542:
538:
508:
504:
445:
437:
429:
425:
393:
384:
380:
377:
368:
360:
351:
347:
338:
329:
320:
311:
302:
293:
285:
276:
268:
260:
256:
247:
238:
229:
220:
207:
198:
191:
182:
174:
165:
161:
148:
135:
131:
128:Drive theory
123:
119:
112:
103:
70:drive theory
50:fear arousal
47:
36:
19:
18:
481:Moral panic
253:Maintenance
235:Preparation
20:Fear appeal
1708:Categories
1571:2043/14851
487:References
439:levels of
84:, and the
24:psychology
1414:145341601
1400:: 35β54.
1118:143398376
798:(1): 3β7.
611:143830782
417:campaigns
249:control.
138:attitudes
62:affective
58:cognitive
32:marketing
28:sociology
1656:23330857
1535:46503711
1527:11104375
1371:15642752
1328:15642752
1285:12846520
1218:13222224
1156:10380420
1080:17605570
984:13222224
849:10466844
711:11009129
652:11027891
567:12325133
559:15574659
455:See also
433:autonomy
415:Seatbelt
399:Examples
364:attitude
1694:1439927
1647:3924871
1607:1490085
1379:8827244
1336:8827244
1071:2703734
777:8404807
719:1059852
39:message
1692:
1654:
1644:
1605:
1533:
1525:
1412:
1377:
1369:
1334:
1326:
1293:327685
1291:
1283:
1216:
1154:
1116:
1078:
1068:
1022:847061
1020:
982:
919:989058
917:
847:
775:
717:
709:
650:
609:
565:
557:
244:Action
100:Models
80:, the
72:, the
68:, the
1531:S2CID
1410:S2CID
1375:S2CID
1332:S2CID
1289:S2CID
1114:S2CID
715:S2CID
607:S2CID
563:S2CID
1719:Fear
1690:PMID
1652:PMID
1603:PMID
1523:PMID
1367:PMID
1324:PMID
1281:PMID
1214:PMID
1152:PMID
1076:PMID
1018:PMID
980:PMID
915:PMID
845:PMID
773:PMID
707:PMID
648:PMID
555:PMID
286:The
175:The
149:The
113:The
30:and
1682:doi
1642:PMC
1634:doi
1595:doi
1566:hdl
1558:doi
1515:doi
1481:doi
1402:doi
1359:doi
1316:doi
1273:doi
1269:143
1241:doi
1206:doi
1179:doi
1144:doi
1106:doi
1066:PMC
1058:doi
1010:doi
972:doi
942:doi
907:doi
877:doi
837:doi
765:doi
699:doi
638:doi
599:doi
547:doi
513:doi
1710::
1688:.
1678:35
1676:.
1664:^
1650:.
1640:.
1630:28
1628:.
1624:.
1601:.
1591:87
1589:.
1564:.
1552:.
1529:.
1521:.
1511:27
1509:.
1505:.
1493:^
1477:21
1475:.
1455:^
1408:.
1398:76
1396:.
1373:.
1365:.
1355:32
1353:.
1330:.
1322:.
1312:32
1310:.
1287:.
1279:.
1267:.
1253:^
1235:.
1212:.
1202:23
1200:.
1175:15
1173:.
1150:.
1140:84
1138:.
1126:^
1112:.
1102:26
1100:.
1088:^
1074:.
1064:.
1054:26
1052:.
1048:.
1016:.
1006:84
1004:.
992:^
978:.
968:23
966:.
954:^
938:66
936:.
913:.
903:34
901:.
889:^
873:65
871:.
857:^
843:.
833:24
831:.
804:^
796:51
794:.
771:.
761:12
759:.
745:^
727:^
713:.
705:.
695:27
693:.
675:^
646:.
634:19
632:.
628:.
605:.
595:16
593:.
575:^
561:.
553:.
543:31
541:.
525:^
509:19
507:.
495:^
208:A
60:,
26:,
1696:.
1684::
1658:.
1636::
1609:.
1597::
1574:.
1568::
1560::
1554:5
1537:.
1517::
1487:.
1483::
1416:.
1404::
1381:.
1361::
1338:.
1318::
1295:.
1275::
1247:.
1243::
1237:1
1220:.
1208::
1185:.
1181::
1158:.
1146::
1120:.
1108::
1082:.
1060::
1024:.
1012::
986:.
974::
948:.
944::
921:.
909::
883:.
879::
851:.
839::
779:.
767::
721:.
701::
654:.
640::
613:.
601::
569:.
549::
519:.
515::
408:"
404:"
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.