class notes fear appeals?

Fear appeals

Threatening health messages designed to create an emotional response and motivate protective behavior.

History of fear appeals

Rogers (1975) developed Protection Motivation Theory (PMT).

Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)

A social cognition model explaining how threat and coping appraisals motivate protective behavior.

PMT and other health models

PMT is a social cognition model, like the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

How did PMT extend the HBM?

PMT added fear as an emotional component that can influence behavior.

Fear in PMT

Fear can motivate people to take protective action.

Perceived severity

Belief that a health threat is serious; e.g., cancer is a serious illness.

Perceived susceptibility

Belief that you are personally likely to experience a health threat.

Self-efficacy example

I am confident that I can quit smoking.

Response efficacy example

Quitting smoking will improve my health.

Response efficacy

Belief that the recommended health behavior will effectively reduce the threat.

Self-efficacy

Belief that you are capable of successfully performing the recommended behavior.

Why do campaigns use fear appeals?

They assume making people afraid of negative health outcomes will motivate behavior change.

Fear appeal components

1. Fear arousal and 2. safety conditions.

Fear arousal

The message presents a serious threat and makes the person feel personally at risk.

Three parts of fear arousal

There is a threat, you are at risk, and the threat is serious.

Safety conditions

The message provides a recommended action that is effective and easy to perform.

Purpose of safety conditions

They increase response efficacy and self-efficacy.

Meth Project (Montana)

A real-world example of a health campaign using fear appeals to discourage risky behavior.

The Menace of Smoking

Brown and Smith (2007) study testing responses to distressing anti-smoking messages.

Brown & Smith (2007) research question

Does adding fear-inducing imagery make anti-smoking messages more effective?

Brown & Smith (2007) participants

Daily young smokers who had not yet experienced major smoking-related disease.

Brown & Smith: low-distress condition

Four anti-smoking facts paired with four non-graphic images.

Brown & Smith: high-distress condition

The same facts and wording paired with gross and scary images.

Brown & Smith: examples of facts

Smoking reduces life expectancy, causes cancer deaths, kills many people, and can eventually kill smokers.

Brown and smith what do they use to measure

Message evaluation: Participants rated whether the message made them want to quit and whether it was persuasive.

Readings time: Researchers measured how long participants spent reading the message.

Perceived risk:Participants estimated their personal risk if they continued smoking.

Brown & Smith: perceived risk results

Low-distress participants rated their personal risk higher than high-distress participants.

Brown & Smith: reading time results

Low-distress participants spent more time reading the brochure.

Brown & Smith: persuasion results

Low-distress participants rated the message as more persuasive than high-distress participants.

Main Brown & Smith finding

More frightening imagery did not make the anti-smoking message more effective.

Why can fear appeals threaten freedom?

People may feel manipulated, which can threaten their sense of autonomy.

Why can fear appeals threaten the self?

They can make people feel incompetent or unable to control the threat.

Defensive responses to fear appeals

Denial of risk, biased information processing, and avoidance.

Denial of risk

A defensive response where people reject or minimize the health threat.

Biased information processing

A defensive response where people interpret or evaluate information more critically or selectively.

Avoidance

A defensive response where people ignore or avoid the threatening message.

Fear appeals: overall concern

They may be ineffective at best and harmful at worst when they create defensive responses.

Graphic cigarette warnings

A fear-based strategy using images and warnings to communicate the health consequences of smoking.

Why are cigarette warnings high-reach?

A pack-a-day smoker may see their cigarette pack around 7,300 times per year.

Why are graphic warnings difficult to evaluate?

Other changes, such as cigarette prices or smoking policies, may affect outcomes at the same time.

Malouff et al. (2012)

Study of Australian smokers comparing written warnings with written plus graphic warnings.

Malouff: two conditions

Written warnings only versus written warnings combined with graphic images.

Malouff: follow-up

Participants were followed for 8 weeks, with four weeks of exposure.

Malouff: stage of change at baseline

There was no significant difference between the two groups.

Malouff: stage of change at 4 weeks

The graphic-warning group moved more toward preparation; the difference was significant.

Malouff: stage of change at 8 weeks

The difference was no longer significant.

Malouff: overall stage-of-change finding

Graphic warnings produced only a short-term change in stage of change.

Malouff: cigarettes smoked

There was no significant difference between groups at baseline, 4 weeks, or 8 weeks.

Malouff: intention vs. behavior

Graphic warnings increased motivation temporarily but did not produce a significant change in smoking behavior.

Graphic vs. text-only warnings

Graphic warnings are generally more noticed and produce stronger negative feelings about smoking.

Graphic warnings and quitting intentions

Graphic warnings can increase intentions to quit compared with text-only warnings.

Why might fear-appeal evidence be mixed?

Some fear appeals may work while others may not, depending on message content and outcomes.

Tannenbaum et al. (2015)

Meta-analysis examining whether the amount of fear affects the effectiveness of fear appeals.

Does amount of fear matter?

Yes. Moderate and high fear messages were more effective than low-fear messages.

Too much fear

Very high fear may increase rejection or defensive responses to the message.

Optimal fear level

Research suggests moderate-to-high fear can be effective, especially when paired with efficacy information.

Does fear alone work?

No. PMT suggests fear should be paired with efficacy information.

Why is efficacy information important?

It gives people confidence that they can perform the action and that the action will work.

Most effective fear appeals

Fear appeals paired with coping information, self-efficacy, and response efficacy.

Coping information

Information showing people how they can effectively and successfully respond to the threat.

Self-efficacy in fear appeals

Shows people that they are capable of performing the recommended behavior.

Response efficacy in fear appeals

Shows people that the recommended behavior will actually reduce the health threat.

Why are fear appeals still widely used?

They have intuitive appeal and health communicators may lack awareness of research and theory.

Fear appeals and behavior outcomes

Whether fear appeals work may depend on the message content and the specific behavior or outcome being measured.

Main takeaway about fear appeals

Fear alone is not enough; effective messages should also provide clear, achievable actions and efficacy information.