Fear appeals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with appeal to fear. (Discuss)
Proposed since October 2011.

This article has an unclear citation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking. (September 2009) Fear appeals have been predominantly studied in the context of education,[1] marketing,[2] and health awareness campaigns,[3] with the intent to alter intentions and motivate individuals to act on a message. Much of the research has been directed at establishing the relevant variables in both the target of the message, as well as the message itself. Over the years, several models of the influence of fear appeals on persuasion, have been proposed. These include Drive Theory, Protection Motivation Theory,[4] Subjective Expected Utility Theory, the Parallel Process Model, and the Extended Parallel Process Model.

Contents

1 Definition 2 Components o 2.1 Perceived Threat o 2.2 Fear Strength o 2.3 Individual Characteristics o 2.4 Perceived Efficacy o 2.5 Defense Mechanisms 3 Models o 3.1 The Parallel Process Model o 3.2 The Extended Parallel Process Model o 3.3 Drive theory o 3.4 Subjective Expected Utility Theory 4 Examples of fear appeals 5 References

Definition
A "Fear Appeal" is a message designed to elicit fear in an attempt to persuade an individual to pursue some predefined course of action.

Components

Researchers have examined several variables that have been thought, at one time or another, to influence the persuasive effect of fear appeals. These are the perceived threat, the strength of the fear elicited, perceived efficacy,individual characteristics, and defense mechanisms. The results of the research have frequently been conflicting and teasing apart the influences of each has required the incorporation of elements of several of the models available. Nevertheless, many key insights have been achieved through careful integration of the theories and have shed light on the process of fear elicited persuasion.

Perceived Threat
Perceived threat is thought to be an important moderator in the process of fear evoked persuasion.[5] It consists of both the perceived severity of the threat and the perceived susceptibility to it. 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 they might experience the threat.Perceived severity, however, is the 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. 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.[6] It is thought that when perceived susceptibility is high, defense motivations prevent even poor information or weak arguments from detracting from the messages 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.[7] Perceived Severity, the extent to which the individual believes they will be adversely affected by the threat has a significant effect on persuasion. Though, in some cases, persuasion has been found to be aided by lowering severity,[8] 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.[9] 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 has been found to be positively correlated with the perceived severity of the threat. Severity seems to produce the strongest effects on perceptions.

Fear Strength

The strength of the fear elicited by the message is also an important determinant of the subjects 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 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.[10] With rare exception [11] 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 (Schwarz, Servay, Kumpf 1985). Curiously, however, some of the early research found that low fear appeal strength was the most persuasive (Janis and Feshbach 1954.) 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 (1974), fear strength affects attitude 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. 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 (Ruiter, 2003). The tendency for higher levels of fear to raise defensive control responses, 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 that is most likely to act is one that was most likely to change their behavior to begin with (Ruiter, 2003). The implication is that another tact (other than fear) is necessary.

Individual Characteristics
Also of interest in the fear appeals literature has been the contribution of individual characteristics (Brouwers & Sorrentino, 1993). 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 studied thus far include trait anxiety (Witte & Allen, 2000), age, ethnicity, gender, coping style (Rogers & Mewborn, 1976), locus of control (Burnett, 1981), self-esteem, perceived vulnerability, need for cognition and uncertainty orientation (Brouwers & Sorrentino, 1993). Of these, uncertainty orientation and need for cognition have been found to interact with the level of threat. Uncertainty orientation is an individuals characteristic response to uncertainty. That is, whether they attend to or avoid and ignore 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 (Brouwers & Sorrentino, 1993). 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.[12] 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 discernable effect on persuasion (Witte & Allen, 2000).

Perceived Efficacy
Quite possibly the most integral element of an effectively persuasive fear appeal, and more predictive of action than fear arousal, is perceived efficacy.[13] Perceived efficacy has two components; perceived self efficacy and perceived response efficacy. Perceived self efficacy is the extent to which an individual believes they are able to avert the threat presented in the fear appeal message. Though there has been some concern that repeated exposure may result in a fatalism effect, in which individuals experience a form of learned helplessness in regard to the threat, the majority of the research shows that self efficacy is essential for persuasion in fear appeals (Hastings, Stead, Webb, 2004). Perceived response efficacy, the belief that the action recommended will avert the threat, is another important fear appeal element. 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.[14] Some research has found that perceived efficacy is more predictive of intention to change behavior than either element of perceived threat (Ruiter, et al., 2003).

Defense Mechanisms
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 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 (Ruiter, et al., 2003). 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.[15]

Models
Over the last half century, a tremendous amount of research has been done on the influence of fear on persuasion. A multitude of theories and models have been derived from this research with significant overlap between them. The attempt with each of these has been to conceptualize 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.

The Parallel Process Model

Suggests that the primary variable relevant to fear appeal induced persuasion is not the experience of fear, itself, but the threat. The experience of fear and the perceptions of threat are distinguished in that the former is considered an emotional reaction and the latter a set of cognitions. Parallel process model proposes that it is the attempt to control these cognitions that is the basis of the fear appeal persuasion process.

The Extended Parallel Process Model

The newest of the fear appeal models, EPPM brings together many variables that are well established in the literature. Expanding on the parallel process models perspective of threat being the primary motivator, EPPM incorporates the drive models defensive, or fear control motivation and PMTs danger control response. In EPPM, a threat is evaluated and the ability to deal with the threat is as well. As a consequence, one of two reactions is possible; a defensive one in which fear is controlled at the expense of any further action, or a danger control reaction in which behavior is changed in order to reduce the fear aroused by the threat. In addition to these, it is considered possible that there is no response at all. In EPPM, it is critical that the individual considers the action to be taken as being able to prevent the threat from occurring and that they believe they are capable of performing the actions necessary to accomplishing this.[16]

Drive theory
Asserts that the fear elicited by the message produces an internal drive to reduce the experience of fear. In doing so, the individual may attempt to reduce the fear by changing their behavior according to the recommended course of action. This theory is similar to learning theory in that it proposes that the fear reducing behavior reinforces itself.

Subjective Expected Utility Theory

SEU has been widely disregarded since its addition to the fear appeal models, it being an entirely cognitive process which neglects any role of fear in the process of persuasion. This theory incorporates evaluations of the various responses that can be chosen in order to achieve ones motivations and goals. Subsequent research has not found this to be the case.

Examples of fear appeals

This is your brain on drugs, the D.A.R.E. program, and Abstinence-only sex education

Protection Motivation Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Protection Motivation Theory is a theory that was originally created to help clarify fear appeals. The Protection Motivation Theory proposes that we protect ourselves based on four factors: the perceived severity of a threatening event, the perceived probability of the occurrence, or vulnerability, the efficacy of the recommended preventive behavior, and the perceived self efficacy[1]. Protection motivation stems from both the threat appraisal and the coping appraisal. The threat appraisal assesses the severity of the situation and examines how serious the situation is. The coping appraisal is how one responds to the situation. The coping appraisal consists of both efficacy and self-efficacy. Efficacy is the individual's expectancy that carrying out recommendations can remove the threat. Self-efficacy is the belief in one's ability to execute the recommended courses of action successfully.[2]. PMT is one model that explains why people engage in unhealthy practices and offers suggestions for changing those behaviors. It is educational and motivational. Primary prevention: taking measures to combat the risk of developing a health problem [3]. (e.g., controlling weight to prevent high blood pressure). Secondary prevention: taking steps to prevent a condition from becoming worse [4]. (e.g., remembering to take daily medication to control blood pressure).

Contents

1 History o 1.1 Threat-Appraisal Process o 1.2 Coping-Appraisal Process o 1.3 Response Efficacy 2 Citations

History
The protection motivation theory was originally founded by Dr. R.W. Rogers in 1975 in order to better understand fear appeals and how people cope with them.[1]. However Dr. Rogers would later expand on the theory in 1983 where he extended the theory to a more general theory of persuasive communication. The theory was originally based on the work of Richard Lazarus who spent much of his time researching how people behave and cope during stressful situations. In his book, "Stress, Appraisal, and Coping," Richard Lazarus discusses the idea of the cognitive appraisal processes and how they relate to coping with stress. He states that people, "differ in their sensitivity and vulnerability to certain types of events, as well as in their interpretations and reactions." [5]. While Richard Lazarus came up with many of the fundamental ideas used in the Protection Motivation Theory, Dr. Rogers was the first to apply the terminology when discussing fear appeals. Today the Protection Motivation Theory is mainly used when discussing health issues and how people react when diagnosed with health related illnesses.

Threat-Appraisal Process
The threat appraisal process consists of both the severity and vulnerability of situation. It focuses on the source of the threat and factors that increase or decrease likelihood of maladaptive behaviours. [6]. Severity refers to the degree of harm from the unhealthy behavior. Vulnerability

is the probability that one will experience harm. Another aspect of the threat appraisal is rewards. Rewards refer to the positive aspects of starting or continuing the unhealthy behavior. To calculate the amount of threat experienced take the combination of both the severity and vulnerability, and then subtract the rewards. Threat appraisal refers to children's evaluation of the degree to which an event has significant implications for their well-being. Theoretically, threat appraisal is related to Lazaraus' concept of primary appraisal, particularly to the way in which the event threatens the child's commitments, goals, or values. Threat appraisal is differentiated from the evaluation of stressfulness or impact of the event in that is assesses what is threatened, rather than simply the degree of stress or negativity of an event. Threat appraisal is also differentiated from negative cognitive styles, because it assesses children's reported negative appraisals for specific events in their lives rather than their typical style of responding to stressful events. Theoretically, higher threat appraisals should lead to negative arousal and coping and to increased psychological symptomatology. The use of threat-appraisal has been involved in many health campaigns such as anti-smoking and AIDS prevention. Many of the campaigns have to analyze the audience to see what kind of an effect that their message will have. In one study conducted by Dillard, Shen, and Vail they sought to examine whether perceived effectiveness had any relation to actual effectiveness. The looked at numerous public service announcements to see whether or not the creators had actual changed peoples' opinions or if they had perceived that the message had changed peoples' opinions.

Coping-Appraisal Process
The coping appraisal consists of the response efficacy, self-efficacy, and the response costs. Response efficacy is the effectiveness of the recommended behavior in removing or preventing possible harm. Self-efficacy is the belief that one can successfully enact the recommended behavior. The response costs are the costs associated with the recommended behavior. The amount of coping ability that one experiences is the combination of response efficacy and selfefficacy, minus the response costs. The coping appraisal process focuses on the adaptive responses and one's ability to cope with and avert the threat. The coping appraisal is the sum of the appraisals of the responses efficacy and self-efficacy, minus any physical or psychological "costs" of adopting the recommended preventive response. Coping Appraisal involves the individual's assessment of the response efficacy of the recommended behavior (i.e. perceived effectiveness of sunscreen in preventing premature aging) as well as one's perceived self-efficacy in carrying out the recommended actions [7]. (i.e. confidence that one can use sunscreen consistently). The Threat and coping appraisal variables combine in a fairly straightforward way, although the relative emphasis may vary from topic to topic and with target population. In his book, "Stress, Appraisal, and Coping," Richard Lazarus states that, "studies of coping suggest that different styles of coping are related to specific health outcomes; control of anger, for example, has been implicated in hypertension. Three routes through which coping can affect health include the frequency, intensity, duration, and patterning of neurochemical stress

reactions; using injurious substances or carrying out activities that put the person at risk; and impeding adaptive health/illness-related behavior." [8].

Response Efficacy
Response efficacy concerns beliefs that adopting a particular behavioral response will be effective in reducing the diseases' threat, and self-efficacy is the belief that one can successfully perform the coping response.[9]. In line with the traditional way of measuring the consequences of behavior, response efficacy was operationalized by linking consequences to the recommended behavior as well as to whether the subject regarded the consequences as likely outcomes of the recommended behavior.[10].

Citations
1. ^ a b Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91, 93-114. 2. ^ Rogers, R.W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A Revised theory of protection motivation. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (Eds.), Social Psychophysiology. New York: Guilford Press. 3. ^ Pechmann, C, Goldberg, M, & Reibling, E (2003). What to convey in antismoking advertisements for adolescents: The Use of protection motivation theory to identify effective message themes. Journal of Marketing , 67. 4. ^ Maddux, J.E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation theory and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 469479. 5. ^ Monat, A, & Lazarus, R (1991). Stress and coping: an anthology .New York: Columbia University Press . 6. ^ Plotnikoff, Ronald C.; Trinh, Linda (1 April 2010). "Protection Motivation Theory". Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews 38 (2): 9198. doi:10.1097/JES.0b013e3181d49612. 7. ^ Prentice-Dunn, S, Mcmath, B, & Cramer, R (2009). Protection motivation theory and stages of change in sun protective behavior. Journal of Health Psychology , 14. 8. ^ Lazarus, R, & Folkman, S (1984). Stress, apprasisal, and coping.New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc. . 9. ^ Van der velde, F.W. & van der Plight, J. (1991). AIDS-related health behavior: Coping, protection, motivation, and previous behavior. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 14, 429-451. 10. ^ Lwin, M, & Saw, S (2007). Protecting children from myopia: A PMT perspective for improving health marketing communications. Journal of Health Communication, 12. View page ratings Rate this page What's this? Trustworthy Objective

Complete Well-written I am highly knowledgeable about this topic (optional) Categories:

Anxiety Create account Log in Article Talk Read Edit View history

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox Print/export Languages

This page was last modified on 13 March 2012 at 21:10.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. Contact us Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers Mobile view