Fear appeals

Fear appeals are uniquely different than the rhetorical appeal to fear. There has been nearly 50 years of research on fear appeals in various disciplines and these studies have collectively garnered mixed results (for an overview, see Ruiter, Abraham, & Kok, 2001). However, fear appeals are commonly used in persuasive health campaigns designed to modify behavior. Examples include campaigns against drug use, drinking and driving, and unsafe sexual practices.

Definition

Fear appeals are persuasive messages designed to scare or frighten people into complying with a particular message by describing the awful and terrible things that will happen to them if they do not act in accordance with the message (Witte, 1992). Fear itself can best be understood as a negatively-valenced emotion accompanied by a high level of arousal that is perceived to be both significant and personally relevant and that motivates people into action (Easterlinger & Leventhal, 1989; Frijda, 1986; Ortony & Turner, 1990; Witte, 1992; Witte, 1998).

Drive Theories

Early fear appeal research focused on drive theories or drive models to explain the role fear plays in motivation, persuasion, and attitude change. For example, the fear-as-acquired drive model (Hovland, Janis, & Kelly, 1953), family of curves (Janis 1967), and nonmonotonic models (McGuire, 1968; 1969) suggest that fear drives action. In other words, the amount or level of fear generated by a fear appeal motivates action. These theories argued that fear could motivate by eliciting enough drive state; however, too much fear would result in avoidance responses. These models predicted that just enough fear would be persuasive by motivating a drive state in the receiver of the message; thus, drive theories rely on an inverted U-shape relationship between fear and motivation for attitude change. However, an overall lack of support for the inverted U-shaped model has led to many of these theories being dismissed (Witte, 2000).

Parallel Response Model

The parallel response model suggests that fear appeals generate two separate processes, danger control and fear control. Danger control processes involve attempts to control the danger or threat while fear control processes involve attempts to control one’s own fear generated by the danger or threat. When people are motivated to control the danger, they typically think about the fear appeal and think of ways to remove or lessen the threat. Typically, they think carefully about the recommended responses advocated in the persuasive message and attempt to adopt those as a means to control the danger. However, on the other hand, when people are motivated to control their fear, they can no longer think about the fear appeal nor the danger of the threat; instead, they focus on how frightened they feel and they attempt to get rid of their fear through denial, defensive avoidance, or reactance.

Most notably, Witte’s Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) (see attitude change), which traces its lineage through the classic fear appeal theories, attempts to explain both when and why fear appeals work, as well as when and why they fail (Witte, 2000). According to EPPM, if the threat is perceived as irrelevant or insignificant then there is little motivation to process the message further. Conversely, when the threat is perceived or believed to be serious and relevant, individuals become afraid and are motivated to act in order to reduce their fear.

Thus, EPPM suggests that in some cases fear arousing messages can lead to danger control processes, which in turn, generate adaptive potentially life-saving actions. However, in others cases fear arousing messages can lead to fear controlling processes which can lead to maladaptive and potentially life-threatening. Lastly, EPPM argues self-efficacy plays a role in the type of control process we choose. Specifically, EPPM suggests that we must be self-efficacious in order maximize our danger controlling processes in response to fear arousing messages

Example of a fear appeal

This is your brain on drugs

References

*Beck K. H. & Frankel A. (1981). A conceptualization of threat communications and protective health behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 204-217.
*Easterling, D. V. & Leventhal, H. (1989). Contribution of concrete cognition to emotion: Neutral symptoms as elicitors of worry about cancer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 787-796.
*Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
*Hovland C., Janis I., & Kelly H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT, Yale University Press.
*Janis I. L. (1967). Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent developments in theory and experimental research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 3 (pp.166-225). New York, Academic Press.
*McGuire W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. Borgatta & W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Theory and Research (pp.1130-1187). Chicago, Rand McNally.
*McGuire W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), TheHandbook of Social Psychology Vol. 3, (pp.136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
*Ortony, A. & Turner, T. J. (1990). What’s basic about basic emotions?. Psychology Review, 97, 315-331.
*Rogers R. W,. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91, 93-114.
*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 (pp.153-176). New York, Guilford Press.
*Ruiter, R. A. C., Abraham, C., & Kok, G. (2001). Scary warnings and rational precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology and Health, 16, 613-630.
*Sutton, S. R. (1982). Fear-arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and research. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.). Social Psychology and Behavioral Medicine (p. 303-337). London: Wiley.
*Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349.
*Witte, K. (1998). Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using EPPM to explain fear appeal successes and failures. In P. A. Anderson & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), The Handbook of Communication and Emotion (p. 423-450). New York: Academic Press.
*Witte, K. & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-615.