A Method for Evaluating the Ethics of Fear Appeals

Abstract

The key issue of ethical applications of fear appeals, which has been generally avoided in marketing literature, is reviewed. The authors develop an evaluation framework, the ethical effects-reasoning matrix (ERM), using multiple interest groups (stakeholders) and multiple ethical reasoning perspectives. The framework is intended to aid in isolating and identifying conflicts that may arise when fear appeals are considered from a variety of ethical perspectives involving many interested publics. An example is provided to indicate application of the framework as well as conflict resolution techniques.

Truths, Half-Truths, and Deception: Perceived Social Responsibility and Intent to Donate for a Nonprofit Using Implicature, Truth, and Duplicity in Print Advertising

“…Although some critics (Henthorne, LaTour, and Nataraajan 1993;Hyman and Tansey 1990) suggest that fear-inducing shock ads may cause threats to the psychological well-being of message recipients, LaTour and Zahra (1989) suggest that fear appeals are appropriate when employed for the public good, such as alerting people to the dangers of drunk driving. For a review of the potential problems associated with fear and shock appeals and evaluating the ethics of their use, see Duke et al (1993).…”

A conceptual framework for analyzing deception and debriefing effects in marketing research

“…We believe that the impact of these research practices on all affected parties should be explicitly considered. Thus, we propose a more comprehensive framework, based on the work of Duke, Pickett, Carlson, and Grove (1993), that examines the consequences of deception and debriefing on all stakeholders in the process. By including multiple ethical approaches and various levels of stakeholders, our ethical-effects framework provides a systematic method for evaluating the ethical impact of specific actions.…”

The ethics of scare: COVID-19 and the Philippines' fear appeals

“…11 In particular, whether these appeals and tactics are morally acceptable and appropriate. 12 It might be argued that scare tactics are acceptable in times of crisis so long as they urge "large population segments, who are at moderate risk, to adopt risk-reducing practices... to influence those who are at high risk". 11 Such a reason may perhaps be grounded on the utilitarian principle of doing what best promotes the greatest benefit for the greatest number.…”