Effects of fear-arousing communications.

Abstract

T is generally recognized that when beliefs and attitudes are modified, learning processes are involved in which motivational factors play a primary role. Symbols in mass communications can be manipulated in a variety of ways so as to arouse socially acquired motives such as need for achievement, group conformity, power-seeking, and the more emotion-laden drives arising from aggression, sympathy, guilt, and anxiety.The present experiment was designed to study the effects of one particular type of motive-incentive variable in persuasive communications, namely, the arousal of fear or anxiety by depicting potential dangers to which the audience might be exposed. 1 Fear appeals of this sort are frequently used to influence attitudes and behavior. For example, medical authorities sometimes try to persuade people to visit cancer detection clinics by pointing to the dangerous consequences of failing to detect the early symptoms of cancer; various political groups play up the threat of war or totalitarianism in an attempt to motivate adherence to their political program. Our interest in such attempts is primarily that of determining the conditions under which the arousal of fear is effective or ineffective in eliciting changes in beliefs, practices, and attitudes.Implicit in the use of fear appeals is the assumption that when emotional tension is aroused, the audience will become more highly motivated to accept the reassuring beliefs or recommendations advocated by the 1 This study was conducted at Yale University as part of a coordinated program of research on attitude and opinion change, financed by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. The attitude change research project is under the general direction of Professor Carl I. Hovland, to whom the authors wish to express their appreciation for many valuable suggestions concerning the design of the experiment. Special thanks are due to Dr.

Shock tactics and the myth of the inverted U

“…One reason for this may be that the very first published study in this field (Janis & Feshbach, 1953) was also one of the few that found evidence in favour of the curvilinear hypothesis. Other reasons may have to do with the intuitive appeal of the inverted-U relationship and with the apparent ineffectiveness of real health education campaigns whether or not they employ shock tactics.…”

Dementia worry: a psychological examination of an unexplored phenomenon

“…In one study, perceived threat among relatives of patients with AD was a very strong predictor of intentions to be tested for dementia (Roberts 2000). A moderate level of worry/fear arousal is thought to be optimal for engagement in health behaviours such as screening: whereas, too little fear leads to denial and lack of attention and too much fear may lead to avoidance, as people are too afraid to have their fears confirmed (Janis and Feshbach 1953). In line with this assumption, multiple studies suggest that a moderate degree of cancer worry is the most conducive for motivating cancer screening behaviours (Hay et al 2005).…”

Examining the effectiveness of physical threats in road safety advertising: The role of the third-person effect, gender, and age

“…More specifically, early fear-persuasion studies provided empirical support for a direct positive relationship between fear and persuasion (e.g., Higbee, 1969;Insko et al, 1965;Leventhal & Watts, 1966) as well as a direct negative relationship (e.g., Haefner, 1956;Janis & Feshbach, 1953). Given the apparent irreconcilability of these disparate research findings, the curvilinear, or 'inverted u', view of the fear-persuasion relationship was proposed.…”

“…Surprisingly, despite the frequency with which threat appeals are utilised in health advertising, a substantial body of literature spanning over five decades attests to contradictory findings regarding the manner in which fear is related to persuasion (for a range of reviews and empirical studies see, Bennett, 1996;Boster & Mongeau, 1984;Higbee, 1969;Janis, 1967;Janis & Feshbach, 1953;Elliott, 2003;Haefner, 1956;Insko, Arkoff, & Insko, 1965;King & Reid, 1990;Kohn et al, 1982;LaTour & Rotfeld, 1997;Leventhal 1970;Leventhal & Watts, 1966;Ray & Wilkie, 1970;Sternthal & Craig, 1981;Sutton, 1982;Sutton, 1992, Witte, Berkowitz, Cameron, & McKeon, 1998. More specifically, early fear-persuasion studies provided empirical support for a direct positive relationship between fear and persuasion (e.g., Higbee, 1969;Insko et al, 1965;Leventhal & Watts, 1966) as well as a direct negative relationship (e.g., Haefner, 1956;Janis & Feshbach, 1953).…”