Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern

Abstract

This article criticizes the predominant use of fear appeals in social marketing. Laboratory studies, which have been the basis for most of the research on fear appeals and which generally suggest that high fear works, have limitations that include forced exposure, short-term measurement, and an overdependence on student samples. Although, unfortunately, field research evaluations of fear appeals are few, they usually reveal that fear has both weaker effects and unintended deleterious effects in real-world social marketing campaigns. Ethical concerns about fear appeals include maladaptive responses such as chronic heightened anxiety among those most at risk and, paradoxically, complacency among those not directly targeted, and increased social inequity between those who respond to fear campaigns, who tend to be better off, and those who do not, who tend to be the less educated and poorer members of society. Alternatives to fear appeals are the use of positive reinforcement appeals aimed at the good behavior, the use of humor, and, for younger audiences, the use of postmodern irony

Guilt and giving: A process model of empathy and efficacy

“…Third, both are usually limited to simple requests for that action, often based on educating people about some condition or problem. Fourth, both guilt and fear appeals can fail to be effective to the extent that they generate maladaptive responses (e.g., Hastings, Stead, & Webb, 2004;Jones, 2001). With guilt, these responses are similar to the negative effects often noted for fear appeals (e.g., Witte, 1992).…”

Visual Arguments and Moral Causes in Charity Advertising: Ethical Considerations

“…Negatively-valenced images that portray victims of various social ills may raise other ethical problems. Frequent accusations include lack of respect for the dignity of the people portrayed, humiliation of those in similar situations, heightened anxiety among vulnerable audiences and increased complacency among those not affected by the respective problem (the risks posed by insisting on fear appeals in public service campaigns are extensively discussed by Hastings, Stead and Webb 2004). Apart from this, manipulation of meaning through frame-sentences is also a bargaining question raising many doubts about the honest treatment of pictorial proof by editors of newspapers and magazines or by the authors of social campaigns (for a sample of the ethical issues entailed in image framing, see Martinez Lirola 2014; Popp and Mendelson 2010;and Winn 2009).…”

‘Join us on our journey’: exploring the experiences of children and young people with type 1 diabetes and their parents

“…However, this outcome could equally be explained by the fact that owing to the developmental characteristics, adolescents process the current and present easier (e.g., short term cosmetic effect from smoking) than they do the potential long-term effects (e.g., serious health consequences of smoking). Thus, among adolescents, fear appeals focusing on long term consequences can be counterproductive and lead to unintentional deleterious effects (Hastings, Stead, & Webb, 2004;Witte & Allen, 2000). As Pechmann, Zhao, Goldberg and Reibling (2003) assert, "in the context of low perceived vulnerability, stressing health risks could increase smoking's symbolic value as risk seeking, rebellious and thus attractive behavior" (p. 11).…”