Appeal to fear

Fear appeals want to achieve change in attitudes or behavior. Such appeals are part of the subset of emotional appeals. Fear appeals are a form of persuasion. They are used among other things in advertising and prevention.

Definition

Under fear appeals are understood persuasive messages that tell the recipient that for him relevant values ​​( such as life, health, property, etc.) are threatened. ( Verbal and / or nonverbal ) messages contained in an appeal to fear can trigger the receiver and cause fear attitude or behavior changes. This change can be caused by emotions (eg fear) and / or cognitive insight ( ie rational ); they may be temporary or permanent.

Carl I. Hovland, which also includes the Yale approach is due to the setting change, defined fear appeals in 1964 as content influencing communication, the unfavorable consequences which may result from the failure to follow the advice given by the communicator, alluding or she describes.

Effect of fear appeals

Fear appeals

• Contain messages about negative consequences of behavior ( 1 )
• Recommend or request attitude or behavior changes ( 2 )
• Can produce at the receiver fear and at the same time show him ways (see 2 and 3 ) to minimize this fear.

The effect of the appeal message is dependent inter alia on

• The actual threat or danger,
• The way of the message, the strength of fear appeal,
• The occurrence probability of the event,
• Situational factors
• And the receiver ( personality characteristics, feasibility of an effective protection measure).

Theories on the mode of action of fear appeals

There are some models that explain the mode of action of fear appeals. The instinct theories (eg, Freud, Hovland, Janis, McGuire ) include a number of theories. Common understanding of the theories is that man is essentially controlled by a more or less large number of endogenous drives and basic needs. Developed by H. Leventhal model of parallel reactions (1970 ) distinguished between the process of fear control and danger control. Of importance, in the opinion of Leventhal and personality characteristics of the message recipient, and situational characteristics.

RW Rogers original theory of protection motivation ( 1975) included three variables to specify the characteristics of fear appeals. The variables include the strength of the concrete threat or danger and the probability of occurrence of the event and the presence of an effective protective measure (recommendation for the prevention of damage). The combination of the three variables is the central construct of the theory. 1983 Rogers added this theory to a fourth variable: the assessment of coping behavior.

The elaboration likelihood model of Richard Petty and John T. Cacioppo (1986 ) describes the effects of a persuasive message on the recipient with respect to its attitude towards the issue of this announcement.

Fear appeal research

In the 1950s, the effect of fear appeals research that dealt in particular danger due to unhealthy behavior began. Hovland, Janis & Kelley ( 1953) and Irving Janis and Seymour Feshbach (1953 ) dealt with the consequences of inadequate dental care. The largest change in behavior occurred in weak fear appeals. The recommendations for the controlled dental care were most frequently observed when the triggered anxiety was at its lowest.

The effect of fear appeals is now explored in psychology and the social sciences and critically. In meta-analyzes of short-term effects were detected by fear appeals. The fear appeal research could not prove a permanent or long-lasting effect of fear appeals. There is therefore no binding advice on the use of fear appeals because many variables such as strength of fear appeal, personality traits ( concern, personal relevance of the topic, self-responsible attitude, etc.), fashion of the message and situational factors (eg, distraction or habituation in to ofter repeat) determine whether a fear appeal is effective. Research has found that fear appeals, the major consequences ( AIDS) to show or indicate a new, yet little-known danger, have a stronger effect. Implausible messages or very strong fear appeals lead the recipient to negative effects (so-called boomerang effect).

In addition to the research results also show everyday experience that pure fear appeals unfold only limited effectiveness. They produce initially, where appropriate, an unpleasant state of tension when the person is aware of the contradiction between their beliefs and their actual behavior. The stress state does not attempt the person be able to reduce by a behavioral change to reduce but by a denial of the threat.

Example, driver behavior

Educational and promotional campaigns that want to move motorists to a safety- conscious driving style to use, in recent years, increasingly the " Shock Doctrine ". In some very explicit pictures, the consequences are shown, for example, the consumption of alcohol or the lawn, in the hope that this motivates the target group (often young men ) to change their behavior. An evaluation of the research showed that the desired effect is unlikely to adjust. Especially young men are not affected by such images ( more nor women ). In particular, such campaigns have no effect if the addressee will not be informed at the same time about ways they can reduce the risk represented (ie modeled desired driver behavior). Many drivers also think that the danger presented does not concern them, so that no one ever more shocking representation is necessary, but an approach that emphasizes the drivers that just for them, the risk is high.