The Impact of Fear Appeals on Processing and Acceptance of Action Recommendations

A stage model of processing of fear-arousing communications was tested in an experiment that examined the impact of vulnerability to a severe health risk, the quality of the arguments supporting a protective action recommendation, and the source to which the recommendation was attributed, on processing and acceptance of the recommendation. Argument quality influenced attitudes toward the recommendation (but not intention to act), and this effect was mediated by negative thoughts about the recommendation. Vulnerability influenced intention to act (but not attitudes), and this effect was mediated by perceived threat and positive thoughts about the recommendation. The pattern of findings suggests that although vulnerability to a severe health risk induces biased processing of the recommendation, biased processing is restricted to intentions and does not compromise the evaluation of the recommendation. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

[1]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research , 1977 .

[2]  S. Chaiken.  Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. , 1980 .

[3]  I. Janis,et al.  An experimental study of psychological resistance to fear-arousing communications. , 1962, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[4]  Peter H. Ditto,et al.  Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions , 1992 .

[5]  M. Allen,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns , 2000, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.

[6]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[7]  William Allen,et al.  Effects of fear-arousing communications , 1953 .

[8]  Alice H. Eagly,et al.  Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. , 1989 .

[9]  S. Folkman,et al.  Stress, appraisal, and coping , 1974 .

[10]  M. Sherif,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1946, Psychological review.

[11]  R W Rogers,et al.  Fear appeals and attitude change: effects of a threat's noxiousness, probability of occurrence, and the efficacy of coping responses. , 1976, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[12]  D. A. Kenny,et al.  The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. , 1986, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[13]  H. Kelley,et al.  Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change , 1982 .

[14]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change , 1983 .

[15]  J. Greenberg,et al.  Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model , 1987 .

[16]  Z. Kunda,et al.  Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. , 1987 .

[17]  W. Stroebe.  Social psychology and health, 2nd ed. , 2000 .

[18]  R. Rogers.  Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: a revised theory of prote , 1983 .

[19]  R. W. Rogers,et al.  A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1. , 1975, The Journal of psychology.

[20]  L. Berkowitz,et al.  The interest value and relevance of fear-arousing communications. , 1960, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[21]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Chronic issue-specific fear inhibits systematic processing of persuasive communications. , 1990 .

[22]  H. Leventhal,et al.  Findings and Theory in the Study of Fear Communications , 1970 .

[23]  H. Leventhal,et al.  EFFECTS OF FEAR AND SPECIFICITY OF RECOMMENDATION UPON ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIOR. , 1965, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[24]  Franklin J. Boster,et al.  Fear-Arousing Persuasive Messages , 1984 .

[25]  K. Witte.  Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model , 1992 .

[26]  Lisa G. Aspinwall,et al.  Self-Affirmation Reduces Biased Processing of Health-Risk Information , 1998 .

[27]  Leif D. Nelson,et al.  Do Messages about Health Risks Threaten the Self? Increasing the Acceptance of Threatening Health Messages Via Self-Affirmation , 2000 .

[28]  M. J. Goldstein.  The relationship between coping and avoiding behavior and response to fear-arousing propaganda. , 1959, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[29]  R. Petty,et al.  Expectations of reassurance influence the nature of fear-stimulated attitude change , 1992 .

[30]  Shelly Chaiken,et al.  Defensive Processing of Personally Relevant Health Messages , 1992 .

[31]  Wolfgang Stroebe,et al.  Fear Appeals Motivate Acceptance of Action Recommendations: Evidence for a Positive Bias in the Processing of Persuasive Messages , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.