Scary warnings and rational precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals

By Robert A. C. Ruiter, C. Abraham, Gerjo Kok. 2001

663 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Abstract Research into the effects of fear-arousal on precautionary motivation and action is reviewed. Current models do not adequately distinguish between emotional (i.e., fear arousal) and cognitive (i.e., threat perception) responses to fear appeals and, in general, are not well supported. Evidence suggesting that (i) coping appraisals are more powerful predictors of precautionary action than threat perception and that (ii) fear control processes may interfere with precautionary motivation, recommends cautious and limited use of fear appeals in health promotion. It seems likely that fear arousal is less important in motivating precautionary action than perceptions of action effectiveness and self-efficacy. Moreover, perceived personal relevance may be critical to the emotional and cognitive impact of threat information. Available findings are summarised in the form of a process model that highlights the potential complexity of fear arousal effects. Sequential measurement of fear arousal, other than by self-report, is recommended in studies seeking to clarify these effects.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/448e3650a1532b3d4918a4b76b0a7f1b0b71d752

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: an overview and implications for future research (2013, background): “If people think they lack the skills to avert the threat, however, they are motivated to respond defensively to the negative message (Leventhal, 1970; Ruiter et al., 2001).”
Measuring defensive responses to threatening messages: a meta-analysis of measures (2007, neutral): “Unfortunately, however, ‘fear appeals’ may also elicit defensive responses which reduce the likelihood of protective action (Reed & Aspinwall, 1998 3; Ruiter, Abraham, & Kok, 2001 ; Stephenson & Witte, 1998 2; Witte & Allen, 2000 ).”
The use of visual warnings in social marketing: The case of tobacco (2011, background): “First, Hastings et al. (2004); Ruiter and Kok (2001) and Stewart and Martin (1994) consider that insufficient attention has been paid to unintentional consequences of warnings and especially the possible adverse effects of fear appeal messages.”
Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: An integrative review (2015, background): “However, as noted above, it is possible that if more severe climate impacts were emphasized, this strategy could backfire (O'Neill & Nicholson-Cole, 2009; Ruiter et al., 2001).”
Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory (2013, result): “Several reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted into the topic (eg, de Hoog, Stroebe, & de Wit, 2007 ; Ruiter, Abraham, & Kok, 2001 ; Witte & Allen, 2000 ), but their outcomes were not consistently in line with current theory.”