Fear appeals and persuasion: the differentiation of a motivational construct.

THE goal of the present paper is to invite new thoughts about the effects of fear-arousing communications on persuasion. As a consequence, it is unashamedly theoretical and may seem to run counter to the insistent cries for the practical and relevant. But it is my thought that the theories and assumptions we make about other people are an important determinant of what we say when we try to influence or educate them. To do a better job in this role, we must be sure that we are using the most adequate theory in developing our persuasive and educational appeals. The best way to increase the quality of our theories is to develop and compare different ways of thinking about the same problem. Thus, to convince you that nothing is so practical as a good theory, I shall review two sets of ideas that can be used to understand the persuasive effects of fear-arousing health messages, discuss how well these ideas fit empirical data, and then leave you to decide which provides the most creative suggestions for practical action. The health professional's unique knowledge gives him the special responsibility to inform others of the imminence of health dangers. Because he wants his audience to believe and to act upon his recommendations, he is very likely to wonder about the most effective way of presenting his information. At this point the practitioner has to consider his options. Should he "hit them hard" and arouse strong fear with graphic descriptions of death and danger, or should he use a mild, unfrightening approach and avoid any mention of the serious hazards that may occur if one fails to execute a protective action? Which technique is most effective? If he has read the early study by Janis and Feshbach (1953) he would find support for a mild approach. This study suggests that increasing the vividness of the threat information on dental disease and thereby raising the level of fear decreases the proportion of subjects who follow a program of dental care. If he reads further, he is likely to notice that nearly all subsequent studies show that communications which stimulate higher levels of fear [on issues such as tetanus (Leventhal, Singer and Jones, 1965; Dabbs and Leventhal, 1966), smoking and lung cancer (Janis and Mann, 1965; Leventhal, Watts and Pagano, 1967)] lead to more acceptance of the communicator's recommendations.2 Indeed, he may notice that the number of studies with positive effects, high-fear messages producing more attitude and behavior change than low-fear messages,