Fear appeal effectiveness
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
Still loading...
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
NrAuthorsYearTitleUsable? (see comments)PopulationBehaviourManipulationsQuality threat manipulationQuality efficacy manipulationBehavioral measureQuality behav. measure (0-3)*nManipulation checksComments
2
FROM PREVIOUS REVIEWS
3
#43Chu, G.C. 1966Fear arousal, efficacy, and immanency.1High-school studentsTaking medication against roundwormPresentation by experimenterRob: 2
Gerjo: 3
Rob: 1
Gerjo: 2
Willingness to take drug (medicine)1471 (Table 3)Threat: F[2, 1041] = 22.47, p < .001
Efficacy: not reported
"Moderate" conditions omitted from this review.
4
#50Dabbs, J.M., & Leventhal, H. 1966Effects of varying the recommendations in a fear-arousing communication.0Only reports proportions of participants taking shots for the low/high fear conditions, not for efficacy. This means that it is not possible to examine the interaction and simple effects. Howard Leventhal indicated by mail that the data are no longer available (James Dabbs passed away).
5
#61Duval, T.S. 1999A person-relative-to-event (PrE) approach to negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness.1Home-ownersPreparing for an earthquakeTextRob: 2
Gerjo: 2
Rob: 2
Gerjo: 2
Self-reported preparation for an earthquake2112 (p. 500)
(but 52 in analysis)
Threat: d = 1.47, p < .001, t[74] = 6.40
Efficacy: d = 1.69, p < .001, t[74] = 7.33
6
#82Griffeth, R.W., & Rogers, R.W. 1976Effects of fear-arousing components of driver education on students’ safety attitudes and simulator performance.0No cell means and standard deviations reported, and no possibility to derive this information from the reported information. In addition, a variable that was not manipulated significantly (i.e. failed manipulation check) was nonetheless entered into the Anova? Authors contacted, data is lost.
7
#142Leventhal, H., Jones, S., & Trembly, G. 1966Sex differences in attitude and behavior change under conditions of fear and specific instructions.0.5University studentsTaking tetanus shotsText + photographsRob: 2
Gerjo: 3
Rob: 2
Gerjo: 2
Tetanus shots (objective measure)3418 (p. 395)Threat (tested separate for susceptibility and severity):
Susceptibillity: F[1, 400] = 22.81, p < .01
Severity: F[1, 400] = 13.24, p < .01
Severity 2: F[1, 400] = 19.31, p < .01
Efficacy: not reported
We can only use the main effects, no specific cells reported. Note that the reported Chi-Square tests used Yates' continuity correction.
8
#147Leventhal, H., Singer, R.P., & Jones, S. 1965Effects of fear and specificy of recommendation upon attitudes and behavior.1Senior studentsTaking tetanus shotsText + photographsRob: 2
Gerjo: 3
Rob: 2
Gerjo: 2
Tetanus shots (objective measure)359 (p. 24)Threat ('seriousness of tetanus'): d = 0.82, p < .001, t[139] = 4.79
9
#150Leventhal, H., Watts, J.C., & Pagano, F. 1967Effects of fear and instructions on how to cope with danger.1Yale students (two-thirds freshmen and one-third upperclass-men)SmokingThreat: movie
Efficacy: pamphlet
Rob: 1
Gerjo: 2
Rob: 3
Gerjo: 3
Number of cigarettes smoked3129 (p. 314)Threat (tested separate for vulnerability and susceptibility):
Vulnerability: d = 0.61, p = .003, t[101] = 3.05
Susceptibility: d = 0.46, p = .022, t[101] = 2.32
Calculations based upon means and standard deviation extracted/derived from Figure 1. Means multiplied by -1 so that "higher" means "better" (means are mean number of cigarettes smoked per day). Note that these means appear very high - at time 1 (before the experiment), the average was 65 cigarettes per day!
10
#175Mulilis, J. 1997The PrE model for coping and tornado preparedness: Moderation effects of responsibility.0Western Pennsylvania undergraduate studentsTornado preparednessTextRob: NE
Gerjo: 2
Gerjo: 2Self-reported tornado preparedness at follow-up (1 month)296 (p.1754)Threat (low-high): d = 1.05, p<.001, t[62] = 4.12
Efficacy (low-high): d = 1.52, p<.001, t[62] = 6.00
See #176
11
#176Mulilis, J., & Duval, T.S. 1995Negative threat appeals and earthquake preparedness: A person-relative-to-event (Pre) model of coping with threat.0Both studies used students enrolled in an introduc-
tory psychology course at the University of Southern California
Tornado preparednessTextRob: 2
Gerjo: 2
Rob: 2
Gerjo: 2
Self-reported tornado preparedness at follow-up (1 month)2Study 1: 135
Study 2: 112
Study 1:
Threat: d=1.04, p<.001, t[82]=4.73
Efficacy: d=0.58, p=.01, t[82]=2.64
Study 2:
Threat: d=1.24, p<.001, t[73]=5.30
Efficacy: d=0.98, p<.001, t[72]=4.17
Study 1 reports the means we need, but no variation information; then data are integrated into three conditions: "efficacy < threat", "efficacy = threat", and "efficacy > threat". Only behavior change in the last condition.
12
#177Mulilis, J.P., & Lippa, R. 1990Behavioral change in earthquake preparedness due to negative threat appeals: A test of protection motivation theory.0Did not report statistics that were useful to the current purpose. Only the significant outcomes of a 2x2x2x2 factorial ANOVA were reported: one two-way and two three-way interactions. These significant interactions did not allow the computation of marginal means that would allow more detailed analyses. In addition, the authors examined simple effects for none of the reported interactions, which means that it remains unknown which differences in mean change scores were significant. This means that the reported interaction patterns could not be interpreted.
Richard Lippa indicated that the original data was lost (John-Paul Mulilis passed away).
13
#288Witte, K. 1994Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel response model (EPPM).0.5UndergraduatesCondom useFolder: text and picturesRob: 2
Gerjo: 3
Rob: 2
Gerjo 3
Self-reported condom use at follow-up (6 months)254
(but 126 for manipulation checks; note that 115 people for follow-up reported in article, but 54 in appendices (see comments))
Threat: d = 3.28, p<.001, t[124]=18.32
Efficacy: d = 1.21, p<.001, t[124]=6.72
Correlations for main effects from appendices of Kim's meta-analysis that she mailed.
14
#294Wurtele, S. 1988Increasing women’s calcium intake: The role of health beliefs, intentions, and health value.0Rob: 2
Gerjo: ?
Rob: 2?
Gerjo: ?
No useful data reported - contact author.
15
#295Wurtele, S.K., & Maddux, J.E. 1978Relative contributions of protection motivation theory components in predicting exercise intentions and behavior.0Undergraduate women who exercised less than 3 times a weekExerciseTextSelf-reported change in exercise (decrease, same, increase) at follow-up (2 weeks)2160Severity: d = 1.76, p<.001, t[144]=10.54
Susceptibility: d = 1.36, p<.001, t[144]=8.13
Response efficacy: d=0.83, p<.001, t[144]=4.97
Self-efficacy: d=0.37, p<.05, t[144]=2.21
Paper did not report useful information. Sandy mailed her original dataset - these data were examined. However, it's not possible to reproduce the information in the paper or the thesis (Table 10). The thesis only reports means and SD's for an ordinal variable (exercise change: 1 = reduction, 2 = no change, 3 = increase), and we can't use this to calculate Cohen's d (i.e. no interval level). The data reported in the thesis does contain the 'raw' exercise change variable, which could be used, but there is no way to establish which cell (there are 17 cells) corresponds to which condition (because the means and standard deviations in one of the cells correspond to the data reported in the thesis or the paper). This information can therefore not be used . . . Entered the complete data for 3 cells into SPSS. None of the mean/SD combinations of any of the intention measures correspond to the measures in Tables 5 and 6.
16
FROM QUERIES
17
#317Muthusamy, Nithya; Levine, Timothy R. & Weber, Rene2009Scaring the Already Scared: Some Problems With HIV/AIDS Fear Appeals in Namibia.1Undergraduate students (Namibia)Condom useText + photographsRob: 2
Gerjo: 3
Rob: 2
Gerjo: 3
Self-reported condom use at follow-up (2 weeks)2For manipulations checks (p. 326-327):
Threat: 30
Efficacy: 59
For main study: 218 (p. 327)
Threat: d=1.54, p<.001, t[28]=4.22
Efficacy: d=0.54, p=.044, t[57]=2.06
18
#328Ordoñana, Juan R.; González-Javier, Francisca; Espín-López, Laura; Gómez-Amor, Jesús2009Self-report and psychophysiological responses to fear appeals.1Undergraduate students who had not been vaccinated for the past 8 yearsTetanus vaccinationVideo consisting of pictures and voice-over.Rob: 2
Gerjo: 2
Rob: 1
Gerjo: 3
Self-reported vacciation at follow-up (8 weeks)297 (p. 198)Severity: d=0.96, p<.001, t[91]=4.57
Susceptibility: d=0.69, p<.001, t[91]=3.29
Efficacy: d=0.99, p<.001, t[89]=4.65
19
#334Grala, Christopher & McCauley, Clark1976Counseling truants back to school: Motivation combined with a program for action1Male community center 'regulars' with known truancyPresence at schoolPresentation by experimenterRob: 2
Gerjo: 2
Rob: 2
Gerjo: 3
Dichotomous: 1 = 100% school presence, 0 = <100% presence336No manipulation check reported
20
(16articles)
21
22
Behavioral measure quality: 1 = related/indirect behavior; 2 = self-reported subsequent behavior; 3 = objective subsequent behavior
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Loading...
 
 
 
Inclusions
Previous reviews
Queries
Inclusions (row numbers)