Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory

G.-J.Y. Peters*, R.A.C. Ruiter, G. Kok

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Despite decades of research, consensus regarding the dynamics of fear appeals remains elusive. A meta-analysis was conducted that was designed to resolve this controversy. Publications that were included in previous meta-analyses were re-analysed, and a number of additional publications were located. The inclusion criteria were full factorial orthogonal manipulations of threat and efficacy, and measurement of behaviour as an outcome. Fixed and random effects models were used to compute mean effect size estimates. Meta-analysis of the six studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria clearly showed a significant interaction between threat and efficacy, such that threat only had an effect under high efficacy (d=0.31), and efficacy only had an effect under high threat (d=0.71). Inconsistency in results regarding the effectiveness of threatening communication can likely be attributed to flawed methodology. Proper tests of fear appeal theory yielded the theoretically hypothesised interaction effect. Threatening communication should exclusively be used when pilot studies indicate that an intervention successfully enhances efficacy.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)S8-S31
Number of pages24
JournalHealth Psychology Review
Volume7
Issue numberS1
Early online date19 Jul 2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Keywords

  • fear appeals
  • behaviour change
  • intervention development
  • risk perception
  • perceived risk
  • perceived threat

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Research Output

    • 1 Erratum / corrigendum

    Corrigendum to: Threatening communication

    Peters, G-J., Ruiter, R. & Kok, G., 2013, In : Health Psychology Review. 7, S1, p. S253

    Research output: Contribution to journalErratum / corrigendumAcademic

    Open Access

    Cite this