Cited by 136HIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsMedia Influence and HealthBehavioral Health and Interventions

Nature, decay, and spiraling of the effects of fear-inducing arguments and HIV counseling and testing: A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term outcomes of HIV-prevention interventions.

Open access
Earl, Allison, Albarracín, Dolores·2007·Health Psychology

Abstract

Objective To examine the long-term efficacy of both fear-inducing arguments and HIV counseling and testing at encouraging and maintaining knowledge about HIV transmission and prevention, as well as condom use. Design Analyses were conducted with a sample of 150 treatment groups and 34 controls and included measures of change at an immediate follow-up and a delayed follow-up. Main outcome measures The main outcome measures were perceived risk of HIV infection, knowledge about HIV, and condom use. Results Results indicated that receiving fear-inducing arguments increased perceptions of risk at the immediate follow-up but decreased knowledge and condom use, whereas resolving fear via HIV counseling and testing decreased perceptions of risk and increased knowledge and condom use at both the immediate and delayed follow-ups. The effects on perceived risk [corrected] decreased over time, but the effects on knowledge [corrected] condom use became more pronounced. Conclusion Inducing fear is not an effective way to promote HIV-relevant learning or condom use either immediately following the intervention or later on. However, HIV counseling and testing can provide an outlet for HIV-related anxiety and, subsequently, gains in both knowledge and behavior change immediately and longitudinally.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.26.4.496

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Every earlier meta-analysis tested only theories about the message component of the framework.

    “Specifically, each prior meta-analysis has only tested theories relevant to the message portion of our framework, and thus was only able to address a limited set of questions pertaining to fear appeal effectiveness”

    From Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories (2015) · cites this paper as Earl & Albarracin, 2007

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 47 · Cited by 136

Authors
Earl, A., & Albarracín, D.
Affiliations
University of Florida (US)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2007
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
496-506
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W1972034843
Cited by
136
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
FWCI
0.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (K01-MH01861)
  • National Institutes of Health (R03-MH58073; R01-NR08325)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
HIV counseling and testing, HIV prevention interventions, HIV risk perception, HIV/AIDS knowledge, condom use, HIV transmission knowledge
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Behavior Therapy, Contraception Behavior, Counseling, Fear, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Education, Health Promotion, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Models, Psychological, Risk Factors, Risk-Taking, HIV Infections, Treatment Outcome, Condoms, Safe Sex

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review