Cited by 1,203Behavioral Health and InterventionsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social Exclusion

Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories

Open access
Tannenbaum, Melanie B., Hepler, Justin, Zimmerman, Rick S., Saul, Lindsey, Jacobs, Samantha, Wilson, Kristina, Albarracín, Dolores·2015·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Fear appeals are a polarizing issue, with proponents confident in their efficacy and opponents confident that they backfire. We present the results of a comprehensive meta-analysis investigating fear appeals' effectiveness for influencing attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. We tested predictions from a large number of theories, the majority of which have never been tested meta-analytically until now. Studies were included if they contained a treatment group exposed to a fear appeal, a valid comparison group, a manipulation of depicted fear, a measure of attitudes, intentions, or behaviors concerning the targeted risk or recommended solution, and adequate statistics to calculate effect sizes. The meta-analysis included 127 articles (9% unpublished) yielding 248 independent samples (NTotal = 27,372) collected from diverse populations. Results showed a positive effect of fear appeals on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors, with the average effect on a composite index being random-effects d = 0.29. Moderation analyses based on prominent fear appeal theories showed that the effectiveness of fear appeals increased when the message included efficacy statements, depicted high susceptibility and severity, recommended one-time only (vs. repeated) behaviors, and targeted audiences that included a larger percentage of female message recipients. Overall, we conclude that (a) fear appeals are effective at positively influencing attitude, intentions, and behaviors; (b) there are very few circumstances under which they are not effective; and (c) there are no identified circumstances under which they backfire and lead to undesirable outcomes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0039729

Cites

201 of 201 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 24 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Analyses conducted separately for attitude, intention, and behavior measures produced results consistent with those from the combined measure.

    “these results are presented in Appendix A and are consistent with the results based on the combined measure.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The average weighted effect size for treatment versus comparison groups was d = 0.29, with a 95% confidence interval of [0.22, 0.35].

    “The average weighted effect size comparing outcomes for treatment to comparison groups was d = 0.29 with a 95% CI of [0.22, 0.35].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Fear appeals were more effective when they included efficacy statements (95% CI [0.31, 0.55]) than when they did not (95% CI [0.13, 0.29]).

    “The results support this hypothesis: Fear appeals were more effective when they included efficacy statements (95% CI: [0.31, 0.55]) than when they did not (95% CI: [0.13, 0.29]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Fear appeal effectiveness is higher when the audience contains a larger proportion of female recipients.

    “Moderation analyses based on prominent fear appeal theories showed that the effectiveness of fear appeals increased when the message included efficacy statements, depicted high susceptibility and severity, recommended one-time only (vs. repeated) behaviors, and targeted audiences that included a larger percentage of female message recipients.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Fear appeal effectiveness is higher when the message recommends a one-time behavior rather than a repeated behavior.

    “Moderation analyses based on prominent fear appeal theories showed that the effectiveness of fear appeals increased when the message included efficacy statements, depicted high susceptibility and severity, recommended one-time only (vs. repeated) behaviors, and targeted audiences that included a larger percentage of female message recipients.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 25
  • May combine two claims. 43
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Based on a well-established body of literature in persuasion, aspects of a message's source can influence the persuasiveness of the message.

    “based on a well-established body of literature in persuasion demonstrating that aspects of a message’s source can influence the persuasiveness of the message (Briñol & Petty, 2009; Kumkale et al., 2010; Pornpitakpan, 2004; Wilson & Sherrell, 1993), the source of a fear appeal communication should be an important moderator for fear appeal effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Briñol & Petty, 2009 source
    • cites Kumkale et al., 2010 source
    • cites Pornpitakpan, 2004 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    None of the methodological factors moderated fear appeal effectiveness, as the 95% confidence intervals for all levels of all factors overlapped.

    “As can be seen in Table 4, none of these methodological factors moderated fear appeal effectiveness – within each factor, 95% CIs for each factor level overlap for all levels of all factors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Most samples (k = 170) included only one type of dependent measure, while some included two types (k = 61) or all three (k = 17).

    “The majority of samples (k = 170) included only one type of dependent measure (attitudes, intentions, or behaviors), but some samples included two types (k = 61) or all three (k = 17).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Across 71 samples with manipulation checks, fear appeals successfully induced experienced fear, with treatment groups reporting more fear than comparison groups, d = 1.00, 95% CI [0.83, 1.18], Q(70) = 697, I2 = 90.67, p < .0001.

    “Based on the 71 samples that included such manipulation checks, fear appeals were generally successful at inducing experienced fear, such that treatment groups reported more fear than comparison groups, d = 1.00 (95% CI: [0.83, 1.18]), Q(70) = 697, I2 = 90.67, p < .0001.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The meta-analysis included 127 reports out of 430 considered, yielding 248 statistically independent samples with a combined total of 27,372 participants in treatment and comparison groups.

    “Of the 430 reports considered for inclusion in this meta-analysis, 127 met our inclusion criteria (9% unpublished), providing 248 statistically independent samples with a total N of 27,372 participants in the treatment and comparison groups combined.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 248 samples included in the meta-analysis are statistically independent.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The moderate depicted fear groups had a total of 1,626 participants and were excluded from other analyses.

    “The moderate depicted fear groups (total N = 1,626) were not included in other analyses”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Many fear appeals mention death; 89 of the 248 studies in the meta-analysis did so.

    “Many fear appeals explicitly mention death (89 of the 248 studies in our meta-analysis)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fear appeals produce a positive average effect on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors, with a random-effects composite effect size of d = 0.29.

    “Results showed a positive effect of fear appeals on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors, with the average effect on a composite index being random-effects d¯ = 0.29.”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “Overall, we conclude that (a) fear appeals are effective at positively influencing attitude, intentions, and behaviors”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The meta-analysis drew on 127 papers, 9% unpublished, 248 independent samples, and 27,372 total participants from diverse populations.

    “The meta-analysis included 127 papers (9% unpublished) yielding 248 independent samples (NTotal = 27,372) collected from diverse populations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the meta-analysis, the average weighted effect size comparing groups exposed to moderate versus high depicted fear was d = −0.05 (95% CI [−0.34, 0.24]), which was not statistically significant.

    “The combined effect size was d = −0.05 with a 95% CI of [−0.34, 0.24] and Q(20) = 154 (I2 = 92.89, p < .0001).”
    • Also stated in: § Tests of message content hypotheses · plain
      “Therefore, outcomes did not differ for groups exposed to moderate versus high depicted fear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The composite measure combining attitudes, intentions, and behaviors had a Cronbach's alpha of .87, indicating high internal consistency.

    “Cronbach’s alpha for the composite measure was .87, indicating that the three types of measures are highly internally consistent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The number of samples with multiple measures of the same outcome type was 18 for attitudes, 24 for intentions, and 12 for behaviors.

    “the number of samples with multiple attitude, intention, and behavior measures was respectively k = 18, k = 24, and k = 12”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Separate meta-regressions found no relationship between fear appeal effectiveness and publication year (b = −0.0029, p = .18), average age of sample (b = −0.0046, p = .23), or sample size (b = 0.0000, p = .91).

    “Separate meta-regressions for each of these three variables revealed that none were related to fear appeal effectiveness: b = −0.0029 (SE = 0.0022, p = .18, 95% CI: [−0.0072, 0.0013]), b = −0.0046 (SE = 0.0039, p = .23, 95% CI: [−0.0122, 0.0030]), and b = 0.0000 (SE = 0.0002, p = .91, 95% CI: [−0.0003, 0.0003]), respectively for publication year, average age of sample, and sample size.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fear appeals were effective for both one-time and repeated recommended behaviors, but more effective for one-time behaviors.

    “However, it is worth noting that fear appeals were effective for both types of recommended behaviors, and they were simply more effective for one-time behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fear appeals were equally effective when they mentioned death and recommended a self-esteem hindering behavior (95% CI [−0.41, 0.18]), did not mention death and recommended a self-esteem hindering behavior (95% CI [0.00, 0.96]), mentioned death and recommended a self-esteem enhancing behavior (95% CI [0.11, 0.67]), or did not mention death and recommended a self-esteem enhancing behavior (95% CI [

    “The results did not support these predictions, as fear appeals were equally effective when they mentioned death and recommended a self-esteem hindering behavior (95% CI: [−0.41, 0.18]), did not mention death and recommended a self-esteem hindering behavior (95% CI: [0.00, 0.96]), mentioned death and recommended a self-esteem enhancing behavior (95% CI: [0.11, 0.67]), or did not mention death and”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fear appeals high on both depicted severity and depicted susceptibility had positive effects for attitudes (95% CI [0.05, 0.38]), intentions (95% CI [0.23, 0.47]), and behaviors (95% CI [0.24, 0.63]).

    “The 95% CIs confirmed this prediction and indicated that fear appeals high on both moderators had positive effects for attitudes (95% CI: [0.05, 0.38]), intentions (95% CI: [0.23, 0.47]), and behaviors (95% CI: [0.24, 0.63]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When fear appeals mentioned death, they were equally effective for outcomes that occurred the same day (95% CI [0.04, 0.27]), between one and fourteen days after exposure (95% CI [0.21, 1.37]), or more than fourteen days later (95% CI [0.19, 0.51]).

    “When fear appeals mentioned death, they were equally effective for outcomes that occurred the same day (95% CI: [0.04, 0.27]), between one and fourteen days after fear appeal exposure (95% CI: [0.21, 1.37]), or more than fourteen days later (95% CI: [0.19, 0.51]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    The paucity of existing research addressing source characteristics and subjective experience led the authors to not include these as aspects of the current review framework.

    “The paucity of existing research addressing source characteristics and subjective experience led us to not include these as aspects of the current review framework, but they would be welcome additions in the future.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingreasoning

    Organizing the existing literature under the framework highlights the relative dearth of research addressing behavior and audience aspects relative to the message aspect.

    “As mentioned, organizing the existing literature under this framework highlights the relative dearth of research addressing the behavior and audience aspects of the model relative to the message aspect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    Most empirical studies do not measure participants' subjective states.

    “Although most empirical studies simply do not measure participants’ subjective states, such measures could be very informative to test a variety of interesting questions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    When fear appeals did not mention death, they were equally effective for outcomes that occurred the same day (95% CI [0.25, 0.44]), between one and fourteen days after exposure (95% CI [−0.29, 0.33]), or more than fourteen days later (95% CI [0.03, 0.88]).

    “Similarly, when fear appeals did not mention death, they were equally effective for outcomes that occurred the same day (95% CI: [0.25, 0.44]), between one and fourteen days after fear appeal exposure (95% CI: [−0.29, 0.33]), or more than fourteen days later (95% CI: [0.03, 0.88]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fear appeals that were only high in depicted susceptibility had positive effects for intentions (95% CI [0.15, 0.59]) and behaviors (95% CI [0.01, 0.88]) but not attitudes (95% CI [−0.51, 1.47]).

    “The 95% CIs indicated that fear appeals that were only high in depicted susceptibility had positive effects for intentions (95% CI: [0.15, 0.59]) and behaviors (95% CI: [0.01, 0.88]) but not attitudes (95% CI: [−0.51, 1.47]).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    A number of the hypotheses that were substantiated are relatively agnostic concerning mechanisms.

    “A number of the hypotheses that we substantiated are relatively agnostic concerning mechanisms, and this is a serious gap in the current fear appeal literature.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Many fear appeals are delivered as public service announcements, so there is relatively little variation across existing studies on this dimension.

    “Further, many fear appeals are delivered in the form of public service announcements, and thus there is relatively little variation across existing studies on this dimension.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Fear appeals that were only high in depicted severity had positive effects for attitudes (95% CI [0.06, 0.37]) and intentions (95% CI [0.20, 0.39]) but not behaviors (95% CI [−0.08, 0.42]).

    “The 95% CIs indicated that fear appeals that were only high in depicted severity had positive effects for attitudes (95% CI: [0.06, 0.37]) and intentions (95% CI: [0.20, 0.39]) but not behaviors (95% CI: [−0.08, 0.42])”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    Prior research on fear appeals has strongly focused on the message's content, and prior meta-analyses all addressed message content while overlooking recommended behavior and audience.

    “Specifically, the bulk of prior research on fear appeals has investigated questions about the message’s content – indeed, of the prior meta-analyses on fear appeals, all of them addressed questions related to the message’s content while overlooking questions related to the recommended behavior and audience.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Moderated meta-regressions for all moderator variables produced results identical to the 95% confidence interval analyses.

    “We also conducted moderated meta-regressions to analyze all moderator variables; the results were the same as the 95% CI analyses and are thus not presented here.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Random-effects and fixed-effects analyses yielded comparable results, and the random-effects results are reported.

    “We conducted all analyses using random- and fixed-effects analyses. As both types of analyses produced comparable results, we present the random-effects analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    When multiple comparison groups existed, the highest depicted fear condition was compared with the lowest, prioritizing no-message, neutral-message, then low-fear groups.

    “When a study included more than one potential comparison groups, we opted to compare the highest depicted fear condition with the lowest depicted fear condition, prioritizing them in the following order: No message comparison group, neutral message comparison group, and low depicted fear comparison group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The coding scheme for stage of change was designed to be conservative, aiming to include the maximum number of reports while avoiding misclassifications.

    “As most studies did not specifically measure this variable, we designed a conservative coding scheme to ensure we could include the maximum number of reports in this analysis while avoiding misclassifications.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    To ensure the test concerned high versus moderate depicted fear, only studies with at least three levels of depicted fear were included.

    “Specifically, to ensure that the test concerned high depicted fear versus moderate depicted fear, we only included studies with at least three levels of depicted fear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The present research is the first meta-analytic test of nine of the 16 hypotheses and the first meta-analytic test of any behavior- or audience-related hypotheses.

    “Thus, the present research represents the first meta-analytic test for nine of the 16 hypotheses and the first meta-analytic test for any hypotheses related to the behavior and audience aspects of our framework.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Of the 16 fear appeal hypotheses discussed, only seven had been tested in prior meta-analyses, all within the message aspect of the framework.

    “Of the 16 fear appeal hypotheses discussed, only seven have been tested in prior meta-analyses, and all of them fall under the message aspect of our framework (Table 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    For practitioners, once a message depicts moderate fear, there is no value in depicting additional fear, but depicting additional fear will not lead to negative effects.

    “This finding may have implications for practitioners using fear appeals - i.e., once a message depicts moderate fear, there is no value in depicting additional fear, but depicting additional fear will not lead to negative effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Included studies measured attitudes, intentions, or behaviors in both treatment and comparison groups.

    “Studies were included if they measured one or more of the following variables as an outcome in both the treatment and comparison groups: Attitudes, intentions, or behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A previous meta-analysis found that messages high in depicted susceptibility improved intentions and behaviors but not attitudes.

    “whereas messages with high depicted susceptibility positively influenced intentions and behaviors but not attitudes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites de Hoog et al., 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Fear appeals have a significant positive effect on outcomes, with treatment groups showing attitudes, intentions, and behaviors more aligned with the advocated position than comparison groups.

    “Therefore, fear appeals have a significant and positive effect on outcomes. That is, relative to participants in comparison groups, participants in treatment groups (i.e., those exposed to relatively high levels of depicted fear) had attitudes, intentions, and behaviors that were more in line with the position advocated by the fear appeal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest and most valid test of the linear and curvilinear hypotheses to date.

    “However, to our knowledge, this is the largest and most valid test of the linear and curvilinear hypotheses to date.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Begg and Mazumdar's rank correlation test yielded r = −.02, p = .67, providing no evidence of retrieval or inclusion bias.

    “The rank correlation was r = −.02, p = .67. Thus, there is no evidence of retrieval or inclusion bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Begg & Mazumdar, 1994 source
  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    The funnel plot showed a symmetric distribution of effect sizes with smaller variability toward the top, indicating no retrieval or inclusion bias.

    “As can be seen in the figure, the distribution appears quite symmetric with smaller variability toward the top of the plot.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The results support the weak efficacy hypothesis and disconfirm the strong efficacy hypothesis; fear appeals are effective with or without efficacy statements, but inclusion of efficacy statements is associated with increased effectiveness.

    “The results clearly support the weak efficacy hypothesis and disconfirm the strong efficacy hypothesis. Thus, fear appeals are effective with or without efficacy statements, but the inclusion of efficacy statements is associated with increased effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Existing data have consistently supported the linear model of fear appeals but not the curvilinear model.

    “The linear and curvilinear models have been tested in prior meta-analyses, and the linear model has consistently been supported by existing data, whereas the curvilinear model has not (e.g., Witte & Allen, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Witte & Allen, 2000 source
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Coding messages as non-death unless the word death was explicitly mentioned allowed for a more stringent test of terror management theory hypotheses and avoided confounding death messages with more severe topics.

    “This decision allowed for a more stringent test of TMT hypotheses, and provided an even distribution of death versus non-death conditions, which avoids the potential confound of death messages always being about more severe topics than non-death messages.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Included studies had an experimental design with a fear-appeal treatment group and a comparison group.

    “Studies were included if they contained an experimental research design in which a treatment group was exposed to a message designed to induce fear (i.e., a fear appeal).Studies were included if they contained a comparison group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    A previous meta-analysis found that messages high in depicted severity improved attitudes, intentions, and behaviors.

    “Specifically, messages with high depicted severity positively influenced attitudes, intentions, and behaviors”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites de Hoog et al., 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The reported effects represent relatively high depicted fear messages compared with relatively lower depicted fear conditions, including no fear.

    “Overall, all results should be interpreted as the effect of exposure to messages designed to depict relatively high levels of fear compared to conditions designed to depict relatively lower levels of fear (including no fear).5”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The normal quantile plot showed effect sizes following a straight line and generally falling within the 95% confidence interval of the normality line, indicating no evidence of retrieval or inclusion bias.

    “As can be seen from Figure 3, the effect sizes followed a straight line and generally fell within the 95% confidence interval of the normality line, and thus there is no evidence of retrieval or inclusion bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wang & Bushman, 1999

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Included studies provided adequate statistics to calculate effect sizes.

    “Studies were excluded if they did not contain appropriate statistics (e.g., F ratios, means and standard deviations, frequencies, or exact p values) for calculating an effect size representing the difference of outcomes for treatment versus comparison groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The distribution of effect sizes appeared roughly continuous and normal, indicating a lack of inclusion bias.

    “Further, the distribution of effect sizes appears to be roughly continuous and normal, which indicates a lack of inclusion bias.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prior meta-analyses of fear appeals have reported positive effects on some outcomes, null effects, and negative effects.

    “Although some meta-analytic examinations have found positive effects of fear appeals on some outcomes (Witte & Allen, 2000), others have found null effects (de Hoog et al., 2007) or even negative effects (Peters et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Witte & Allen, 2000 source
    • cites de Hoog et al., 2007

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Peters et al., 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Intercoder reliability was good, with categorical variables averaging κ = .93 and continuous variables averaging r = .92.

    “Agreement for all variables was good: Categorical variables had average κ = .93 (SD = .06, minimum = .80), and continuous variables had average r = .92 (SD = .12, minimum = .73).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Included studies experimentally manipulated depicted fear across groups.

    “Studies were included if they experimentally manipulated depicted fear across groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Drawing on the distinction between fear appeals and fear, the subjective experience of the message recipient should be an important aspect of fear appeal communications.

    “Second, drawing on our previous distinction between fear appeals and fear, the subjective experience of the message recipient should be an important aspect of fear appeal communications.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The lack of subjective fear measures makes it difficult for researchers interested in the effects of fear (rather than fear appeals) to investigate relevant hypotheses meta-analytically.

    “Finally, the lack of subjective fear measures makes it difficult for researchers interested in the effects of fear (rather than fear appeals) to investigate relevant hypotheses meta-analytically.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The source of a fear appeal communication should be an important moderator for fear appeal effectiveness.

    “based on a well-established body of literature in persuasion demonstrating that aspects of a message’s source can influence the persuasiveness of the message (Briñol & Petty, 2009; Kumkale et al., 2010; Pornpitakpan, 2004; Wilson & Sherrell, 1993), the source of a fear appeal communication should be an important moderator for fear appeal effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Fear appeals consistently work, and the meta-analysis identified various factors that can enhance their effectiveness.

    “Rather, fear appeals consistently work, and through our meta-analysis we were able to identify various factors that can enhance their effectiveness to make them work even better.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The updated review is consistent with conclusions from prior reviews that mechanisms are often under-studied and need additional research.

    “Although some of the theories investigated do discuss mechanism to some degree (e.g., EPPM; Witte, 1992), our updated review of the literature is consistent with conclusions from prior reviews that these mechanisms are often under-studied and are in need of additional research (e.g., Popova, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Popova, 2012 source
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    To test TMT hypotheses, studies were coded as either containing the word death or not.

    “Specifically, to test hypotheses related to TMT, studies were coded as either containing the word death or not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Meta-analyses are a correlational research design, so many moderator analyses should be interpreted with this in mind.

    “However, meta-analyses are a correlational research design, and thus many of the moderator analyses we conducted should be interpreted with this in mind.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Some studies did not include full texts for fear appeal messages, so it is possible that some messages contained the word death but were coded as not containing it.

    “However, some studies did not include full texts for fear appeal messages, and thus it is possible that some messages did contain the word death but were nonetheless coded as not containing this word (however, studies were only coded as containing the word death if a portion of the message’s text was available that showed this word).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The present meta-analysis only included experimental studies that compared treatment and comparison groups, so internal validity is good when considering the effects of relatively high versus low depicted fear.

    “The present meta-analysis only included experimental studies that compared treatment and comparison groups, and thus internal validity is good when considering the effects of relatively high versus low depicted fear.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    When testing all three hypotheses, fear appeals generally had positive effects on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors when they were high in depicted severity and/or susceptibility.

    “Thus, when testing all three hypotheses, fear appeals generally had positive effects on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors when they were high in depicted severity and/or susceptibility.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The present results concern fear appeals rather than fear; the meta-analysis compared groups exposed to more or less fear-inducing content, not people who were subjectively afraid versus unafraid.

    “First, as discussed in the introduction, the present results concern fear appeals rather than fear. That is, our meta-analysis did not compare people who were subjectively afraid to people who were subjectively unafraid, but rather we compared groups that were exposed to more or less fear inducing content.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
63 of 63
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 248 samples included in the meta-analysis are statistically independent.

    “providing 248 statistically independent samples”
1 of 1

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?

  • Fear appeals are particularly effective at positively influencing attitudes, intentions, and behaviour under specific circumstances.

    “Results from a comprehensive meta-analysis by Tannenbaum et al. [35] showed that fear appeals are particularly effective at positively influencing attitudes, intentions, and behaviour under specific circumstances.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 203 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., & Albarracín, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
  • University of Missouri–St. Louis (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2015-11
Volume
141
Issue
6
Pages
1178-1204
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2238586764
Cited by
1,203
References
203
Citations by year
2026: 104 · 2025: 117 · 2024: 124 · 2023: 115 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 188 · 2020: 195 · 2019: 71 · 2018: 73 · 2017: 44 · 2016: 20 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
  • Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Sponsor name not included (R01 MH094241, R01 NR08325, and R56 AI114501)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
Keywords
fear appeals, attitude change, behavioral intention, risk communication, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, message framing
MeSH terms
Attitude, Behavior, Fear, Female, Humans

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-09-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-09-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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