The DOI matches its Crossref record; 202 of the 203 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 24 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories
Open accessAbstract
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 The meta-analysis included 127 articles (9% unpublished) yielding 248 independent samples (NTotal = 27,372) collected from diverse populations.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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
43 Own result · 25 Own method · 18 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 5 No full text of the sources · 4 Sources not found · 4 Not checked yet · 1 Supported so far
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these results are presented in Appendix A and are consistent with the results based on the combined measure.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Coding of Outcomes (Effect Size Calculation)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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].”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Average Effect Size and Between-Effects Variability
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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]).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, the current meta-analysis used a substantially larger meta-analytic database than prior analyses, thus providing us with more precision to test relevant hypotheses.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > A Message-Behavior-Audience Framework of Fear Appeals
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the entire database (k = 248), 21 samples included more than two experimental groups exposed to varying levels of depicted fear.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Coding of Potential Moderators
plainn = 21- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was also significant heterogeneity among effect sizes Q(247) = 1,287, I2 = 85.11, p < .0001.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Average Effect Size and Between-Effects Variability
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 25
- It may state two separate claims as one. 43
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Briñol & Petty, 2009 source
- Supportedcites Kumkale et al., 2010 source
The Discussion’s ‘Identification, Selection, and Integration of Attitude-Relevant Information’ section states that a message’s source can influence attitudes. The ‘Applied Implications’ section further reports that using a credible source can aid persuasion, particularly when recipients are forming attitudes. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pornpitakpan, 2004 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Moderator Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Coding of Outcomes (Effect Size Calculation)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Average Effect Size and Between-Effects Variability
plaindirectn = 71- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Review and Inclusion Criteria
plainn = 248- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The 248 samples included in the meta-analysis are statistically independent.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The moderate depicted fear groups (total N = 1,626) were not included in other analyses”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Coding of Potential Moderators
plainn = 1,626- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many fear appeals explicitly mention death (89 of the 248 studies in our meta-analysis)”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > The Recommended Behavior > Mentioning death, self-esteem relevance, and time delays
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The meta-analysis included 127 papers (9% unpublished) yielding 248 independent samples (NTotal = 27,372) collected from diverse populations.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Abstract
plainn = 248- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Tests of message content hypotheses · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cronbach’s alpha for the composite measure was .87, indicating that the three types of measures are highly internally consistent.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Coding of Outcomes (Effect Size Calculation)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the number of samples with multiple attitude, intention, and behavior measures was respectively k = 18, k = 24, and k = 12”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Coding of Outcomes (Effect Size Calculation)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Moderator Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of the recommended behavior hypotheses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of the recommended behavior hypotheses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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]).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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]).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of the recommended behavior hypotheses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although most empirical studies simply do not measure participants’ subjective states, such measures could be very informative to test a variety of interesting questions.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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]).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of the recommended behavior hypotheses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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]).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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])”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > A Message-Behavior-Audience Framework of Fear Appeals
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Moderator Tests
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conducted all analyses using random- and fixed-effects analyses. As both types of analyses produced comparable results, we present the random-effects analyses.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Review and Inclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Coding of Potential Moderators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > The Present Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > The Present Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Review and Inclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“whereas messages with high depicted susceptibility positively influenced intentions and behaviors but not attitudes.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > The Content of Fear Appeals > Depicted susceptibility and severity
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites de Hoog et al., 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Average Effect Size and Between-Effects Variability
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, to our knowledge, this is the largest and most valid test of the linear and curvilinear hypotheses to date.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The rank correlation was r = −.02, p = .67. Thus, there is no evidence of retrieval or inclusion bias.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Distribution of Effect Sizes
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Begg & Mazumdar, 1994 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As can be seen in the figure, the distribution appears quite symmetric with smaller variability toward the top of the plot.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Distribution of Effect Sizes
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > The Content of Fear Appeals > Amount of depicted fear
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Witte & Allen, 2000 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Coding of Potential Moderators
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Review and Inclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Specifically, messages with high depicted severity positively influenced attitudes, intentions, and behaviors”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > The Content of Fear Appeals > Depicted susceptibility and severity
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites de Hoog et al., 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Review and Inclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Distribution of Effect Sizes
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wang & Bushman, 1999
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Review and Inclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, the distribution of effect sizes appears to be roughly continuous and normal, which indicates a lack of inclusion bias.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Distribution of Effect Sizes
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Witte & Allen, 2000 source
- Not matchedcites de Hoog et al., 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Peters et al., 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Coding of Potential Moderators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Studies were included if they experimentally manipulated depicted fear across groups.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Methods > Review and Inclusion Criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Limitations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Popova, 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, to test hypotheses related to TMT, studies were coded as either containing the word death or not.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, meta-analyses are a correlational research design, and thus many of the moderator analyses we conducted should be interpreted with this in mind.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Future Directions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > Results > Tests of message content hypotheses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Appealing to fear: A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeal Effectiveness and Theories > General Discussion > Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The 248 samples included in the meta-analysis are statistically independent.
“providing 248 statistically independent samples”
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?
In the citing paper
“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.”
From Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies (2017) · cites this paper as [35]
Citations
Cites
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x · Cited by 50,387
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 18,497 · cited 2×
“…theory (Robertson, 1975; Rothman, Martino, Bedell, Detweiler, & Salovey, 1999), prospect theory (Rothman et al., 1999; Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981), and terror management theory (Goldenberg & Arndt, 2008; Pyszczynski, Greenberg, & Solomon, 1999; Shehryar & Hunt, 2005;…”
BackgroundOperating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-006x.51.3.390 · Cited by 9,098 · cited 3×
“In contrast, late stage individuals are already committed to behavior change and do not require such motivational appeals (DiClemente et al., 1991; Nabi et al., 2008; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska et al., 1992).”
BackgroundIn search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.47.9.1102 · Cited by 8,596
The Transtheoretical Model of Health Behavior Change.
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38 · Cited by 7,782 · cited 2×
“…behaviors can be classified as belonging to an early stage (the model's precontemplation , contemplation, and preparation stages) or a late stage (the model's action and maintenance stages) in the change process (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska & Velicer, 1997).”
BackgroundHistorical Origins of the Health Belief Model
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974) · Health Education Monographs · doi:10.1177/109019817400200403 · Cited by 6,116 · cited 6×
“To produce d for any ORs, we divided the log of the OR by 1.81 (Haddock, Rindskopf, & Shadish, 1998; Hasselblad & Hedges, 1995).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialRethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.1.3 · Cited by 5,758
Handbook of Personality : Theory and Research
Pervin, L. A. (1992) · Cited by 4,543
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,100 of 1,183
Tsai, C. M., & Huang, W. (2022) · doi:10.1145/3535782.3535844
“In the fear appeal theory [7], besides the element of fear, there are two main components: threat and efficacy.”
BackgroundMohammed, A., Desu, A. P., Acheampong, P. R., Mensah, K. A., Osei, F., Yeboah, E. O., Amanor, E., & Owusu‐Dabo, E. (2022) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/daac098 · Cited by 1
Quantitative Meta-Analyses: A Review of Current Practice
Park, S.-Y. (2019) · American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting (AERA) · doi:10.3102/1436798
Hiv Prevention Among University Students In Sudan
Elshiekh, H. F. (2022) · Research Publications (Maastricht University) · doi:10.26481/dis.20221012he
Message framing and self-efficacy. An analysis in social health campaigns in young Spaniards
Fernández-Lores, S., Tejero, N. C., & Hernández, R. F. (2022) · Comunicación y Sociedad · doi:10.32870/cys.v2022.8402
Janssen, L. (2022) · The International Encyclopedia of Health Communication · doi:10.1002/9781119678816.iehc0752
Extended Parallel Process Model
Roberto, A. J. (2022) · The International Encyclopedia of Health Communication · doi:10.1002/9781119678816.iehc0771
الحليم, د. أ. ع., السيد, و. ج., & إبراهيم, م. ج. (2022) · Al-Mağallah Al-Akādīmiyyaẗ Lil-ʿulūm Al-Iğtimāʿiyyaẗ · doi:10.21608/ajss.2023.292637
Beaumont, J., & Cook, N. (2023) · BDJ Team · doi:10.1038/s41407-023-1809-2
Demonstrating and Debating Climate Change
Jankó, F., & Hafenscher, P. (2023) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003195276-24
Gallopel-Morvan, K., Nguyen-Thanh, V., Arwidson, P., et al. (2023) · Presses de l’EHESP eBooks · doi:10.3917/ehesp.gallo.2023.01.0195
Communicating About Healthy Eating
Catellani, P., & Carfora, V. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35070-2_7
Baptista, R., & Belim, C. (2023) · Observatorio (OBS*) · doi:10.15847/obsobs17220232168
Aday, S. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197520536.003.0023
Fear appeals and mortgage protection insurance – a quantitative study
Röhl, S. E. (2023) · Sheffield Hallam University · doi:10.7190/shu-thesis-00531
The Influence of Prevention Message Form on Post Covid-19 Self-Protection Motivation
Kamal, K., & Afdaliza, A. (2023) · Communicare Journal of Communication Studies · doi:10.37535/101010120234
Sa-ngasri, S., & Boonyasiriwat, W. (2021) · Chula Digiverse · doi:10.58837/chula.the.2021.337
The Motivational Role of Threat on Authoritarian Attitudes
Winter, T. J. (2023) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.24201321
Factors influencing illness acceptance in young people with type 1 diabetes
Shelford, A. K., & Mattacola, E. (2023) · Health Psychology Update · doi:10.53841/bpshpu.2023.32.1.7
Myrick, J. G., Chen, J., Jang, E., et al. (2023) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2282833
“Meta-analytic evidence examining fear appeals does support the claim that fear-arousing messages are more persuasive in motivating message-consistent behaviors when efficacy information is also included (Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
Ochoa, D. J. V., Alvarez, E. A. C., & Crespo, H. F. G. (2023) · Anales de la Facultad de Ciencias Médicas (Asunción) · doi:10.18004/anales/2023.056.03.76
Mahdalena, V., Handayani, L., & Uljanatunnisa, U. (2023) · Society · doi:10.33019/society.v11i2.369
“Sixth, fear appeals and other motivations, messages with fear tendencies effectively influence attitudes, intentions, and behaviors (Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
BackgroundWalpole, H., & Wilson, R. S. (2024) · doi:10.1002/9781119742975.ch35
Buyer Beware: Misinformation in the Healthcare Industry – What Can Clinicians Do?
Regulski, M. J., & Stevenson, P. (2024) · World Journal of Case Reports and Clinical Images · doi:10.51521/wjcrci.2024.31-228
“In a 2015 Psychology Bulletin, Tannenbaum explained that messages aiming to generate fear of harm change attitudes, intentions, and behaviors under certain conditions if recipients feel they can avoid the harm (Tannenbaum, 2015).”
BackgroundWalker, L., Grogan, S., Denovan, A., Scholtens, K., McMillan, B., Conner, M. T., Epton, T., Armitage, C. J., & Cordero, M. I. (2024) · International Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12529-024-10285-3
“…if the introduction of reassuring statements induced mild stress, participants could be more likely to be persuaded to change their behaviour [31, 32] due to an increase in stress-induced attentional vigilance (sustained allocation of attention) towards subsequent stop smoking information…”
Eficacia del encuadre en campañas sociales: una cuestión de género
Tejero, N. C., Fernández-Lores, S., & Hernández, R. F. (2024) · Investigaciones Feministas · doi:10.5209/infe.84547
A Public Health Campaign to Increase Awareness of the Risk of Dog Bites in South AustraliaPreprint
Hazel, S. J., & Iankov, I. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4824072
Anwar, N. P., Sitorus, H. J., Tanoyo, M., et al. (2024) · JKOMDIS Jurnal Ilmu Komunikasi Dan Media Sosial · doi:10.47233/jkomdis.v4i2.1692
Lee, E.-J. (2024) · The Research Journal of the Costume Culture · doi:10.29049/rjcc.2024.32.1.1
Negative Customer Engagement and Brand Hate in Users of Extreme Snow-Sports Brands
Iranzo-Barreira, Á., Boluda, I. K., & Mafé, C. R. (2024) · Advances in marketing, customer relationship management, and e-services book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-6813-8.ch005
Hoe een landelijke bewustwordingscampagne over drugs een goed idee kan worden
Hilbink, M., & van Dongen, A. (2024) · TSG - Tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen · doi:10.1007/s12508-024-00440-2
Zhu, G., Gauthreaux, N. A., Evett, S., Morris, C., Faber, E., Weg, M. W. V., Scherer, A. M., & Askelson, N. M. (2024) · Journal of Communications In Healthcare · doi:10.1080/17538068.2024.2408510
“A comprehensive meta-analysis by Tannenbaum et al. [11] demonstrated that fear appeal messages are more effective when they include efficacy statements.”
Examination of a hope- and fear-based message targeting older adults who smoke: A randomized trial
Johnson, A. L., Popova, L., Kaye, J. T., & Mahoney, J. (2024) · Geriatric Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2024.10.010 · Cited by 1
Duong, H. T., & Sirohi, A. (2024) · Communication Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/22041451.2024.2418763
“Meta-analysis of fear appeal effects indicated that messages mentioning an overwhelming amount of deaths can influence risk perception and behaviours (Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
Gutierrez, L., Sanna, C., Sabbagh, M., Nocella, G., Idini, A., Carletti, A., & Frau, F. (2024) · The Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.177670
Message testing intentions to administer naloxone
Wygonik, Q. R., Glassman, T., Na, L., & Tucker‐Gail, K. (2024) · International Journal of Health Promotion and Education · doi:10.1080/14635240.2024.2438962
“…that support the use of fear appeals agree that response efficacy must be high to increase effectiveness (Esrick et al. 2018; Kong et al. 2016; Mays et al. 2015; Mishi, Mushonga, and Anakpo 2024; Peters et al. 2018; Peters, Ruiter, and Kok 2013; Siegenthaler et al. 2021; Tannenbaum et al. 2015).”
The Effectiveness of Education and Fear Appeal to Prevent Spear Phishing Attacks
Alsulami, S., & Dupuis, M. (2024) · Cyber Awareness and Research Symposium (CARS) · doi:10.1109/cars61786.2024.10778693 · Cited by 1
“Many studies have examined fear’s appeals and their influence on attitudes, intentions, and behaviors [12], [40], sometimes with unintended consequences [41], [42].”
InfluentialExistential Approaches to Vaccine Hesitancy: Terror Management Theory
Harvell-Bowman, L. A. (2024) · Risk, systems and decisions · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-74062-6_12
Kraege, V., Dumans-Louis, C., Maglieri, C., Bochatay, S., Durand, M., Garnier, A., Selby, K. J., & von Plessen, C. (2025) · Interactive Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.2196/55636
Yıldız, D., Lucas, C. H., & Davison, A. (2025) · Geoforum · doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2025.104215
Effet des avertissements sanitaires visuels apeurants sur les fumeurs et non-fumeurs burkinabé
Ouedraogo, S. (2024) · Recherches en Sciences de Gestion · doi:10.3917/resg.163.0101
Schönbach, K. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-47059-3_3
Sun, Y., Vidaña-Pérez, D., Xiong, L., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5172709
nawrozi, S., Bahmani, A., Nili, S., & fallahi, A. (2024) · Scientific Journal of Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences · doi:10.61186/sjku.29.2.56
Introducing Health Communication Science to Mental Health Researchers
Quick, B. L., Caban, S., Chung, M., & Yan, J. (2025) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394179909.ch7 · Cited by 1
A Typology of Health Communication Variables Relevant for Mental Health
Romy, R. W., Wu, X., Kim, R. S., & Nan, X. (2025) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394179909.ch6 · Cited by 1
Xu, Y., Lam, W., Yuan, J., Chen, Y., & Liao, Q. (2025) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2025.105944
Supriya, S., Ahsan, A., & Singh, R. (2025) · Journal of Indian Association of Public Health Dentistry · doi:10.4103/jiaphd.jiaphd_256_24
Parsons, J., Grimley, C. E., Clarke, L., & Hillman, S. (2025) · Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1177/13591053251329680
INSTITUTIONAL APPROACHES TO HEALTH CRISES
Getsova, Z. (2025) · PROBLEMS of Infectious and Parasitic Diseases · doi:10.58395/hcm0af59
“Results from an older study on the theory of behavioral change through fear induction indicated that message persuasiveness increases when stronger fear is induced in the recipient, but the motivational effect depends on the accompanying signal of an effective success mechanism [108, 109].”
García, R. P., Vázquez, A. S., & Lanza, A. B. D. R. (2025) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70108 · Cited by 1
The Role of Knowledge Tacitness in Security Threat Avoidance
Tang, X. (2025) · International Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.4018/ijkm.377173
DiMatteo, M. R., Martin, L. R., & Haskard‐Zolnierek, K. B. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197778586.003.0006
Chen, H., Shi, H.-X., Liu, C., & Chiou, W. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-92710-2_14
Adebare, A., & Nash, J. (2025) · Journal of Applied Marketing Theory · doi:10.20429/jamt.2025.120106
Burglary prevention advice letters: a cluster randomised controlled trial in Luton, England
Hodgkinson, W., Assaraf, N., Ariel, B., & Sutherland, A. (2025) · Journal of Crime and Justice · doi:10.1080/0735648x.2025.2512746
“This method directly exploits the fear factor by intensifying the perceived seriousness and susceptibility linked to burglary (Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
Karlsson, E., & Valdimarsdóttir, M. (2025) · Crime Media Culture An International Journal · doi:10.1177/17416590251345702
“Indeed, psychology studies suggest that negative emotions, like anger and fear, are more effective in motivating actions than positive emotions like hope and compassion (Tannenbaum et al., 2015; Witte and Allen, 2000).”
Fear of COVID-19, Physical Activity, and Psychopathology
Seiffer, B., Frei, A. K., Welkerling, J., Studnitz, T., Zeibig, J., Herzog, E., Günak, M. M., Ehring, T. W., Takano, K., Nakagawa, T., et al. (2025) · European Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1027/2512-8442/a000178
Impact of cardiovascular risk visualization on motivation to self-manage young-onset type 2 diabetes
Abraha, M., Senga, J., Vallis, M., Lipscombe, L. L., Yu, C. H. Y., Zenlea, I. S., Xiao, J. M., Barnet, C., Ramachandran, S., Galitz, T., et al. (2025) · Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice · doi:10.1016/j.diabres.2025.112343
Janota, P. Š., Osojnik, J., Hazemali, D., et al. (2025) · doi:10.18690/um.ff.6.2025.16
Behavior Patterns für die Wahrnehmungsphase
Spreer, P. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-48013-4_4
Beaupoil, L., Pacula-Leśniak, B., Kulczycki, T., Pilarczyk, J., & Kuniecki, M. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5380709
The Weaponization of Reporting
Vukasovich, C. A., & Dejanovic‐Vukasovich, T. (2025) · doi:10.1002/9781119246442.ch6
Why using fear to promote COVID-19 vaccination and mask wearing could backfire
Fairchild, A. L., & Bayer, R. (2021) · doi:10.64628/aai.kkjhxtx6a
Decoding Fear in Advertising: A Consumer Response Study on LIC's Insurance CampaignsPreprint
Jain, T., & Gupta, S. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5402183
Agarwal, M., & Khandelwal, U. (2025) · Vision The Journal of Business Perspective · doi:10.1177/09722629251368711
Voluntary Compliance and the COVID-19 Pandemic
Feldman, Y. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009057998.009
Perach, R., Kostyuk, E., Husbands, D., & Bondaronek, P. (2025) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2025.2571596 · Cited by 1
Li, Q., Peng, K., Liu, X., Sun, Z., Guo, Y. Q., & Liu, P. L. (2025) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440251386773
“Existing MBAF literature has illustrated how several audience traits, such as gender and cultural backgrounds (Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
InfluentialReynolds, R. M., & Gaiha, S. M. (2025) · Tobacco Control · doi:10.1136/tc-2025-059467
“43 Theoretically, the effectiveness of messages portraying threats and risks depends on other factors, including audience and message characteristics, 44 as well as the context in which a”
Chen, Y., Liu, H., Zhang, R., et al. (2025) · Tobacco Induced Diseases · doi:10.18332/tid/211477
“Second, respect adolescents’ time and attention constraints by limiting videos to 1–3 minutes while maintaining comprehensive content 16 .”
Out in the dark – a nighttime field survey on young adults’ e-scooter usePreprint
Hagmann, D., Stoll, T., Siebert, F. W., et al. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5660768
Karlsson, H., Slovic, P., Peterson, M. J., & Västfjäll, D. (2025) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/jdm.2025.10017
“…defensive reactions, such as heightened in-group security concerns (Delaney and Slovic, 2019), meta-analytic evidence suggests that fear appeals are generally effective for promoting one-time behaviors, with minimal support for the occurrence of psychological reactance (Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
The Climate-Health Communication Gap: Connecting the Dots to Drive Climate Health Action
Smith, R., Chen, K., Winner, D., & Friedhoff, S. (2025) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2025.2576158
“Research suggests that messages (especially climate-health messages) pairing fear appeals with efficacy statements, calls to action, or calling attention to climate opponents are likely to be more effective in influencing beliefs and behaviors (Kotcher et al., 2021, 2023; Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
Campaner, L. R., & Adriano, T. Q. (2025) · Psychology and Education A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.70838/pemj.480604
Teeli, A. A., & Singh, J. (2025) · Journal of Social Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsocm-07-2025-0225
Youth Framing of Climate Change Through Video Production
Beach, R. W., Smith, B. E., Cirina, D. T., et al. (2025) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80592-409-820251006
On the difficulty in fearing well about climate change
Xin, W. (2025) · Environmental Values · doi:10.1177/09632719251397471
“Response-ef fi cacy concerns whether ‘ performing the recommended actions will result in desirable consequences ’ (Tannenbaum et al., 2015: 1180).”
Asmi, F., Morrison, M., & Parton, K. A. (2025) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2025.102859
Morris, B., Quinton, T. S., & Conner, M. T. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15121637
“It may be argued that affective-based messages more readily convey this more evoca-tive information through the targeting of such emotional responses (Zeelenberg & Beattie, 1997; see Tannenbaum et al., 2015; Di Plinio et al., 2025, for reviews).”
Sohail, F., Raza, S. H., Emenyeonu, C. O., et al. (2025) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-025-06104-z
“PMT demonstrates that fear arousal is signi fi cantly in fl uenced by the perception of risk, which encompasses the severity of the threat, individual vulnerability, and the likelihood of the threat occurring (Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
Myrick, J. G. (2025) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111292144-015
Roope, L. S. J., Tonkin-Crine, S. K., Herd, N. L., Michie, S., Pouwels, K. B., Castro‐Sánchez, E., Sallis, A., Hopkins, S., Robotham, J. V., Crook, D. W., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12177597
Stege, T. A. M., Bolte, J. F. B., Claassen, L., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13632596
Roope, L. S. J., Tonkin-Crine, S. K., Herd, N. L., Michie, S., Pouwels, K. B., Castro‐Sánchez, E., Sallis, A., Hopkins, S., Robotham, J. V., Crook, D. W., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12177591
Stege, T. A. M., Bolte, J. F. B., Claassen, L., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13632593
Roope, L. S. J., Tonkin-Crine, S. K., Herd, N. L., Michie, S., Pouwels, K. B., Castro‐Sánchez, E., Sallis, A., Hopkins, S., Robotham, J. V., Crook, D. W., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12177585
Stege, T. A. M., Bolte, J. F. B., Claassen, L., et al. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.13632599
Roope, L. S. J., Tonkin-Crine, S. K., Herd, N. L., Michie, S., Pouwels, K. B., Castro‐Sánchez, E., Sallis, A., Hopkins, S., Robotham, J. V., Crook, D. W., et al. (2020) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12177576
Strube, M., & Myerson, J. (2021) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
Meislová, M. B., & Dianová, S. (2025) · European Politics and Society · doi:10.1080/23745118.2025.2601978
Kebede, N., Kasaye, M. D., Muche, A., et al. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-26097-3
“In a setting with limited access to healthcare resources, perceptions of severe, life-altering NCDs may not induce a sense of control but rather a state of helplessness and psychological reactance, where the recommended behavior feels futile against an overwhelming threat [25].”
Atashpanjeh, H., Dumaru, P., & Al-Ameen, M. N. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2594746 · Cited by 1
“The study of Tannenbaum et al. (2015) found that fear appeal is most effective when accompanied by clear reasoning, enabling individuals to internalize the rationale behind rules and make informed behavioral decisions.”
Li, W., Tan, X. W., & Li, L. (2025) · IEEE Advanced Information Management, Communicates, Electronic and Automation Control Conference (IMCEC) · doi:10.1109/imcec66174.2025.11331842
“The Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) emphasizes the role of perceived threat and efficacy in determining information acceptance [13], particularly in high-fear health crises [14].”
Adeniji, F. I. P., Mallory, V., Pei, D., Thrasher, J. F., & Popova, L. (2026) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/10901981251414630
“These findings align with prior research showing that message rejection can diminish message effectiveness (Lewis et al., 2010; Tannenbaum et al., 2015), highlighting the importance of crafting messages that reduce messages opposition while increasing messages acceptance (Reynolds-Tylus, 2019).”
Metadata
- 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
- PMC
- PMC5789790
- OpenAlex
- W2238586764
- Semantic Scholar
- 7940c739aafad42be93bddeda83667a658986963
- Cited by
- 1,315
- References
- 203
- Citations by year
- 2026: 148 · 2025: 149 · 2024: 138 · 2023: 124 · 2022: 134 · 2021: 192 · 2020: 203 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 78 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 21
- FWCI
- 5.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- 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 › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
- Keywords
- fear appeals, attitude change, behavioral intention, risk communication, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, message framing
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Behavior, Fear, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Psychological, Persuasive Communication, Risk Factors, Intention
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
