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 The meta-analysis included 127 articles (9% unpublished) yielding 248 independent samples (NTotal = 27,372) collected from diverse populations.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 1,101–1,183 of 1,183
Nouri, I., Ibrahim, S., Zorgati, H., & Bouzaabia, R. (2026) · Management of Environmental Quality An International Journal · doi:10.1108/meq-06-2025-0462
Luo, C., Lu, N., & Zhang, C. (2026) · Psychology Health & Medicine · doi:10.1080/13548506.2026.2625436
Fear and Favoritism in the Time of COVID-19
Han, B., Ho, B., Rhee, I., & Tabakis, C. (2026) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-025-10114-7
Alternatives à la cigarette et changement de comportement des fumeurs : actualités et perspectives
Palazzolo, J. (2026) · Annales Médico-psychologiques revue psychiatrique · doi:10.1016/j.amp.2026.01.001
Bilandzić, H., Evans, S., & Solymosi, K. (2025) · European Review · doi:10.1017/s1062798725100574
“(Torrella 2024) Communication Goals for Healthy and Sustainable Food Choices A meta-analysis by Tannenbaum et al .”
Fear motivates and dread stalls: the role of emotions in climate support
Gradidge, S., Harvey, A. J., Gibson, N., Keyes, H., Knuppel, A., McKendrick, E., Ownsworth, R., & Zawisza, M. J. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1667470
“Thus, the current study suggests fear intensity may inform climate policy support, aligning with some research (e.g., Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
Wu, Z., Gao, S., Deng, J., & Yu, Q. (2026) · International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/10803548.2026.2615566
“PMT originated from research on fear appeals [25].”
Ajay, S., Lakshmi, S., Jain, V., Spoorthy, M. S., Malathesh, B. C., & Tikka, S. K. (2026) · Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1177/02537176261422286
“7 The concept of fear appeal communications (e.g., videotape about smoking hazards) and the use of PFI (e.g., bio - chemical tests of the individuals) have been tried separately with improved effectiveness.”
Repeated exposure to immersive virtual reality: a lever for biodiversity conservation?
Nouri, I., & Bouzaabia, R. (2026) · Technological Sustainability · doi:10.1108/techs-10-2025-0212
D’Amico, L., Silva‐Santisteban, A., Perez‐Brumer, A., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Language and Culture · doi:10.1075/ijolc.24078.dam
Fritze, M. P., Marchand, A., Hennig‐Thurau, T., Feiereisen, S., & Mitchell, V. (2026) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2026.03.005
The Impact of Emotional Induction by Robot Salespersons on Consumers’ Purchase Intention
Chen, N., Liao, F., & Yang, H. (2026) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2026.2641705
Personal Financial Information Presentation and Consumer Spending
Levi, Y. (2026) · Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis · doi:10.1017/s0022109026102749
The effects of fear in the travel decision process: an integrated theoretical approach
Line, N. D., Jones, R. P., & Park, H. (2026) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights · doi:10.1108/jhti-08-2025-0987
Karachalios, I., Tantaroudas, N. D., Steinhauser, J., et al. (2026) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.21985.1
Guo, R.-L., & Sun, Y. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1786916
“However, such approaches can provoke psychological resistance and avoidance, limiting their long-term effectiveness (37).”
Ma, L., Fang, G., & Liu, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2026.1790676
Psychologische Methoden der Ernährungskommunikation
Kröller, K. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-72399-9_19
Davis, R. E., Fang, D., White, C. M., Jáuregui, A., Contreras‐Manzano, A., Quevedo, K. L., Orozco, I. G., Arellano‐Gómez, L. P., Hammond, D. G., & Thrasher, J. F. (2026) · International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science · doi:10.1016/j.ijgfs.2026.101498
“These results were consistent with both theoretical expectations and empirical data indicating that fear of an outcome can promote health behaviors to reduce the likelihood that the feared outcome will occur (Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
From procedures to peril : towards risk transparency in information privacy for users
Ebert, N., Fischer‐Hübner, S., Human, S., et al. (2026) · Zürcher Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften digital collection (Zurich University of Applied Sciences) · doi:10.21256/zhaw-36331
Cracking the code: unveiling e-cheating trends among tertiary education students
Jannat, T., Ullah, H., Hosen, M., Omar, N. A., Arefin, S., & Hazelton, J. (2025) · Tertiary Education and Management · doi:10.1007/s11233-025-09159-4 · Cited by 1
Guo, Z., & Chung, C. (2026) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2026.2656475
Chang, B., Liu, R., & Huang, Y. C. (2026) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2026.2658045
Burstyn, I., & Huynh, T. (2026) · Global Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.gloepi.2026.100262
“Empirical evidence seems to support that fear appeal can be used to promote high efficacy measures [9] but some argue that it backfires if the preventive measures are not perceived as efficacious [10].”
Spriet, A., Weijters, B., & Wauters, E. (2026) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2026.102580
Karachalios, I., Tantaroudas, N. D., Steinhauser, J., et al. (2026) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.21985.2
On the Impact of Chronic Message Fatigue on Informational and Behavioral Outcomes
Li, S., & Shen, L. (2026) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2026.2668012
Tögel, J., & Kuhbandner, C. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0347772
“With regard to public health practice, the present results highlight the need for careful reconsideration of fear-based approaches [31].”
Climate creativity for action: Conceptual development and the catalytic effect of hope
Spence, A., & Burge, J. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.103075 · Cited by 1
Zhang, X., Chen, L., Cao, P., & Ji, X. (2026) · Management Decision · doi:10.1108/md-04-2025-1112
Youth Perspectives on the Climate Crisis: Motivation and Action Pathways
Kramer, A., van de Wetering, J., van de Groep, S., Brinke, L. T., Toenders, Y. J., Green, K. H., & Crone, E. A. (2026) · Developmental Science · doi:10.1111/desc.70217
Lillie, H. M., Vega, A. S., Liao, Y., Adams, D. R., & Jensen, J. D. (2026) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2026.2673055
“The health messaging field has extensively studied the equivalent of the association between felt pain intensity and quality of life (e.g., the association between the intensity of audience fear and intentions/behaviors; Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
Lim, S. R., Xin, X., Koh, G. C. H., Thumboo, J., & Liew, T. M. (2026) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/79386
“…receiving positive case-finding results, carefully designed result letters may serve as a behavioral nudge, drawing on psychological and behavioral science principles, such as nudges [41-43] and loss-framed messaging that emphasizes the negative consequences of delaying medical follow-up [44].”
Fear and Shame: Underpinnings of Women’s Oppression
Pokharel, S. D. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-15667-9_18
Langton, L. L., DeLiema, M., Brannock, D., Preble, E. A., Southwell, B. G., & Proctor, A. (2026) · Journal of Consumer Affairs · doi:10.1111/joca.70059
Chung, U. C., & Ham, C.-D. (2026) · Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising · doi:10.1080/10641734.2026.2670641
Lau, S. S. S., Fong, J. W. L., Lawrance, E., Chui, A. W. L., Zhang, W., Lin, S., Yıldız, B., & Zsido, A. N. (2026) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2026.103179 · Cited by 1
Li, T. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1829692
“In this conceptualization, fear refers to the level of threat depicted within the message rather than the audience’s internal state (Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
Osborne, A., Brown, R. D., & Sillence, E. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/85788
“Meta-analytic work on fear appeals shows that effective behavior change is more likely when messages that elicit fear or alarm are accompanied by clear information about how best to respond [55,56].”
Contreras‐Manzano, A., Alsallum, S., Davis, R. E., Vanderlee, L., Jáuregui, A., White, C. M., Drolet-Labelle, V., Frongillo, E. A., Lázaro, L., Barquera, S., et al. (2026) · Preventing Chronic Disease · doi:10.5888/pcd23.250422
Emotional reactions to climate change predict climate-friendly outcomes in 63 cross-country samples
Spampatti, T., & Doell, K. C. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.103111 · Cited by 3
The impact of fear appeals on individuals’ climate change attitudes and behaviors: A meta-analysis
Conteh, Y., & Miller, L. C. (2026) · Journal of Environmental Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2026.103110
Shaping Suffering, Shaping Worldhood: Suffering as an Affective Attunement and its Social Role
Roa, A. M. (2026) · Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology · doi:10.1080/00071773.2026.2688223
“…the electorate or conveying messages and increasing participation (Valentino et al. 2011; Van der Velden & Rebasso 2021), outperforming good news (Soroka, 2006): the current political polarization is owed in no small part to the strategy of fomenting negative emotions (Tannenbaum et al. 2015).”
Forging emotional brand attachment: the role of fear arousal
Li, Y. Y., & Voss, K. (2026) · European Journal of Marketing · doi:10.1108/ejm-01-2023-0011
Jankowski, E., Ennis, A. C., Turk, G., et al. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/89822
“This finding was surprising; while fear appeals have commonly been used in tobacco public education campaigns and found to be effective [45, 46], contemporary studies suggest that youths and young adults are skeptical of these tactics [47].”
Maccaro, J. J., Marting, P. R., & Baer, B. (2026) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2026.1794106
Allida, S. M., Maneze, D., Mulugeta, H., et al. (2026) · Global Heart · doi:10.5334/gh.1572
Ultrasonic pest control in domestic settings: evidence, efficacy, and limitations
Dmello, D. A., Guru, B. R., & Acharya, S. (2026) · International Journal of Sustainable Engineering · doi:10.1080/19397038.2026.2696677
Yang, Q., & Sun, Y. (2026) · Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising · doi:10.1080/10641734.2026.2693269
Russo, S., Frizzo, M., & Wild, K. (2026) · Media War & Conflict · doi:10.1177/17506352261462749
Vapor Tales: The Effects of Narrative Fear Appeal on Vaping Cessation Among American Young Adults
Pei, J., Watts, J., & Geana, M. (2026) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2026.2703684
Fear, war, and algorithms: the limits of regulating AI-generated campaign speech in Hungary
Detrekoi, Z. (2026) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2026.1864468
Logical consistency as a foundation for emotional persuasion by AI
Tsumura, T., & Terada, K. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100363
StreetArt4Sustainability dataset: Mapping aesthetic emotions to street art
Arriaga, P., & Buchanan, E. M. (2026) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-026-03119-5
“These emotions appear to reflect an affective system oriented toward social concern and moral agency in response to the artworks’ critical messages (Batson et al., 2007; Iyer et al., 2007; Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009; Silvia & Brown, 2007; Tannenbaum et al., 2015).”
Separating Myth from Reality: Qualitative Findings from an Evaluation of the End Gang Life Campaign
Beck, N., & Wong, J. S. (2026) · Child & Youth Services · doi:10.1080/0145935x.2026.2705559
PFAS Risk-Mitigation Messaging: Achieving a More Sustainable and Healthier Living Environment
Hominski, C., & Lin, C. A. (2026) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su18157701
Degrees of Persuasion: Ethical Communication in Climate Fiction Films
Yazgulieva, S., Lyubareva, I., Hadida, A. L., et al. (2026) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-026-06424-3
Digital nudges for cardiovascular health: A scoping review through the lens of dual-process theory
Wang, X., Zhou, W., Yu, J., Li, M., Chen, H., Yang, X., & Wang, C. (2026) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2026.105657
Almeida, C., Carvalho, C., Lopes, E., et al. (2026) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2026.106428
Fear of crashes or fear of fines? Understanding what motivates parents to travel safely
Nguyen-Phuoc, D. Q., Vo, N. D. Q., & Pervez, A. (2026) · Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour · doi:10.1016/j.trf.2026.103772
Orom, H., Allard, N. C., & Nguyen, T. (2026) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyag024
“Findings support the effectiveness of combining fear and efficac y messages [ 40], but they can also increase health behavior motivation on their own [ 38, 41].”
Hong, S. J. (2026) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2026.2723336
The risk of unknown: preventive behavioural intention related to PFAS exposure
Leong, Y. Y., & Yang, J. Z. (2026) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2026.2722621
Risiko- und Krisenkommunikation
Früh, H. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-46851-4_25-1
Beyond Awareness: Emotional and Physiological Reactions to Climate Terminology
Dickel, P., & Mai, R. (2026) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.71399
Mah, A. Y. J., & Tilt, J. H. (2026) · Coastal Management · doi:10.1080/08920753.2026.2722732
From Luck to Leadership: Why Zero Incidents May Be the Greatest Risk
Decker, P., Bazzoli, A., White, B., & Will, J. (2026) · IEEE IAS Electrical Safety Workshop (ESW) · doi:10.1109/esw64755.2026.11668599
Weber, E., Blaurock, M., Coussement, K., Tsaga, I., & Büttgen, M. (2026) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.71505
Suh, Y. J., Wagner, M. W., & Shah, D. V. (2026) · Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01463373.2026.2727351
Sexuell übertragbare Infektionen und Stigma – Wie wir sexuelle Gesundheit stärken können
Langanke, H., & Steffan, E. (2026) · Public Health Forum · doi:10.1515/pubhef-2026-0051
“Fehlt diese wahrgenommene Selbst-und Handlungskompe-tenz, reagieren sie häufig mit Vermeidung oder Abwehr [10, 11].”
Perceptions of relational organizing as a tool for human–bear coexistence
Upraity, A. N., & Jones, M. S. (2026) · Human Dimensions of Wildlife · doi:10.1080/10871209.2026.2731893
The Meaning of Sedentary Behavior for People with Spinal Cord Injury: A Reflexive Thematic Analysis
Adams, N. T., Lawrason, S., Rakiecki, D., Brears, R., & Ginis, K. A. M. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14183068 · Cited by 1
Distinct neural networks for experiential and descriptive representations of natural hazard risk.
Fujimi, T., Kochiyama, T., & Sato, W. (2026) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2026.122253
Patterson, J. G., Ennis, A. C., Figueroa, W. S., Jankowski, E. E., Stanwick, M., Mays, D. M., Klein, E. G., Slater, M. D., Wagener, T. L., & Ferketich, A. K. (2026) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/99627
Reducing Perceived Polarization through Affect-Balanced News Reframing
Jeng, J. H., Starke, A. D., Elsweiler, D., & Trattner, C. (2026) · ACM Conference on Recommender Systems (RecSys) · doi:10.1145/3773078.3831751
Kriss, L., Cunningham, C., Trujillo, M., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2026.1932337
Tao, R., Shen, L., Bhattar, M., Jones, M., Garbacz, S. A., Yang, S., & Passmore, S. R. (2026) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2026.119898
Zhong, Y., & Li, H. (2026) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.70380
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
