The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 82 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 42 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory
Open accessAbstract
Despite decades of research, consensus regarding the dynamics of fear appeals remains elusive. A meta-analysis was conducted that was designed to resolve this controversy. Publications that were included in previous meta-analyses were re-analysed, and a number of additional publications were located. The inclusion criteria were full factorial orthogonal manipulations of threat and efficacy, and measurement of behaviour as an outcome. Fixed and random effects models were used to compute mean effect size estimates. Meta-analysis of the six studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria clearly showed a significant interaction between threat and efficacy, such that threat only had an effect under high efficacy (d = 0.31), and efficacy only had an effect under high threat (d = 0.71). Inconsistency in results regarding the effectiveness of threatening communication can likely be attributed to flawed methodology. Proper tests of fear appeal theory yielded the theoretically hypothesised interaction effect. Threatening communication should exclusively be used when pilot studies indicate that an intervention successfully enhances efficacy.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
36 Own interpretation · 28 Not checked yet · 16 Own result · 9 Own method · 3 No basis given
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 interaction between threat and efficacy was significant (p = 0.004)”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Meta-analysis
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.
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
“Indeed, when we ran random effects models, almost half the heterogeneity in the effect sizes of the threat main effect and the effect of threat under low efficacy were explained by heterogeneity”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results
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.
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
“Threat had such opposite effects in two-thirds of the included studies (see Figure 5).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Meta-analysis
boosteddirect- 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.
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 fact that in all these years, only six real tests of the EPPM have been conducted, or at least published, is very worrisome”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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.
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
“Regardless of the truth of these hypotheses, by only including studies that (1) manipulated threat and efficacy independently, and (2) measured behaviour as an outcome, the current meta-analysis will provide a robust answer to the question whether fear appeal theory holds.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The rationale of the current meta-analysis
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The evidence clearly supports theories that hold that efficacy needs to be high before there can be an effect of threatening information”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Witte, 1992
- Not checked yetcites Goldenberg & Arndt, 2008
- Not checked yetcites de Hoog et al., 2007
boostedconditional- 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 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
“There is reason to believe that threat-induced increases in intention (or attitude) do not engender the desired behaviour.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The association of threat to intention and behaviour
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.
In the paper
“medium-to-large changes in intention typically lead to only small-to-medium changes in behaviour; Webb & Sheeran, 2006”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The association of threat to intention and behaviour
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Webb & Sheeran, 2006
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 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, current fear appeal theories, in combination with the SOB, predict that most published threat communication experiments are those conducted in populations and with behaviours in quadrant B, where the low baseline threat leaves room for a successful threat manipulation, and the high baseline efficacy inhibits defensive reactions, allowing the threat manipulation to change behaviour.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > Fear appeal theory and significant outcome bias (SOB)
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 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
“To draw conclusions that generalise to all behaviour-population combinations, a meta-analysis should include only studies that manipulate both threat and efficacy.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > Fear appeal theory and significant outcome bias (SOB)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: No validated scales exist for measuring efficacy for different behaviours.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 40
- Probably not a substantial claim. 23
- Not yet classified. 1
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, in the end, nine studies were included, seven of which provided effect sizes for the main effects of threat and efficacy, the interaction between those two, and the resulting simple effects; and two of which only provided effect sizes for the main effects (see Table 1).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods > Data extraction
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 only study with a very weak behavioural measure was study #43, where high school students indicated their willingness to take medication for roundworm, with the understanding that willingness would mean they would indeed be taking the medication. This willingness was measured immediately after the manipulation (i.e., using a follow-up of 0 weeks).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Heterogeneity
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
“Both corresponding Qs almost achieved significance [Q(8) = 14.66, p = 0.066 and Q(6) = 10.66, p = 0.099].”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results
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
“and there was no effect of efficacy when threat was low (d = 0.07, p = 0.689), but there was an effect when threat was high (d = 0.71, p <0.0001).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Meta-analysis
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
“While extracting data, it became clear that a number of included studies did not report data that allowed effect size computation (e.g., only significant statistics from multivariate analyses of variance were reported).”
- Also stated in: § Data extraction · plain
“In all cases where authors replied, the data had been lost, with two exceptions.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods > Data extraction
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: § Data extraction · 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 only moderator that emerged was the quality of the behavioural measure, specifically, low quality (this was the only moderator to reach p <0.05: specifically, p = 0.0065 in the prediction of the threat main effect, and p = 0.0171 in the prediction of the effect of threat under high efficacy).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Heterogeneity
plaincorrelational- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The quality ratings used for the behavioural measure and the two manipulations validly capture the quality of those study features.
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
“This distribution appeared symmetrical, providing no evidence of publication bias”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Publication bias
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.
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 these 10 significance tests, only the test for the main effect of efficacy was significant (z = 2.07, p = 0.039), and only for the random effects model including study #43.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Publication bias
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
“There was no effect of threat when efficacy was low (d = −0.31, p = 0.061), but there was an effect when efficacy was high (d = 0.31, p = 0.036)”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Meta-analysis
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
“as these queries yielded only three additional studies (Grala & McCauley, 1976; Muthusamy, Levine, & Weber, 2009; Ordoñana, González-Javier, Espín-López, & Gómez-Amor, 2009)”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods > Data sources
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.
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
“Heterogeneity was considerably reduced, with at most 29% of the heterogeneity explained by between-study differences (only for the main effect of efficacy). Heterogeneity did not approach significance for any effect.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Heterogeneity
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 outcomes were identical to the random effects model excluding study #43, and these are the outcomes that we will base our conclusions on.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Heterogeneity
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
“Interestingly, the effect of threat under low efficacy is borderline significant and negative”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · hedged
“A somewhat worrying finding of this meta-analysis was that under low efficacy, the effect of threat was negative and almost significant.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Meta-analysis
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: § Discussion · hedged
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
“Meta-analysis of the six studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria clearly showed a significant interaction between threat and efficacy, such that threat only had an effect under high efficacy (d = 0.31), and efficacy only had an effect under high threat (d = 0.71).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“Proper tests of fear appeal theory yielded the theoretically hypothesised interaction effect.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Abstract
boosteddirect- 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 · boosted
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 efficacy manipulations reported in the studies included in this meta-analysis entailed at least a paragraph of text”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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
“The results are in line with the theoretical predictions. Threat and efficacy interact in their effects on behaviour, such that threat only has an effect if efficacy is high, and efficacy only has an effect is threat is high.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > 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
“it has been shown that when threatening information is presented to persons deriving self-esteem from a risk behaviour, their intention to engage in the risk behaviour decreases, but they simultaneously engage in more risk behaviour (Ben-Ari, Florian, & Mikulincer, 2000).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The association of threat to intention and behaviour
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ben-Ari, Florian, & Mikulincer, 2000
boosteddirect- 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, the variation in designs, used measures and analyses, and the scarcity of reported information that allowed straightforward computation of effect sizes, eventually necessitated examination of all original texts by one of the authors (GJP).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods > Data extraction
plaindirect- 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.
In the paper
“Thus, when a study does not reject the null hypothesis, it has a low probability of being submitted, and even if it is submitted, it has a low probability of being published.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > Fear appeal theory and significant outcome bias (SOB)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Greenwald, 1975
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 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, there is some evidence of publication bias regarding the main effect of efficacy, which may mean that this estimate is biased (i.e., the true effect size is likely lower).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Publication bias
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.
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
“However, regardless of whether these hypotheses were correct, the current meta-analysis does resolve the controversy regarding the outcomes of previous fear appeal meta-analyses.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“Whether one engages in behaviour change or defensive reactions depends on a number of moderators, one of which is again efficacy. Another moderator is self-esteem”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The association of threat to intention and behaviour
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldenberg & Arndt, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Hansen, Winzeler, & Topolinski, 2010
plainconditional- 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
“Requests for information or registrations for sessions, albeit technically behavioural measures, were not accepted, as such behaviours are predicted by very different determinants from target behaviours (e.g., whereas self-efficacy for requesting information about quitting smoking can be assumed to be very high, self-efficacy for actually quitting is likely lower).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods > Inclusion (exclusion) 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
“In retrospect, therefore, the judgement call that this study used a valid behavioural outcome measure appears to have been erroneous, and the study should not have been included.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Heterogeneity
hedgedSingle case- 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
“Theory predicts that fear appeals exclusively work when both efficacy and threat are sufficiently high.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > Fear appeal theory and significant outcome bias (SOB)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Witte, 1992
- Not checked yetcites de Hoog et al., 2007
boosteddirect- 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
“In the description of the Methods section, we followed the QUOROM guidelines (Moher et al., 2000) as much as possible (where these could be translated to a psychological experiment context, rather than a clinical intervention context).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Moher et al., 2000
hedged- 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
“For the studies that were included on the basis of the first query, data were extracted through independent coding by RR and GK, using a coding form (available at http://fearappeals.com/meta-analysis/).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods > Data extraction
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.
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, when a study shows an effect of threatening communication on intention, but fails to measure behaviour, it is possible that the fear appeal is not associated to, or even decreases, the desirable behaviour.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The association of threat to intention and behaviour
hedgedconditional- 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
“One meta-analysis compared different behaviour change methods (or techniques) and found that ‘no threat-inducing argument had any positive behavioural effect whatsoever’ (Albarracín et al., 2005, p. 882).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Albarracín et al., 2005
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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Similarly, as another meta-analysis into condom use, where long-term effects of fear appeals were studied, ‘[…] clearly shows, inducing fear is not an effective way to promote HIV-relevant learning or condom use either immediately following the intervention or later on’ (Earl & Albarracín, 2007, p. 504).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Earl & Albarracín, 2007
boosted- 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 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
“which means that the effect size and significance levels for the main effects of threat (d = 0.11, p = 0.215) and efficacy (d = 0.49, p <0.0001) have no meaning (i.e., there exists no effect of threat, as the effect depends on the value of efficacy, and vice versa).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Meta-analysis
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, study #43 differed from the other studies in two important respects: first, the influenced behaviour was a behaviour that was extremely easy to perform, with medication simply provided to the participants (i.e., it was likely that baseline efficacy is high); and second, behaviour (i.e., willingness) was measured immediately after the manipulation.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Heterogeneity
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.
In the paper
“In addition, because the review is a test of the EPPM which deals with threat to individuals themselves, the behaviour and threat had to concern the participants themselves directly.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods > Inclusion (exclusion) criteria
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Witte, 1992
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.
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
“Manipulation quality was coded independently by GK and RR on the basis of extracts of the relevant fragments from the methods section.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods > Data extraction
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Base levels of efficacy and threat, however, vary between individuals.”
- Also stated in: § Fear appeal theory and significant outcome bias (SOB) · plain
“Of course, these baseline efficacy and threat values also differ per population.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > Fear appeal theory and significant outcome bias (SOB)
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rimal & Juon, 2010
- Not checked yetcites Rimal & Real, 2003
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: § Fear appeal theory and significant outcome bias (SOB) · plain
In the paper
“Note that in acknowledgement of the concerns of Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2011), who explain how limited disclosure of the decisions made in the analysis process can endanger the integrity of science, we have made everything we used for our analyses available through http://fearappeals.com/meta-analysis/.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Methods > Analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simmons, Nelson, and Simonsohn (2011)
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.
In the paper
“a review that showed that although threat components (severity, susceptibility) significantly predict intention, these same components are not associated to subsequent behaviour (Milne, Sheeran, & Orbell, 2000).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The association of threat to intention and behaviour
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Milne, Sheeran, & Orbell, 2000
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This model postulates that activation of death-related cognitions triggers attempts to jettison these cognitions from consciousness: behaviour change to reduce the actual threat and/or defensive reactions to reduce the salience of the threatening cognitions.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The association of threat to intention and behaviour
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldenberg & Arndt, 2008
- Not checked yetcites Hansen, Winzeler, & Topolinski, 2010
Not yet classified.
In the paper
“intention typically predicts around one-third of behaviour; Cooke & Sheeran, 2004”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The association of threat to intention and behaviour
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cooke & Sheeran, 2004
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.
In the paper
“The reasoned action approach predicts that a threatening communication increases perceived threat, which increases attitude, which increases intention, which does not increase behaviour, unless self-efficacy is high (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010, p. 64).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Introduction > The association of threat to intention and behaviour
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These studies, for example, had no experimental designs, and therefore, allow no causal conclusions (Wilkinson et al., 1999).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wilkinson et al., 1999
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
“The current meta-analysis strongly signals that these recommendations should cease as soon as possible, because (1) there are very few studies that could theoretically have supported the use of threatening communications; and (2) those studies that do exist do not support the wide application of threatening communications.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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.
Probably not a substantial claim. 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
“In conclusion, warning labels on packs of cigarettes seem ill-advised. They may in fact increase smoking among smokers who derive self-esteem from their identity as a smoker.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
hedgedconditional- 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
“Note that regardless of which scenario is true, the conclusion remains the same: threatening communication is better avoided.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
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 current metaanalysis clearly indicates, however, this although such communications may increase recognition, they either enhance health-defeating behaviour or have no effect.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
boostedconditional- 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
“Still, this paucity of research remains a shortcoming of the current meta-analysis, also because it is very difficult to assess the extent of publication bias with only six studies.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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 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
“Threatening communication only works when either the baseline efficacy is high in the relevant behaviour-population combination, or when the intervention also includes a potent efficacy-enhancing element.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > 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.
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
“Mere recommendations at best enhance response efficacy, but without high self-efficacy, threatening communication will have no effect, or worse, backfire.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > 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
“For example, Latour, Snipes, and Bliss (1996) report the results on an experiment where higher threat was positively associated to behaviour. However, this behaviour was the purchase of a stun gun, which participants were informed was for sale in the area for $60–$80: an excellent example of a behaviour for which most people will have a high efficacy.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Latour, Snipes, and Bliss (1996)
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Buying a stun gun is a behaviour for which most people have high efficacy.
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
“After all, if we made Type 1 errors, threats are ineffective; and if we made Type 2 errors, threats are potentially harmful.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no 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
“in fact, the significant main effect of efficacy and the strong effect of efficacy under high threat that were found in the current metaanalysis suggest that a focus on efficacy is a better bet in any case”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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.
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
“Unfortunately, these inclusion criteria also caused the weakness of this meta-analysis: only eight studies were included in the meta-analysis of the main effects, and only six studies in the meta-analysis of the interaction effect and the simple effects (excluding study #43).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > 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.
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
“Given the minimal, or even negative, effects we can expect from threatening communication, the potential of evidence- and theory-based communications on cigarette pack labels is promising.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
plainconditional- 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.
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
“Instead, they indicate that using threatening communication is at best ineffective, and at worst causes health-defeating behaviour, unless the intervention contains an element that effectively enhances response efficacy and (especially) self-efficacy.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
hedgedconditional- 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
“This is in line with the terror management health model (Goldenberg & Arndt, 2008), which suggests that threatening information can cause people to engage in health-defeating behaviour.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Goldenberg & Arndt, 2008
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.
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
“The main strength of the current meta-analysis is formed by the stringent inclusion criteria.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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.
The paper relies on this without support.
No validated scales exist for measuring efficacy for different behaviours.
“as no validated scales for efficacy for the different behaviours exist”
The paper relies on this without support.
The quality ratings used for the behavioural measure and the two manipulations validly capture the quality of those study features.
“we ran a number of explorative moderation analyses using the quality ratings of the behaviour measure and the two manipulations as moderators.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Previous fear appeal meta-analyses suffered from a problematic interaction between significant outcome bias and theoretical fear appeal dynamics.
“These previous meta-analyses suffered two problems that were currently addressed: problematic interaction of the significant outcome bias, SOB, with theoretical fear appeal dynamics; and the inclusion of attitude and/or intention as outcome measures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Previous fear appeal meta-analyses suffered from including attitude and/or intention as outcome measures.
“These previous meta-analyses suffered two problems that were currently addressed: problematic interaction of the significant outcome bias, SOB, with theoretical fear appeal dynamics; and the inclusion of attitude and/or intention as outcome measures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Buying a stun gun is a behaviour for which most people have high efficacy.
“an excellent example of a behaviour for which most people will have a high efficacy.”
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
“Increasing people's confidence and clarity in what they need to do fosters adherence to health behaviours,90 and can help people to manage psychological distress.”
From Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science (2020) · cites this paper as [90]
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentQ(8) = 14.66reported p = .066 · recomputed p = .066
“Q(8) = 14.66, p = .066”
- ConsistentQ(6) = 10.66reported p = .099 · recomputed p = .099
“Q(6) = 10.66, p = .099”
- Consistentz = 2.07reported p = .039 · recomputed p = .038
“(z = 2.07, p = .039”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Heterogeneity
“We ran five analyses for each effect (i.e., the two main effects, the interaction and the four simple effects)”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Publication bias
“To assess publication bias, we ordered two sets of funnel plots for every effect: one set based on the random effects meta-analysis including all studies, and one based on the fixed effects meta-analysis excluding study #43 (see http://fearappeals.com/meta-analysis/). We also tested the null hypothesis that each funnel plot was symmetrical. Of these 10 significance tests”
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2000) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 355,893
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
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
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I² index?
Huedo-Medina, T. B., Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., & Botella, J. (2006) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.11.2.193 · Cited by 4,256
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- 10.1207/s15327027hc2001 · DOI
- Stobbe , M. 2012 , April 15 . CDC Anti-Smoking Ad Campaign Set To Launch . The Huffington Post . Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/cdc-anti-smoking-ad-campaign_n_1347174.html
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 680
Glock, S., Müller, B. C. N., & Krolak-Schwerdt, S. (2013) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12023 · Cited by 28
Macy, J. T., Chassin, L., Presson, C. C., & Yeung, E. (2015) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2015.1104309 · Cited by 27
Pegors, T. K., Tompson, S., O’Donnell, M. B., & Falk, E. B. (2017) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.05.063 · Cited by 27
Examining the Effectiveness of Fear Appeals in Prompting Help-Seeking: The Case of At-Risk Gamblers
Vos, S. D., Crouch, R. C., Quester, P. G., & Ilicic, J. (2017) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21012 · Cited by 26
Romer, D., Ferguson, S. G., Strasser, A. A., Evans, A. T., Tompkins, M. K., Macisco, J. M., Fardal, M., Tusler, M., & Ellen, P. (2017) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12160-017-9916-y · Cited by 26
Polhuis, K. C. M. M., Vaandrager, L., Soedamah‐Muthu, S. S., & Koelen, M. A. (2020) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/s12939-020-01194-4 · Cited by 29
Design, Implementation, and Evaluation of Behavior Change Interventions: A Ten-Task Guide
Abraham, C., & Denford, S. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.019 · Cited by 27
Changing Behavior Using the Reflective-Impulsive Model
Deutsch, R., & Strack, F. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.012 · Cited by 30
Gao, S., Zhang, Y., & Liu, W. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18157760 · Cited by 30
Reactions to threatening health messages
ten Hoor, G. A., Peters, G.-J., Kalagi, J., de Groot, L., Grootjans, K., Huschens, A., Köhninger, C., Kölgen, L., Pelssers, I., Schütt, T., et al. (2012) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-1011 · Cited by 26
Self-citationPutwain, D. W., Nicholson, L. J., Nakhla, G., Reece, M., Porter, B., & Liversidge, A. (2015) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.12.001 · Cited by 26
Sex, germs, and health: pathogen-avoidance motives and health-protective behaviour
Gruijters, S. L. K., Tybur, J. M., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Massar, K. (2016) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2016.1161194 · Cited by 27
Self-citationThe cyber-doom effect: The impact of fear appeals in the US cyber security debate
Lawson, S. T., Yeo, S. K., Yu, H., & Greene, E. (2016) · doi:10.1109/cycon.2016.7529427 · Cited by 26
"Don't make my mistake": narrative fear appeals in health communication
Ooms, J. (2019) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · doi:10.33612/diss.97042126 · Cited by 26
Halkjelsvik, T., & Rise, J. (2015) · Drugs Education Prevention and Policy · doi:10.3109/09687637.2015.1015491 · Cited by 25
Bojesen, A. B., & Rayce, S. B. (2020) · Accident Analysis & Prevention · doi:10.1016/j.aap.2020.105773 · Cited by 25
Scoping the ethical principles of cybersecurity fear appeals
Dupuis, M., & Renaud, K. (2020) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-020-09560-0 · Cited by 25
Casais, B., & Proença, J. F. (2021) · International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing · doi:10.1007/s12208-021-00318-y · Cited by 31
Nocella, G., Wu, J., & Cerroni, S. (2022) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/ijcs.12833 · Cited by 25
Jin, Y., Iles, I. A., Austin, L., Liu, B. F., & Hancock, G. R. (2020) · International Journal of Strategic Communication · doi:10.1080/1553118x.2020.1801691 · Cited by 25
Dyadic Behavior Change Interventions
Scholz, U., Berli, C., Lüscher, J., & Knoll, N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.043 · Cited by 26
Look away now! Defensive processing and unrealistic optimism by level of alcohol consumption
Morris, J. K., Tattan‐Birch, H., Albery, I. P., Heather, N., & Moss, A. C. (2024) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2024.2316681 · Cited by 22
Gould, G. S., Watt, K., Cadet‐James, Y., & CLOUGH, A. R. (2014) · Preventive Medicine Reports · doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2014.10.004 · Cited by 24
Developing Behavior Change Interventions
Hankonen, N. E., & Hardeman, W. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.021 · Cited by 28
Promoting Smoking Cessation in China: Using an Expansion of the EPPM with Other-oriented Threat
Chen, M., & Chen, L. (2021) · Journal of Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10810730.2021.1906360 · Cited by 23
Stimulating fertility awareness: the importance of getting the language right
Mertes, H., Harper, J. C., Boivin, J., Ekstrand, M., Grace, B., Moura‐Ramos, M., Rautakallio-Hokkanen, S., Simopoulou, M., Hammarberg, K., & (IFEI), T. I. F. E. I. (2023) · Human Reproduction Open · doi:10.1093/hropen/hoad009 · Cited by 27
Mead, E. L., Cohen, J. E., Kennedy, C. E., Gallo, J. J., & Latkin, C. A. (2016) · Tobacco Induced Diseases · doi:10.1186/s12971-016-0088-5 · Cited by 23
Rothman, A. J., Klein, W. M. P., & Sheeran, P. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.020 · Cited by 26
The effects of repeated exposure to graphic fear appeals on cigarette packages: A field experiment.
Dijkstra, A., & Bos, C. (2015) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/adb0000049 · Cited by 23
Can interest and enjoyment help to increase use of Internet-delivered interventions?
Crutzen, R., Ruiter, R. A. C., & de Vries, N. K. (2014) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2014.921300 · Cited by 27
Self-citationDispositional and comparative optimism interact to predict avoidance of a looming health threat
Fowler, S. L., & Geers, A. L. (2014) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2014.977282 · Cited by 22
Imagery, Visualization, and Mental Simulation Interventions
Hagger, M. S., & Conroy, D. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.033 · Cited by 23
Changing Behavior Using the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation
Cameron, L. D., Fleszar‐Pavlović, S. E., & Khachikian, T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.005 · Cited by 29
Chawla, Y., Radziwon, A., Scaringella, L., Lazarczyk, E., Greco, M., Silveira, P. D., de Aguiar, E. P., Shen, Q., Will, M., & Kowalska-Pyzalska, A. (2021) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102720 · Cited by 21
Godinho, C. I. A., Yardley, L., Marcu, A., Mowbray, F., Beard, E., & Michie, S. (2016) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.05.025 · Cited by 21
The ethics of scare: COVID-19 and the Philippines' fear appeals
Biana, H. T., & Joaquin, J. J. (2020) · Public Health · doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2020.04.017 · Cited by 21
Engagement of Stakeholders in the Design, Evaluation, and Implementation of Complex Interventions
Hudson, J. L., Moon, Z., Hughes, L. D., & Moss-Morris, R. E. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.024 · Cited by 20
Mehiriz, K., & Gosselin, P. (2021) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13814 · Cited by 20
Tang, T., Guo, Y., Wang, H., Li, X., & Agrawal, S. (2023) · Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · doi:10.1177/03611981231176290 · Cited by 20
Hu, S., Zhou, J., Tang, L. Y., Zhao, Y., & Xing, H. (2023) · International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction · doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.104166 · Cited by 20
Sugar-Sweetened Beverage-Related Public Service Advertisements and Their Influence on Parents
Jordan, A., Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., Vaala, S. E., Glanz, K., & Strasser, A. A. (2015) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764215596556 · Cited by 19
Public health and obesity prevention campaigns – a case study and critical discussion
Couch, D., Fried, A. L., & Komesaroff, P. A. (2017) · Communication Research and Practice · doi:10.1080/22041451.2017.1310589 · Cited by 24
Uri Gneezy, B., Kajackaite, A., & Meier, S. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.036 · Cited by 20
Schüz, N., & Ferguson, S. G. (2014) · Nicotine & Tobacco Research · doi:10.1093/ntr/ntu253 · Cited by 20
Putwain, D. W., Symes, W., & Remedios, R. (2016) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.042 · Cited by 20
Morss, R. E., Cuite, C. L., & Demuth, J. L. (2024) · npj natural hazards. · doi:10.1038/s44304-024-00025-8 · Cited by 20
Asymmetric negative influence of cynicism and skepticism: a study of preventative communication
Ryu, H., & Jun, S. (2019) · International Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/02650487.2019.1596448 · Cited by 19
Televised obesity-prevention advertising across US media markets: exposure and content, 2010–2011
Kornfield, R., Szczypka, G., Powell, L. M., & Emery, S. (2014) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s1368980014001335 · Cited by 21
Myerson, J., Strube, M., Green, L., & Hale, S. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0257658 · Cited by 19
Keegan, R. J., Middleton, G., Henderson, H., & Girling, M. (2016) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3098-6 · Cited by 31
Ruiter, R. A. C., Crutzen, R., de Leeuw, E., & Kok, G. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.018 · Cited by 20
Self-citationLagerkvist, C. J., Okello, J. J., & Karanja, N. N. (2014) · Food Control · doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2014.07.026 · Cited by 18
Jones, S. E., Hamilton, S., Bell, R., Araújo‐Soares, V., & White, M. J. (2020) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-020-09608-2 · Cited by 17
Fear appeals used prior to a high-stakes examination: What makes them threatening?
Putwain, D. W., & Remedios, R. (2014) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.10.018 · Cited by 20
Putwain, D. W., Nakhla, G., Liversidge, A., Nicholson, L. J., Porter, B., & Reece, M. (2016) · Teaching and Teacher Education · doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.003 · Cited by 20
Chun, S., Park, J. W., Heflick, N. A., Lee, S. M., Kim, D., & Kwon, K. (2017) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2017.1331186 · Cited by 19
Qiu, J., Xu, L., Wang, J., & Gu, W. (2019) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2019.103217 · Cited by 17
Akerlof, K., Boules, C., Rohring, E., Rohring, B., & Kappalman, S. (2020) · Environmental Management · doi:10.1007/s00267-020-01283-8 · Cited by 18
Hardcastle, S. J., Chan, D. K. C., Caudwell, K. M., Sultan, S., Cranwell, J., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Hagger, M. S. (2015) · International Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12529-015-9487-x · Cited by 20
Mostafa, A., Mohammed, H. T., Hussein, W. M., ElHabiby, M. M., Safwat, W., Labib, S., Fotouh, A. A., & Hoek, J. A. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023496 · Cited by 17
de Bruin, M., Crutzen, R., & Peters, G.-J. (2015) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2014.981833 · Cited by 17
Self-citationHalkjelsvik, T. (2014) · International Journal of Drug Policy · doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.01.021 · Cited by 16
Krugu, J. K., Mevissen, F. E. F., Debpuur, C. Y., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2015) · International Journal of Sexual Health · doi:10.1080/19317611.2015.1124162 · Cited by 17
Self-citationvan der Heijden, A., Mulder, B. C., Poortvliet, P. M., & van Vliet, A. J. H. (2017) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4908-1 · Cited by 16
Mevissen, F. E. F., van Empelen, P., Watzeels, A., van Duin, G., Meijer, S., van Lieshout, S., & Kok, G. (2017) · Sex Education · doi:10.1080/14681811.2017.1389717 · Cited by 16
Self-citationChanging Behavior Using Social Identity Processes
Reynolds, K. J., Branscombe, N. R., Subašić, E., & Willis, L. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.016 · Cited by 21
Grateful compliance: Gratitude effects on willingness to comply with responsible drinking messages
Septianto, F., & Garg, N. (2021) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.21535 · Cited by 16
Effects of fear on donations to climate change mitigation
Palosaari, E. J., Herne, K., Lappalainen, O., & Hietanen, J. K. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104422 · Cited by 16
de Bruijn, G., Visscher, I., & Mollen, S. (2015) · Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2015.02.001 · Cited by 15
Guiding Principles for Countering and Displacing Extremist Narratives
Beutel, A. J., Weine, S. M., Saeed, A., Mihajlovic, A., Stone, A., Beahrs, J. O., & Shanfield, S. B. (2016) · Journal of Terrorism Research · doi:10.15664/jtr.1220 · Cited by 19
Blondé, J., & Girandola, F. (2018) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/01973533.2017.1412969 · Cited by 15
The Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation: Meta-Analysis and Test of a Process ModelPreprint
Hagger, M. S., Koch, S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Orbell, S. (2017) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/wx54h · Cited by 20
Children’s fear in traffic and its association with pedestrian decisions
Wang, H., Morgan, C. H., Li, D., Huang, R., & Schwebel, D. C. (2020) · Journal of Safety Research · doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2020.11.010 · Cited by 15
Gain-Loss Framing and Social Distancing: Temporal Framing’s Role as an Emotion Intensifier
Kim, J. (2022) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2022.2067943 · Cited by 15
Managing Fear During Pandemics: Risks and Opportunities
Mertens, G., Engelhard, I. M., Novacek, D. M., & McNally, R. J. (2023) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231178720 · Cited by 15
Schwarz, A. (2024) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2024.2437629 · Cited by 22
Yu, Y., Li, J., & Lau, J. T. F. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/22393 · Cited by 15
Promoting HPV vaccination on social media: interactive effects of threat, efficacy and social cues
Chen, L., Yang, X., & Huang, X. (2021) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2021.1975449 · Cited by 15
Ehret, P. J., & Sherman, D. K. (2014) · Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1177/2372732214549472 · Cited by 17
Halkjelsvik, T., Lund, K. E., Kraft, P., & Rise, J. (2013) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyt064 · Cited by 15
The role of fear in predicting sexually transmitted infection screening
Shepherd, L., & Smith, M. (2017) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2017.1307375 · Cited by 14
Ort, A., & Fahr, A. (2020) · Studies in Communication and Media · doi:10.5771/2192-4007-2020-3-341 · Cited by 17
Bigsby, E., Hovick, S. R. A., Tan, N. Q. P., Thomas, S. N., & Wilson, S. R. (2021) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13857 · Cited by 16
Edwards, L. L., Donovan-Kicken, E., & Reis, J. (2013) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.757715 · Cited by 14
Using negative emotional feedback to modify risky behavior of young moped riders
Megías‐Robles, A., Cortes, A., Maldonado, A., & Cândido, A. (2016) · Traffic Injury Prevention · doi:10.1080/15389588.2016.1205189 · Cited by 14
Discursive double-legitimation of (avoiding) another war in Obama’s 2013 address on Syria
Mirhosseini, S. (2017) · Journal of Language and Politics · doi:10.1075/jlp.16016.mir · Cited by 14
Webb, T. L., & de Bruin, M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108677318.037 · Cited by 16
Blended news delivery in healthcare: a framework for injecting good news into bad news conversations
Legg, A. M., & Sweeny, K. M. (2015) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2015.1051567 · Cited by 13
Lekwijit, S., Terwiesch, C., Asch, D. A., & Volpp, K. G. M. (2023) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2023.4865 · Cited by 17
#GunViolence on Instagram and Twitter
Austin, L., Guidry, J. P. D., & Meyer, M. L. (2020) · The Journal of Public Interest Communications · doi:10.32473/jpic.v4.i1.p4 · Cited by 13
Supporting people with diabetes during a pandemic
Skinner, T. C., & Speight, J. (2020) · Diabetic Medicine · doi:10.1111/dme.14320 · Cited by 13
Symons, C., Amlôt, R., Carter, H., & Rubin, G. J. (2020) · Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management · doi:10.1111/1468-5973.12320 · Cited by 13
Brown, S. L., & West, C. (2014) · British Journal of Health Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjhp.12103 · Cited by 13
How Tobacco Health Warnings Can Foster Autonomy
Barton, A. (2013) · Public Health Ethics · doi:10.1093/phe/pht011 · Cited by 13
Faire « appel à la peur » pour persuader ? Revue de la littérature et perspectives de recherche
Blondé, J., & Girandola, F. (2016) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.4074/s0003503316000282 · Cited by 13
Buckell, J., Marti, J., & Sindelar, J. L. (2017) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w23865 · Cited by 13
Schwarz, A., & Unselt, J. J. (2024) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.14299 · Cited by 12
Elbert, S., Dijkstra, A., & Rozema, A. D. (2017) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2017.1300259 · Cited by 13
"Don't Make My Mistake": On the Processing of Narrative Fear Appeals
Ooms, J., Jansen, C., Hommes, S., & Hoeks, J. C. J. (2017) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 12
Schmälzle, R., Cooper, N., O’Donnell, M. B., Tompson, S., Lee, S., Cantrell, J., Vettel, J. M., & Falk, E. B. (2020) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2020.565772 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Peters, G.-J. Y., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Kok, G.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Peters, Gjalt-Jorn Ygram
- Venue
- Health Psychology Review
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-07-19
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- sup1
- Pages
- S8-S31
- ISSN
- 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
- 1743-7202
- PMC
- PMC3678850
- OpenAlex
- W2152023319
- Semantic Scholar
- 85a2e23ea3e80ab8e924fddb75468be71aec0b9b
- Cited by
- 679
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 24 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 132 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 48.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Health Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Influence and Health
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- fear appeals, persuasion, health communication, behavior change
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).
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
