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.
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 funnel plots suggest that the shift to non-significance (due to omitting study #43) is likely to reflect decreased power, as the plot shows only two effect sizes below the mean effect size estimate (and six studies at or above the mean effect size estimate).”
§ 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: 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
“Although it is hard to quantify the extent of publication bias, it is clear that it is widespread.”
§ 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 Sterling (1959)
- Not checked yetcites Sterling, Rosenbaum, & Weinkam, 1995
- Not checked yetcites Greenwald, 1975
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.
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 interaction of fear appeal dynamics with SOB predicts the two conclusions of meta-analyses of fear appeal experiments so far: there is evidence that higher threat corresponds to more behaviour change, and no evidence for an interaction between 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)
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 phenomenon that intention to perform a behaviour does not consistently result in subsequent performance”
§ 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 Godin, Conner, & Sheeran, 2005
- Not checked yetcites Reuter et al., 2010
- Not checked yetcites Sniehotta, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005
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
“This significant outcome bias (SOB), the combination of publication bias and the resulting reluctance of researchers to submit non-significant findings, particularly impacts fear appeal research because of the dynamics of fear appeals.”
§ 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
“Although the hypotheses were confirmed, the current meta-analysis does not allow conclusions as to the hypothesised problems of previous meta-analyses (the interaction of SOB with fear appeal dynamics and the inclusion of non-behavioural outcome measures).”
§ 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
“Such an inclusion criterion would prevent the introduction of bias by excluding studies that manipulate threat in a sample that is already high in efficacy (when meta-analysed, such studies would seem to provide evidence for a main effect of threat, whereas in reality, they provide evidence for a simple effect of threat under high 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)
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Given the low power of Q when only a few studies are used (Borenstein et al., 2009; Huedo-Medina et al., 2006), we took this as an indication of heterogeneity.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Borenstein et al., 2009
- Not checked yetcites Huedo-Medina et al., 2006
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.
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
“suggesting that high threat may decrease behaviour when efficacy is low.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Results > Meta-analysis
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.
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
“Inconsistency in results regarding the effectiveness of threatening communication can likely be attributed to flawed methodology.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Abstract
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.
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
“If this interaction-theory is correct, the conclusions of these meta-analyses exclusively hold for behaviour-population combinations where efficacy is already high (and perceived threat low).”
§ 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: 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
“Perhaps this outcome measure resembles attitude or intention more than behaviour: the effect sizes from this study do suggest this, as this study showed the highest effects of threat, achieving an exceptionally high effect size for the effect of threat under high efficacy (d = 1.71; recall the stronger associations of threat to intention).”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Researchers can hardly be blamed for not conducting replications when replications are as a rule rarely published (Hubbard & Armstrong, 1994; Sterling et al., 1995).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hubbard & Armstrong, 1994
- Not checked yetcites Sterling et al., 1995
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 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
“Studies that at first glance appeared to support the effectiveness of threatening communications may, at closer inspection, reveal designs (not manipulating efficacy), populations (high in baseline efficacy), or outcome measures (other than behaviour) that preclude conclusions concerning the effectiveness of threatening communications.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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
“Similarly, the significant outcome bias (SOB) has already caused most researchers to no longer even submit non-significant findings (Greenwald, 1975).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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.
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
“Therefore, it is possible that this meta-analysis suffers from a power problem.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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
“for example, there is evidence that susceptibility has a different (much stronger) effect than severity (de Hoog et al., 2007).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites de Hoog et al., 2007
hedgedcorrelational- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These outcomes are also in line with recent social neurocognitive evidence (Kessels, Ruiter, & Jansma, 2010) and eye-tracking evidence (Nielsen & Shapiro, 2009) that shows that attention is automatically diverted from threatening information in a high-risk population.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kessels, Ruiter, & Jansma, 2010
- Not checked yetcites Nielsen & Shapiro, 2009
boosteddirect- 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 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 inconsistency of these studies' outcomes with evidence from studies that did have experimental designs suggests that the associations that were observed in the non-experimental studies had extraneous causes (e.g., bias in self-reports).”
§ 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“theory-based interventions have been found to be more effective than non-theory-based interventions (Peters, Kok, Ten Dam, Buijs, & Paulussen, 2009; Webb et al., 2010).”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peters et al., 2009
- Not checked yetcites Webb et al., 2010
plaindirect- 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.
In the paper
“note that attitude, the construct encompassing perceived threat, has been found to have only a weak influence; Topa & Moriano, 2010”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Topa & Moriano, 2010
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 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 clearly suggests that this assumption is wrong: target group members' ideas about effective behaviour change methods do not translate into actual effectiveness, at least not when it concerns threatening communication.”
§ 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.
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, it seems that the controversy that has long surrounded fear appeal research can at least partly be attributed to methodology.”
§ 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.
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 any case, it is important to realise that these six studies together constitute all the evidence that exists on the effectiveness of threatening communications.”
§ 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.
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
“As long as journals do not eliminate their SOB, it will remain virtually impossible for an evidence base to accumulate that enables the development of a toolbox of effective behaviour change methods”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
boosteddirect- 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.
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
“These patterns (shown in Figure 5) seem to support the second scenario.”
§ Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory > Discussion
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. 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
Holmes, E. A., O'Connor, R. C., Perry, V. H., Tracey, I., Wessely, S., Arseneault, L., Ballard, C., Christensen, H., Cohen Silver, R., Everall, I., et al. (2020) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30168-1 · Cited by 5,715
Fear of the coronavirus (COVID-19): Predictors in an online study conducted in March 2020
Mertens, G., Gerritsen, L., Duijndam, S., Salemink, E., & Engelhard, I. M. (2020) · Journal of Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102258 · Cited by 1,264
A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach
Kok, G., Gottlieb, N. H., Peters, G.-J. Y., Mullen, P. D., Parcel, G. S., Ruiter, R. A. C., Fernández, M. E., Markham, C., & Bartholomew, L. K. (2016) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2015.1077155 · Cited by 1,137
Self-citationAppealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories
Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2015) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0039729 · Cited by 1,315
“analyses concerning the use of efficacy statements (de Hoog et al., 2007; Peters et al., 2012; Witte & Allen, 2000).”
MethodResultClimate Endgame: Exploring catastrophic climate change scenarios
Kemp, L., Xu, C., Depledge, J., Ebi, K. L., Gibbins, G., Kohler, T. A., Rockström, J., Scheffer, M., Schellnhuber, H. J., Steffen, W., et al. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2108146119 · Cited by 918
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
