The Relative Persuasiveness of Different Message Types Does Not Vary as a Function of the Persuasive Outcome Assessed: Evidence from 29 Meta-Analyses of 2,062 Effect Sizes for 13 Message Variations
Abstract
Experiments that compare the persuasiveness of two message types (e.g., strong vs. weak fear appeals) characteristically examine persuasive impact using atti-tudinal, intention, or behavioral outcomes. The equivalence of these three outcomes as indices of relative persuasiveness is assessed by re-analyzing data from 2,062 effect sizes in 29 meta-analyses of 13 different message variations, including one-sided and two-sided messages, negative political advertising, and several fear appeal variations. The relative persuasiveness of alternative message types is found to be largely invariant across these different outcomes: If message type A is more persuasive than message type B with attitudinal outcomes, it is also—and equally—more persuasive with intention and behavioral outcomes. Methodological and theoretical implications are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Prior research has established that composite measures combining attitudes, intentions, and behaviors are a valid outcome for studying the relative persuasiveness of messages.
“prior research has demonstrated that composite measures combining attitudes, intentions, and behaviors are a valid outcome of interest when investigating the relative persuasiveness of messages (O’Keefe, 2013).”
From Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories (2015) · cites this paper as O’Keefe, 2013
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587 · see citing works
Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model
Witte, K. (1992) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637759209376276 · Cited by 3,880 · see citing works
A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000) · Health Education & Behavior · doi:10.1177/109019810002700506 · Cited by 3,216 · see citing works
Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis
Eisend, M. (2006) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.11.001 · Cited by 305 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Eisend’s (2006, 2007) review was restricted to studies of consumer advertising, and the dataset included multiple ESs from a given study for a given type of outcome (e.g., if a study had two assessments of intention, two separate ESs were entered in the dataset).(2) O’Keefe’s (1999) review included studies of both adv…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialFear-Arousing Persuasive Messages
Boster, F. J., & Mongeau, P. (1984) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.1984.11678581 · Cited by 271 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Appealing 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 1,203 · see citing works
“Further, prior research has demonstrated that composite measures combining attitudes, intentions, and behaviors are a valid outcome of interest when investigating the relative persuasiveness of messages (O’Keefe, 2013).”
BackgroundThe Effectiveness of Advertising: A Meta-Meta-Analysis of Advertising Inputs and Outcomes
Eisend, M., & Tarrahi, F. (2016) · Journal of Advertising · doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1185981 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
- Authors
- O’Keefe, D. J.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- O’Keefe, Daniel J.
- ORCID
- O’Keefe, Daniel J.
- Venue
- Annals of the International Communication Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-01-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 221-249
- ISSN
- 2380-8977 (ISSN-L)
- 2380-8985
- OpenAlex
- W2489387752
- Cited by
- 51
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 10.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annals of the International Communication Association (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
- Keywords
- message persuasiveness, fear appeals, negative political advertising, attitude change, behavioral effects
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.
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
