Cited by 3,216Behavioral Health and InterventionsMedia Influence and HealthRisk Perception and Management

A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns

Witte, Kim, Allen, Mike·2000·Health Education & Behavior

Abstract

The fear appeal literature is examined in a comprehensive synthesis using meta-analytical techniques. The meta-analysis suggests that strong fear appeals produce high levels of perceived severity and susceptibility, and are more persuasive than low or weak fear appeals. The results also indicate that fear appeals motivate adaptive danger control actions such as message acceptance and maladaptive fear control actions such as defensive avoidance or reactance. It appears that strong fear appeals and high-efficacy messages produce the greatest behavior change, whereas strong fear appeals with low-efficacy messages produce the greatest levels of defensive responses. Future directions and practical implications are provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/109019810002700506

Cites

152 of 152 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Three prior meta-analyses found support for the weak efficacy-statement hypothesis.

    “Three meta-analyses have tested whether the inclusion of efficacy statements in fear appeals leads to increased effectiveness, and all found support for the weak hypothesis (de Hoog et al., 2007; Mongeau, 1998; Witte & Allen, 2000).”

    From Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories (2015) · cites this paper as Witte & Allen, 2000

  • Existing data have consistently supported the linear model of fear appeals but not the curvilinear model.

    “The linear and curvilinear models have been tested in prior meta-analyses, and the linear model has consistently been supported by existing data, whereas the curvilinear model has not (e.g., Witte & Allen, 2000).”

    From Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories (2015) · cites this paper as Witte & Allen, 2000

  • Prior meta-analyses of fear appeals have reported positive effects on some outcomes, null effects, and negative effects.

    “Although some meta-analytic examinations have found positive effects of fear appeals on some outcomes (Witte & Allen, 2000), others have found null effects (de Hoog et al., 2007) or even negative effects (Peters et al., 2012).”

    From Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories (2015) · cites this paper as Witte & Allen, 2000

  • These results confirm the conclusions of prior meta-analyses concerning the use of efficacy statements.

    “These results confirm the conclusions of prior meta-analyses concerning the use of efficacy statements (de Hoog et al., 2007; Peters et al., 2012; Witte & Allen, 2000).”

    From Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories (2015) · cites this paper as Witte & Allen, 2000

  • Appealing to fear leads to defensive reactions when people feel helpless to act.

    “leads to defensive reactions when they feel helpless to act 8”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Witte, K., & Allen, M.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee (US)
Venue
Health Education & Behavior
Published
2000-10
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
591-615
ISSN
  • 1090-1981 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6127
OpenAlex
W1997092577
Cited by
3,216
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 154 · 2025: 152 · 2024: 141 · 2023: 211 · 2022: 215 · 2021: 269 · 2020: 273 · 2019: 133 · 2018: 154 · 2017: 166 · 2016: 148 · 2015: 156 · 2014: 165 · 2013: 142 · 2012: 119
FWCI
20.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Education & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Media Influence and Health
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
fear appeals, public health campaigns, perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, defensive avoidance, reactance, message acceptance, behavior change, persuasive communication
MeSH terms
Fear, Health Education, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Persuasive Communication, Public Health

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