Threatening communication: A critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory
Peters, G-J.Y.; Ruiter, R.A.C.; Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: A critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychology Review 7(Suppl. 1): 8-31. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2012.703527
In: Health Psychology Review: Abingdon. ISSN 1743-7199; e-ISSN 1743-7202, more
|  |
| Authors | | Top |
- Peters, G-J.Y.
- Ruiter, R.A.C.
- Kok, G.
|
|
|
| Abstract |
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 reanalysed, 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 betweenthreat and efficacy, such that threat only had an effect under high efficacy (0.31), and efficacy only had an effect under high threat (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 communicationshould exclusively be used when pilot studies indicate that an intervention successfully enhances efficacy. |
|
