THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS OF PERSUASION AND FEAR APPEALS
9
when the fear appraisal is to strong, it may backfire (see §4.2. Defensive Self). When the consequences are perceived as to harmful then the receiver will not be able to elaborate on the message. The fear appeal is rejected either by denying the existence of the problem or its importance (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Again, elaboration is an important determinant of fear appeal effectiveness. Keller and Block (1996) suggest that fear appeals with low levels of fear would be more effective when the recipients elaborate more on the harmful consequences; therefore they are motivated to accept the message’s solution. When the message evokes a high level of fear, a decrease in elaboration on the consequences and more focus on the message’s solution would make the appeal more effective. They further posit that fear appeals with low levels of fear are more effective when the recipients elaborate more on the harmful consequences. In contrast, if the appeal evokes high levels of fear, a decrease in elaboration on the consequences and more focus on the message’s solution should be more effective. The two ELM routes of persuasion could roughly be summarized as follows: in the central route, arguments are processed extensively and objectively, while in the peripheral route, cues help to evaluate the attitude object in a simple, relatively biased manner (by means of associations and interferences). Central route persuasion is commonly lasting, while peripheral route persuasion is temporal. Thus, the way in which a message is processed will influence the outcome of the persuasive appeal and the attitudebehaviour correspondence. The dual processing model tries to understand both the extent and direction of cognitions. To better understand how fear appeals work, it is important to investigate the routes of persuasion. The persuasive outcome will depend on the route of processing.
2.4. Fear Appeals Techniques Fear appeals include a fear arousal component to a persuasive message in order to be more effective (Witte & Allen, 2000). The use of fear arousal in persuasive messages is marked by a highly visible threat component. A defining facet of threatening messages is that they alert the audience of negative outcomes in the future. Fear appeals not just scare people but, in addition, provide a second component; an action recommendation, to deal with the threatening problem. Fear appeals express a concern that negative consequences will accrue if behaviour is not altered, consistent with the advised recommendation (Leventhal, 1971; Rogers, 1975; Witte, 1992a). Therefore, two features of fear appeals can be discerned. First, by presenting information on a problem with harmful consequences, fear is induced. Secondly, the message offers a solution containing recommended actions. The order of the threat and recommendation component can be altered. Most fear appeal research focuses only on traditional message formats where multiple threats are followed by recommendations. In conclusion, people are persuaded by fear appeals when they feel the urge to relief the threat component by accepting the recommendation. There are three key ingredients of fear appeals. Witte and Allen (2000) list three key independent variables in the fear appeal processing: fear, threat, and efficacy. Fear acts as highly salient emotional appeal. Threat (cognition) is the danger to the self, measured by the summation of perceived susceptibility (or vulnerability) and perceived severity of that threat. The threat concerns the future costs of the harmful
M.A. BOERMANS (2007) – BACHELOR THESIS COMMUNICATION SCIENCE