THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS OF PERSUASION AND FEAR APPEALS
12
process model strives to explain how people process fear appeals and why people are persuaded. When the message is processed the threat is communicated first. People evaluate the threat considering perceived vulnerability and severity. When the threat is not perceived as serious then the message will not be processed. On the other hand, when people perceive danger, they get motivated (as with drive theory) by the threat to assess the effectiveness of the recommendation by perceived efficacy to reduce the danger. Figure 1 presents a schematic arrangement of the model’s implications. Notice the similarities with the other fear appeal models. Figure 1: Scheme of the Extended Parallel Process Model by Witte (1992)
Figure 1 shows that fear appeals are external stimuli that the recipients process. First, the threat and afterwards the recommendation are communicated (message processing, 1st & 2nd appraisals). Then, three different evaluations are feasible. First, the individual ignores the appeal because the message is irrelevant or not fearsome (low threat + low/high efficacy). This outcome depends on individual differences and is represented in figure 1 by ‘no threat perceived, no response’. Second, the individual accepts the threatening information and is motivated to control the dangerous situation by the recommended action. The person holds a ‘protection motivation’ and will control the danger (high threat, high efficacy). Third, the individual rejects the fear appeal, not because of low fear arousal but because the advised solution is not perceived as good. The person will show ‘defensive motivation’ for message rejection to control the fear (high threat, low efficacy). V: The Stage Model posited by Das (2001) accounts for a temporal distinction between primary and secondary appraisal. People exposed to fear appeals have to engage in two kinds of review. People make an assessment of the threat (vulnerability and severity) and, then consider the recommended strategy available for coping with that threat (efficacy). The appraisal of the threat determines both the processing mode and the processing goal (see De Hoog et al., 2004). The difference with other models is that the consequence of defense motivation under high threat perception is not an avoidance reaction, but rather
M.A. BOERMANS (2007) – BACHELOR THESIS COMMUNICATION SCIENCE