THE COMMUNICATION PROCESS OF PERSUASION AND FEAR APPEALS
14
with a prevention focus if the behaviour is perceived as vigilant. Preventive behaviour serves people with the possibility to enhance their health status (Rothman & Salovey, 1997). The ELM is informative in explaining why these framing effects on persuasiveness occur. Gainframes are more effective when individuals are not involved with the message issue, since they will peripherally process the gain cue. Loss-frames are more effective when individuals are more involved with the issue, and therefore centrally process the message. Thus, message framing is another variable that determines how, when and why fear appeals can be effective persuasive weaponry. The persuasiveness is guided to the extent that the message fits with how the recipients think and reason about their environment. However, as the persuasion triangle emphasises, the way how the gains or losses are presented, either to the self, others or to the world will further influence the message impact.
2.7. Hypotheses In this section I will posit four hypotheses. These hypotheses include the issues about the effects of the level of fear, defensive mechanisms of the self, efficacy, and emotions. These topics have been briefly stressed and are now emphasised to answer four broad questions. First, the level of fear is the utmost important ingredient of the message. Dillard and Anderson (2004) posit that fear influences persuasion in four distinct ways. First, the reactivity feature of fear highlights individual variations in the inclination of fear arousal, and the subsequent effect of fear on information processing. Secondly, an increase feature emphasizes the differences between baseline and peak fear. Dillard and Anderson (2004) assume that persuasion is a function of the increase from baseline to peak fear. Thirdly, the peak intensity will vary between individuals. The peak feature suggests that the peak fear will mediate the persuasive message’s effect, regardless of the individual’s state of fear prior to the appeal. Fourthly, the decline feature holds that there are differences in de degree to which fear is reduced after the message. Dillard and Anderson (2004) assume that after fear is induced and when the effect wears out, this decrease of fear may determine persuasion. Fear is activated to the extent that the message holds important, negatively valenced, impending, and effortful recommended actions. Furthermore, fear depends on the extent that the individual perceives the recommendation as beyond control of his own behaviour. In conclusion, individual states react in response to the situation and the objectives of the self at that moment. Motivation, ability and elaboration are important determinants that interact with levels of fear. Low levels are unlikely to result in any effect, therefore given the complex way in which level of fear is build up as put forward in Dillard and Anderson (2004) analysis, the first hypothesis is as follows: H1: In general, higher levels of fear arousal result in greater fear appeal effectiveness. Drive theory and the extended parallel processing models posit that under certain circumstances people defensively process the information content of the fear appeal. Since a fear appeal threatens the individual, it should arouse a defense motivation that motivates the individual to minimize the threat. When central
M.A. BOERMANS (2007) – BACHELOR THESIS COMMUNICATION SCIENCE