fear: the potential of an appeal neglected by marketing · slide presentations on the consequences...

Fear: The Potential of an Appeal

Neglected by Marketing

MICHAEL L. RAY

AND

WILLIAM L. WILKIE

Considerable social psychol-ogy and communications re-search show that intelligentuse of fear messages can havefavorable effects on attitudechange and action. Yet theunique persuasive possibili-ties offered by the fear appealhave been neglected by mar-keting. This is in sharp con-trast to the creative pursuitof positive advertising ap-peals. This article presentsa marketing-oriented discus-sion and summary of researchon the fear appeal.

Journal of Marketing. Vol. 34 (January.1970). pp. 64-62.

MARKETING'S neglect of the fear appeal is a prime exampleof the field's failure to take full advantage of communication

research findings. While a large number of behavioral studies onfear have been published, marketing ignores their hints for seg-mentation, communication goal setting, message construction, andproduct differentiation. Instead of looking at these detailed re-sults, marketing seems content to ask the simple question, "Is feareffective or not?," and to reach the premature conclusion that fearis not effective as an appeal.

There is now enough evidence from research and from practicalapplications to indicate that fear should no longer be eliminatedfrom consideration as a marketing and advertising appeal. Thispaper is an attempt to present some of these research results onfear; it suggests how they might be used to make marketingdecisions.

Past Marketing Treatment of Fear

' A search of the marketing literature reveals either that fearappeals are not mentioned, or that they are guardedly rejected formarketing and advertising application on the basis of Janis andFeshbach's 1953 research on fear appeals and dental hygiene.^Their findings indicated that a strong fear appeal was less effectivethan moderate or mild fear appeals in producing reported ad-herence to recommended dental hygiene practices. This negativefinding—the more the fear the less the effect—is the only researchresult on fear reported by Cox.'- In Crane's text the Janis andFeshbach study is outlined under the headline " 'Scare Appeal' onTeeth Boomerangs."'* Myers and Reynolds list as "Principle S-2"the notion that "strong appeals to fear, by arousing too muchtension in the audience, are less effective in persuasion thanminimal appeals."* Engel, KoUat and Blackwell, while citing awide range of fear studies in their one-page treatment of the

I. Janis and S. Feshbach, "Effects of Fear-Arousing Communications,"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 'Vol. 48 (January, 1963),pp. 78-92.D. F. Cox, "Clues for Advertising Strategists: I," Harvard BusinessReview, 'Vol. 39 (September-October, 1961), pp. 160-164.E. Crane, Marketing Communications: A Behavioral Approach toMen, Messages and Media (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,1965), pp. 137-138.J. H. Myers and W. H. Reynolds, Consum-er Behavior and MarketingMatiagement (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1967), p. 280.

54

Fear: The Potential of an Appeal Neglected by Marketing 55

area, decide only that "Further research is needed."^The fact is that further research has been done.

Over 90 studies have been reported in PsychologicalAbstracts since the Janis and Feshbach research.Further, quite a few of these studies have actuallyfound that high fear was more effective than lowor no fear. This is the reverse of what Janis andFeshbach found and the reverse of what marketinghas seemingly been assuming over the last 15 or 16years.

But the key point from these studies is not thathigh fear, low fear, or no fear was successful. Thekey point is that these studies provide informationwhich could help marketers make advertising deci-sions. Fear research has been conducted with manytypes of people and should provide hints for seg-mentation. The findings should help marketers setcommunication goals, because several levels of effect—from interest and awareness to attitude and action—have been studied. And a number of differentmessage approaches have been tried. These findingsshould be of particular interest to advertising copyand media people.

While marketing as a whole tended to ignorefear research, the American Cancer Society andother anti-cigarette forces used these indications onfear when their advertising campaign was steppedup in 1967. 1968, and 1969. In 1968—for the firsttime since 1964 when the Surgeon General's reporton 8moking was issued—there was a drop in percapita and total cigarette consumption.^

As in all advertising situations, it is difficult todetermine causality in the case of anti-cigarette ad-vertising and the drop in smoking. In the firstplace the nature of the fear appeals that were usedis not unambiguous. Some fear appeals dealt withthe pestiferous nature of smoking, some with theridiculous addiction of smokers, some with theeffect of parental smoking on children and thefamily, some with the strength of the evidenceagainst smoking, and some with well-known spokes-men (William Talman, Tony Curtis) who arguedagainst the practice."

The drop in smoking could be due to any of theabove appeals or to increased and more efficient ad-vertising media spending. It could also be due toincreasing environmental support. While it isobvious that the switch to strong fear appealscannot be given total credit for the drop in smoking,it is now abundantly clear that marketing can nolonger ignore fear appeals.

J. F. Engel, D. T. Kollat, and R. D. Blackwell, Con-8Xi7ner Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart andWinston, Inc., 1968), p. 203.R. Kessler, "Kicking the Habit. Cigaret Foes Sug-gest a Long-Term Decline in Smoking Has Started,"Wall Street Journal (March 27, 1969), pp. 1 and 19.Same reference as footnote 6.

The General Evidence on FearThe picture emerging from the more recent re-

search on fear is that neither extremely strong norvery weak fear appeals are maximally effective." Itseems that appeals at a somewhat moderate level offear are best. A simple explanation for this mightbe that if an appeal is too weak it just does notattract enough attention. If it is too strong, on theother hand, it may lead people to avoid the messageor ignore the message's recommendations as beinginadequate to the task of eliminating the fearedevent.

A more thorough explanation is presented inFigure 1. Here there are two types of effectshypothesized to occur as fear increases. First,there are the facilitating effects that are most oftenoverlooked in marketing. If fear can heightendrive, there is the possibility of greater attentionand interest in the product and message than if nodrive were aroused. This aspect of fear appeals

A number of excellent reviews of the fear literaturehave recently appeared. For instance, see K. L. Hig-bee, "Fifteen Years of Fear Arousal: Research onThreat Appeals, 1953-1968," Psychological Bulletin,Vol. 72 (in press, 1969); I. L. Janis, "When Fearis Healthy," Psychology Today, Vol. 1 (April, 1968),p. 46 ff.; or W. F. McGuire, "Attitudes and Opin-ions," Annual Reviexv of Psychology, Vol. 17 (1966),pp. 484-485. Janis and McGuire are most responsi-ble for the nonmonotonic (moderate fear best)reconciliation of fear findings presented here. Seealso W. J. McGuire, "Personality and Susceptibilityto Social Influence," in Handbook of PersonalityTheory and Research, E. F. Borgatta and W. W.Lambert, eds. (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally,1968).

• ABOUT THE AUTHORS. Michael L.Ray is assistant proiessor of marketingat Stanford University Graduate Schooloi Business. He has taught marketing,advertising, and communication re-search at DePaul and NorthwesternUniversities. From 1961 to 1965, heworked on a variety of client andspecial research projects at Foote,Cone and Belding. Dr. Ray receivedhis PhD in social psychology fromNorthwestern University in 1967. His publications have ap-peared in Science, the Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, the Journal of Advertising Research, Contempo-rary Psychology, and in American Marketing AssociationProceedings.

William L. Wilkie is a PhD candidatein marketing at the Stanford UniversityGraduate School of Business. He re-ceived a BBA in marketing from theUniversity of Notre Dame in 1966, wasa PhD Fellow in the Stanford-SloanProgram in 1967, and received a con-current MBA from Stanford in 1969. Mi.Wilkie's dissertation research concernsmodels oi attitude change and mar-ket segmentation.

56 Journal of Marketing, January, 1970

Acceptance ofMessageRecommendat1 on

Faci1itat ing Effects

N\\

ResultantNonmonotonic Curve

HighLevel of Fear

\

\\

nhibiting Effects

FIGURE 1: Facilitating and inhibiting effects leading to nonmonotonic curve.

should be especially attractive in the context of theneed in marketing for distinctive approaches. Asufficiently strong fear might lead to acceptance ofthe message recommendation by first inducing in-terest in the ad and then prompting a search forsolution to the problem presented.

But fear also brings the important character-istic of inhibition into the picture. The lower curvein Figure 1 representing inhibiting effects showsthe possible results of "irrational" behavior causedby high fear. If fear levels are too high, there isthe possibility of defensive avoidance of the ad.denial of the threat, selective exposure or distortionof the ad's meaning, or a view of the recommenda-tions as being inadequate to deal with so importanta fear. Marketing, in its examination of fear, hasunwittingly put all its emphasis on these inhibitingeffects of fear.

The dashed line in Figure 1 shows the resultingtotal effects curve resulting from both facilitatingand inhibiting effects. This curve represents thehigher effectiveness for moderate fear appealsmentioned earlier.

If this curvilinear or nonmonotonic explanation istrue, however, why did Janis and Feshbach find themost minimal fear level to be most effective? Whydo other researchers find maximal fear levels to bemost effective? And, more important for market-

ers, how can this curvilinear explanation be used toplan advertising?

In order to answer these questions, it is helpfulto examine the differences between two studies whichobtained opposite results on fear. The Janis andFeshbach study and another piece of research byInsko, Arkoff, and Insko" serve as good examplesfor this purpose.

In the Janis and Feshbach research four groupsof 50 Connecticut high school students were eachexposed to one of the following 15-minute lecture-slide presentations on the consequences of improperdental hygiene:

Strong Appeal: The message contained 71 ref-erences to unfavorable consequences presentedin a threatening, personalized, "this-can-happen-to-you" manner.

Moderate Appeal: The message contained 49references to unfavorable consequences pre-sented in a more factual and less personal waythan the strong message.

Mild Appeal: The message contained 18 referen-ces to unfavorable consequences, again presented

»C. A. Insko, A. ArkofF and V. M. Insko, "Effects ofHigh and Low Fear-Arousing Communications uponOpinions Toward Smoking," Joumal of ExperimentalSocial Psychology, Vol. 1 (August, 1965), pp. 256-266.


High

Acceptanceof MessageRecommendat i on

HypothesizedLevels ofInsko et al.Messages

Hypothesized Levelsof Janis & FeshbachMessages

Level of Fear

Low High

FIGURE 2: Nonmonotonic reconciliation of Janis and Feshbach and Insko et al. findings.

factually and impersonally. The scare materialof the other messages was replaced with rela-tively neutral material having to do with thegrowth and formation of the teeth.

Control: The message was on a topic (the humaneye) irrelevant to the dental hygiene lecturesreceived by the other groups.

Insko, Arkoff and Insko studied the reactions of144 seventh-grade students in Honolulu. Half ofthe group saw each of the following messages onsmoking and lung cancer.

High Fear: The message consisted of full colorslides of cancerous body parts described in an"it-could-happen-to-you" manner. The linkbetween smoking and lung cancer was madeexplicit and suggestions to avoid smokingwere made.

Low Fear: The message mentioned the smoking-lung cancer link, and there were black andwhite photomicrographs of diseased tissuewhich were discussed dispassionately. Thismessage also recommended that the studentsavoid smoking.

In both studies there was the appropriate reactionto fear. In other words, people become more nerv-ous in response to the stronger fear messages. Butbeyond this, the results of the two studies seem

quite contradictory. The Janis and Feshbach re-search indicated that the stronger the fear appealthe less the reported adherence to the messages'recommendations on dental hygiene. Insko et al.,on the other hand, found that the high fear messagewas more effective than the low in decreasing theseventh graders' stated intentions to smoke in thefuture.

Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate the usefulness ofthe curvilinear explanation in dealing with theseemingly contradictory results of the two studies.In Figure 2 the emphasis is on the degree of fearin the messages. All of Janis and Feshbach's mes-sages are positioned on the high end of the curve.This seems reasonable since even their mild appealcontained as many as 18 references to the unfavor-able consequences of improper dental hygiene. The

' Insko et al. messages are placed on the low end ofthe fear continuum, because, although the messagescontained references to smoking and lung cancer,these references could not be extremely threateningto seventh graders who did not smoke and whoprobably considered themselves to be far from adisease state. This positioning of the messages inthe two studies is entirely consistent with the re-sults: The high fear message being most effectivein Insko et al., the mild fear message in Janis andFeshbach.


High

Acceptanceof MessageRecommendations

Levels of FearHypothesized Curve for the Two Studiesof Acceptance forJanis andFeshbachStudy

\

I

Low " M i l d "or

"Low"

"S t

"H

rong"ori gh"

Hypothetical Curveof Acceptance forInsko et al. Study

High

Level of Fear

FIGURE 3: Nonmonotonic reconciliation of fear findings with curves for two kinds of audiences and topics.

The explanatory approach taken in Figure 3 isreally more useful for marketing, however, becauseit treats different consumer segments and topics(product categories) with different curves. Withsuch a treatment marketers can realistically considerthe fear appeal response functions within varioussegment-product category groupings. In the caseof the research discussed here, the high schooler-dental hygiene grouping is seen as lower on thefear continuum (responding better to lower levels offear) then the seventh-grader .smoking and cancergrouping. Thus, Figure 3 demonstrates, even ifthe fear levels of the messages in the studies wereequivalent, the groups would respond differentlybecause they have different fear response functions.

It is interesting to note that Insko and his associ-ates were attempting to find a segment and topicfor which there was such a response function. Theirhypothesis was that for seventh graders, the topicof smoking would not be as threatening (i.e.,would not produce as many inhibiting effects), be-cause the messages would not be dealing with apresent, personal behavior of the seventh graders.One might speculate that if the Insko group hadconstructed additional, stronger fear messages whichunderlined dangers of lung cancer to seventhgraders, they may have tapped the part of the re-sponse function in which extremely high fear ishypothesized to be less effective.

Segmentation Hints from Fear Research

Figure 3 actually could be considered as a modelof how marketing's concept of segmentation mightutilize fear research. The basic idea is simple. Ifthe marketer is dealing with a segment that has aresponse curve like that of Insko's subjects, itshould be possible to effectively use a relativelystrong fear appeal in advertising, in product posi-tioning, etc. A segment with a response functionlike that hypothesized for the Janis and Feshbachgroup, however, would be less responsive to fear,and it might be better to use low fear or some otherkind of appeal.

This segmentation approach to fear appeals isquite viable, because the fear research findings onsegment response functions include all three of thebasic segmenting approaches used in marketing:socioeconomic, personality, and usage.

Personality was probably the first segment charac-teristic studied in fear appeal research. In a paperpublished in 1954, Janis and Feshbach»" analyzedtheir 1953 study, separating the sample into highand low anxiety groups with the use of test scoresand teacher ratings. The low anxiety group was

I. L. Janis and S. Feshbach, "Personality DifferencesAssociated with Responsiveness to Fear-ArousingCommunications," Journal of Personality, Vol. 23(December, 1954), pp. 154-166.


more heavily infiuenced by the strong fear messagethan was the high anxiety group. For the minimalfear message the reverse pattern was true; i.e., thehigh anxiety group was affected more by the mes-sage than was the low anxiety group. The same sortof finding—positive effect of fear in low anxietygroups and negative in high anxiety—occurred ina study by Niles on smoking.ii Niles' anxietymeasure was the subjects' perceived vulnerabilityto lung cancer.

Related personality results are reported in astudy by Goldstein'-' dealing with copers (those whocharacteristically make active efforts to deal withimpulses and dangers) and avoiders (those whodeny dangers). Copers did not react differently tohigh and low fear messages. Avoiders, however,were less receptive to recommendations under highthan under low fear. Leventhal'^ has conducted aseries of studies utilizing the personality variableof self-esteem. His general finding is that thehigher a person's self-esteem, the higher is hisoptimal level of fear. Most of this research wasdone with communications recommending tetanusinnoculation.

"Usage" (or topic relevance) was probably thesecond segmenting variable studied in the fear area.The general finding is that the greater the relevanceof the topic for the audience, the lower the optimallevel of fear appeal. For instance Insko et al. founda positive relation between fear and acceptance ofanti-smoking messages when respondents were notsmokers. Berkowitz and Cottingham found thatgreater automobile usage was associated with di-minished effectiveness of a strong fear messageadvocating the use of seat belts. Leventhal andWatts found the same sort of negative relationshipbetween usage of cigarettes and acceptance of strongfear messages on smoking.^*

Few fear studies have been conducted using thecommon socioeconomic segmenting descriptions. Inmost cases the fear experiments utilize fairly smallsamples with all respondents coming from one socio-economic class. Two studies, by Haefner and bySinger, seem to suggest that fear appeals are more

" P. Niles, "The Relationship of Susceptibility andAnxiety to Acceptance of Fear-Arousing Communi-cations," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale Uni-versity, 1964.

12 M. Goldstein, "Relationship Between Coping andAvoiding Behavior and Response to Fear-ArousingPropaganda," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology, Vol. 58 (March, 1959), pp. 247-252.

" H. Leventhal, "Fear—For Your Health," PsychologyToday, Vol. 1 (September, 1967), pp. 54-58.

" L . Berkowitz and D. R. Cottingham, "The InterestValue and Relevance of Fear Arousing Communica-tions," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,Vol. 60 (January, 1960), pp. 37-43; H. Leventhal andJ. C. Watts, "Sources of Resistance to Fear Arous-ing Communications on Smoking and Lung Cancer,"Journal of Personality, Vol. 34 (June, 1966), pp.155-175.

effective with lower than with high socioeconomicclasses, but the results are confused by source effects(such as deference to authority).*^

In general, then, fear research mirrors marketingfindings in that the segmenting characteristics whichhave discriminated best have been those most closelyrelated to the product or topic. High fear appealshave worked best with people who are low in anxietyand high in self-esteem, who exhibit coping be-havior, who normally find the topic or category oflow relevance, and who normally see themselves ashaving low vulnerability to the threat in the fearmessage.

An interesting conclusion for marketing is thatfear motivation should be most effective for thosewho have not seen themselves as part of the marketfor the recommended product or brand. Thus, itmight be surmised that strong Cancer Society ap-peals would be more effective for younger thanolder smokers, since younger smokers are less likelyto see themselves as vulnerable to the cancer threat.If the anti-cigarette forces can further segment themarket to find low anxiety, high self-esteem copersamong the smokers, they will have segments forwhich extremely strong fear messages should beeffective if presented well.

In a similar way, insurance companies might findthat fear appeals work best with groups who tjiJical-ly do not see themselves as needing insurance, eventhough they have already been exposed to insuranceads dealing with security, benefits, etc. Mouthwashadvertisers might find that fear appeals would workbest with those who have not really considered thebad breath problem. Dietetic foods might be soldwith fear appeals to those on the verge of gainingweight who have not yet considered weight gain aproblem. Safety features in cars might best be soldwith fear to those infrequent drivers who have notconsidered the dangers of short trips in the city.

The list of possible applications is virtually end-less. The general implication, however, can bestated in a brief way. Fear motivation seems to bemore effective in opening new segments rather thanselling old ones.

Fear and the Several Levels ofCommunication Effect

Despite the fact that they are stimulating,the ideas on segmentation presented above leavemany questions about the use of fear appeals inmarketing. For instance, fear appeals are moreeffective for some groups in the laboratory, but arethey not likely to be avoided in a more realistic ex-posure situation? How does the high arousal caused

" D . Haefner, "Use of Fear Arousal in Dental HealthEducation," unpublished paper cited in McGuire,same reference as footnote 8 (1966); R. P. Singer,"The Effects of Fear-Arousing Communications onAttitude Change and Behavior," unpublished doc-toral dissertation. University of Connecticut, 1965.


by fear affect learning? What about behavior; doesfear really get people to act on recommendations?

All of these are questions about levels of effect.Most of the discussion of fear to this point hasdealt with reported acceptance of recommendations.But in order to use fear in specific situations inmarketing, it is necessary to have some idea of itseffect on several levels—exposure, learning, action—as well as acceptance.

Fear's Effect on Message Exposure

Although direct fear research evidence on ex-posure is sparse,'^ considerable evidence can begleaned from the broader research area of selectiveexposure to all types of messages. A number ofstudies in the selective exposure literature deal withthe differential interest people have in being ex-posed to positive and negative arguments on a seriesof topics.'" In general, people seem to prefer posi-tive arguments, but persons who have had a historyof exposure to only positive arguments expressgreater interest in exposure to the negative.

Thus the segmentation decision discussed in thepreceding sections is intimately related to exposurepotential. Exposure for single fear messages ismore likely for individuals who have already beenexposed to positive messages and for those whoseanxiety and arousal on the topic, product, or brandis initially low. In most marketing conditions, itwould seem that fear appeals would be particularlyeffective with those segments which would notnormally search for information in the productcategory. In such situations the more intrusivebroadcast media might be used to overcome theproblem. Or ad implementation will have to behandled in such a way as to quickly inform thereader of the problem.

Fear's Effect on Learning

Given that the novelty of the fear appeal caninduce exposure to a communication, the real ques-tion remains of whether or not this initial arousalcan be converted to continuing attention and result-ant learning. Janis, in an excellent review coveringresearch from physiological psychology through fearmessages to disaster situations, concludes that thereis little effect on cognitive efficiency within the range

i« See, for example: C. F. Cannell and J. C. Mac-Donald, "The Impact of Health News on Attitudesand Behavior," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 33 (Sum-mer, 1956), pp. 315-323; J. C. Nunnally and H. M.Broben, "Variables Governing the Willingness to Re-ceive Communications on Mental Health," Journal ofPersonality, Vol. 27 (March, 1959), pp. 38-46; P. R.Robbins, "Self-Reports of Reactions to Fear-ArousingInformation," Psychological Reports, Vol. 11 (Decem-ber, 1962), pp. 761-764.

" J . L. Freedman and D. 0. Sears, "Selective Ex-posure," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,Vol. 2 (1966), pp. 58-97.

of fear levels used in most attitude change studies.^"While there is a loss in efficiency (e.g., distraction,errors, poor retention) for extreme fear situations,there does not seem to be any negative effect on at^tention and learning for fear levels up to thisthreshold. And some research shows an increase inattention accompanying an increase in fear withinthis relevant range.'"

There are, however, distinct problems in directlyadopting these findings for marketing. The re-search has tended to measure quantity rather thanquality of learning. It has always been done insettings which strongly discouraged "leaving thefield," and thu.s has implicitly encouraged attention,comprehension, and learning. Respondents have nooptions like svntching TV channels, going to thekitchen to get a drink, or engaging in a short con-versation (possible "inhibitors" in a marketingsetting). On the other hand, the novelty and dis-tinctiveness of the fear appeal versus the commonexpectations generated by most advertisements hasnot been tested either. This characteristic, plus thehypothesis that marketing objectives would not leadto the use of an extremely high level of fear anyway,indicates that the question of attention and learningwith fear in marketing should be kept open forexamination in each individual problem situation.

Fear's Effect on ActionThe real focus of marketing communications is on

eliciting some form of desired behavior, and con-siderable fear research on action has been conducted.Respondents have been induced to get tetanus in-oculations, improve dental practices, see theirdoctor, receive a free toothbrush or dental hygienebooklet, stop smoking, sign petitions, and take chestX-rays.-" Specific results on action response rangefrom Janis and Feshbach's research, in which therewas less adherence to recommended dental practicestwo weeks after strong fear messages, to a studyof emotional role playing by Mann and Janis^' inwhich a single one-hour fear session was shown tobe effective in decreasing smoking over an 18-monthperiod.

General findings parallel marketing communica-tion knowledge in the action or behavior area.Recommended behavior is more likely to occur ifconsumers have been adequately exposed to mes-

i" I. L. Janis, "Effects of Fear Arousal on AttitudeChange: Recent Developments in Theory and Ex-perimental Research," Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology, Vol. 3 (1967), pp. 167-225.

'"See, for example: Janis and Feshbach, same ref-erence as footnote 1; Berkowitz and Cottingham,same reference as footnote 14.

•^ For a review of most of these studies see same ref-erence as footnote 18.

21 L. Mann and I. L, Janis, "A Follow-Up Study onthe Long-Term Effects of Emotional Role Playing,"Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 8(April, 1968), pp. 339-342.


s, if the environment is supportive of themessage recommendation, if the action is not toodifficult to undertake, and if there is little time delaybetween message recommendation and action.

Thus, the problems of eliciting action with fearmessages are not greatly different from the prob-lems of eliciting action with messages utilizingother types of appeals. As such, however, fearappeals must be used carefully in order to promotebehavior. A study by Leventhal and Watts onsmoking and lung cancer illustrates this point.--

At first glance it seems that Leventhal and Watts'results represent an example of low attitude-be-havior correlation. The paper and pencil acceptanceof recommendations correlated positively with re-spondent fear, while the frequency of the recom-mended behavior of actually getting a chest X-rayshowed a highly significant decrease going from thelow to the high fear condition.

There were further results, however, that madethe study more intere.sting. The study was doneat the JCew York State Fair, and many of the re-spondents in the high fear condition said theywanted to go to their doctors to get an X-rayrather than take one at the Fair. This seemed rea-sonable to Leventhal and Watts, since respondentsin the high fear condition might have thoughtsomething could really have been wrong with them.So the researchers sent a questionnaire to partici-pants five months after the original interviews. Fewnew X-rays were reported, but those in the highfear groups reported .significantly more success instopping smoking than did the lower fear groups.Leventhal and Watts explain these results on thebasis that the act by individuals to stop smokingwas an effective way to deal with the fear raised inthe strong fear messages. Getting X-rays or seeinga doctor, on the other hand, might merely increasethe chance of fear. Further analysis of their dataproduced support for this interpretation.

If Leventhal and Watts were marketing men at-tempting to sell chest X-rays, they might have con-sidered their strong fear message a failure, eventhough it was most effective in getting people tostop smoking. In this case, it may have been betterto emphasize the effectiveness of the X-ray in de-tecting and preventing disease rather than tostrongly emphasize the threat of cancer. Or it maybe that the message could have been more specificas to how to secure the X-rays.

These kinds of questions can be asked every timefear appeals are attempted in marketing. Fear re-search provides many of the answers. For instance,in the Leventhal and Watts study there are data onsegmentation characteristics, eligibility for X-rays,perceived threat, and degree to which recommenda-tions were seen as efficacious. In other fear studiesthere are findings about the order of fear evocation

and recommendations within a message (probablybetter to put the fear first), the object of the threat(better to threaten someone close to the prospectrather than the prospect himself), source credibility(quite important when fear is used), and the phys-ical size of the message (important when the audi-ence is likely to have low self-esteem i. It is up tomarketing to use findings like these and to add tothem with results in the marketing area.-^

Summary and Conclusions

The puri)ose of this paper has not been tothoroughly review the behavioral literature on fearor to argue strongly for the use of fear appeals ina wide variety of marketing situations. Rather thepurpose has been to systematically sample the re-search evidence on fear, and show how it can be usedto determine when and how fear appeals might beused in marketing.

A large number of studies have been done on theque.stion of fear appeals and. surprisingly, market-ing's emphasis has been on only one of these, a studyreported by Janis and Feshbach about 16 years ago.-*

Behavioral research on fear indicates that fearproduces some effects which are facilitating and somewhich are inhibiting to audience acceptance of rec-ommendations. These facilitating and inhibitingeffects underlie a curvilinear explanation for thediverse results on fear.

Marketing's technique of segmentation can beused to find groups for which relatively high fearappeals are effective. In general, these seem to bepeople who do not see the product category in ques-tion as highly relevant to them, thus offering thepossibility that fear appeals should be especiallyconsidered for opening new segments. In additionto this usage or interest characteristic, segmentswith high fear potential are those characterized bylow anxiety, high self-esteem, and the tendency toattempt to cope with problems rather than avoidingthem.

While marketing has typically emphasized thepotential inhibiting effects of fear motivation, therecent research indicates that fear can have facili-tating effects. In situations where consumers haveheard all the positive arguments on a category, it islikely that negative fear appeals will generate in-terest. There is also evidence that fear can facili-

22 Same reference as footnote 14.

23 H. Leventhal and R. P. Singer, "Affect Arousaland Positioning of Recommendations in PersuasiveCommunications," Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, Vol. 4 (February, 1966), pp. 137-146;F. A. Powell, "The Effects of Anxiety-ArousingMessages When Related to Personal, Familial andImpersonal Referents," Speech Monographs, Vol. 32(June, 1965), pp. 102-106; M. A. Hewgill and G. R.Miller, "Source Credibility and Response to Fear-Arousing Communication," Speech Monographs, Vol.32 (June, 1965), pp. 95-101; same reference as foot-note 13.

-* Same reference as footnote 1.


tate learning and action on recommendations, al-though the problems of eliciting action from fearcommunication are just as severe as with communi-cations utilizing other types of appeals. The fearresearch provides a number of hints for messageconstruction which may lead to consumer action.

The greatest problem with the application of fearin marketing is the same problem that occurs forthe use of any kind of appeal or motivation. It canonly be applied in specific situations, and no amountof previous research can indicate the effect of fearin a new situation. Behavioral research can answermany questions; on segmentation, on levels of effect,and on message construction. By applying the re-sults of fear reported here and in more thoroughreviews, the marketer should be able to determinewhether fear can be applied in his situation, andwhat some of the most likely results of this applica-tion will be. But it is also likely that he will haveto make assumptions or conduct further research inthe following areas:

1. Level of fear—The curvilinear model of fearmentioned in this paper has not often beenfully tested within a single study. This islikely to happen in a marketing study, espe-cially since marketing is very likely to utilizethe very low levels of fear.

2. Source credibility—Most of the studies re-ported here deal with situations in which thesource is unspecified or of high credibility(e.g., the medical profession, the Cancer So-ciety). Even then the audiences often ques-tioned strong fear appeals. But in marketingthe basic source will be the brand or company,and ways of overcoming the obvious bias ofsuch a source will have to be developed.

3. Consideration of other types of fear—Most of

the behavioral research on fear deals withphysiological fear. In marketing it will benecessary to do some research to determine iffindings hold for other kinds of fears such associal fears.

4. Repetitive effects—Vse of fear in marketingwill undoubtedly raise questions about repeti-tive use in competitive conditions. Behavioralresearch has been done in these areas, butother, more realistic work can be done inmarketing. Some research is under way atStanford on the repetitive use of fear.

In addition to these questions the issue of ethicsshould naturally be considered. The basic questionhere is whether the fear necessary for effectivemarketing communications may have deleteriousconsequences for those high anxiety persons whohappen to be in the message audience. Consideringthe nonmonotonic notion and relevant communica-tion research, however, it seems likely that the levelof fear that is effective in marketing would not behigh enough to be even remotely unethical. It mustbe remembered that the primary advantage of thefear appeal for marketing lies in its novelty. Be-cause of this, destructively high levels of fearshould not be necessary for effective marketingcommunication.

Fear is only one of several areas in communica-tion research that has been neglected and handled ina rather unsophisticated way by marketing. Hope-fully, this paper has illustrated how the findingsfrom such research might be used in conjunctionwith various marketing techniques. Careful an-alysis is necessary to utilize behavioral findings.However, it should provide numerous dividends inthe form of rewards to marketing and knowledge inthe behavioral area itself.

fear: the potential of an appeal neglected by marketing · slide presentations on the consequences...

Documents