|
||||||||||||||
Expert Network : Current News |
||||||||||||||
|
Bottom Line: Scared Straight or Running Scared? Proper Use of Fear Tactics in Public Health Interventions
By Kelli England Will, Ph.D.
For many years, fear-appeal tactics were thought to be ineffective for motivating health behavior change. However, recent studies have afforded researchers a clearer understanding of why and how threat-appeal messages (formerly known as scare tactics or fear appeals) work in some instances and fail in others. As it turns out, threat appeals have been designed and targeted inappropriately in many studies. Now, research strongly supports the use of threat appeals when they contain both a high threat component and promote high efficacy for protecting oneself from the hazard. This means that, in addition to scaring the audience, the message must provide an action plan and give the audience the tools and confidence to protect themselves. Promoting confidence in one’s ability to carry out the behavior (self-efficacy) and confidence that the intervention will work (response efficacy) are just as important as fear. When Properly Designed, Fear Appeals Can Work According to the Extended Parallel Process Model (proposed by Kim Witte in 1992 and reformulated in 1998), properly designed fear appeals motivate a person to control the danger (which means they adopt the protective behavior), but improperly designed fear appeals motivate a person to control the fear of the threat (which means they tune out the message). Message recipients weigh their risk of experiencing the health threat against actions they can take that would avert the health threat. When perceived threat and perceived self- and response-efficacy are high (i.e., an “I can do it and it will work” attitude is present), people are motivated to control the danger by adhering to recommended responses. However, when fear of the threat exceeds efficacy for protecting oneself against the hazard, fear tactics fail because people are motivated to control the fear. Knowing When Fear Appeals Makes Sense Threat-appeal tactics that raise the public’s concern about an issue are especially useful when the audience’s sense of vulnerability to the problem is low. This is the case with many (but not all) safety issues. Careful examination of the target behavior, the target audience, and the message are important for deciding whether a fear appeal will work. Target behaviors that may be inappropriate include those in which perceptions of self- or response efficacy are low. If the target audience does not have confidence in their ability to fix the problem, the message will probably be ignored. For instance, low confidence in one’s ability to quit smoking or to lose weight makes it very easy for a threat appeal to fail. The audience is fearful of the health threat, but they do not believe they are capable of doing what it takes to prevent it. In such cases, messages may be better received if they focus on helping a person access the tools, support, and confidence needed to carry out the recommended action. Fear Appeals are Not One-Size-Fits-All Demographic characteristics (e.g., age, culture, gender) should also be considered, as threat appeals are not a one-size-fits-all intervention. For instance, some studies indicate that males and females may respond best to different types of threat appeals. Intervention timing matters too; a scare tactic may work at one age or phase of life but not another. For instance, in my research I’m finding that threat-appeal messages are effective for increasing booster seat use among parents of 4- to 8-year-old children (whose perceptions of vulnerability are low); however, I would not use a scare tactic to encourage child seat use among expectant parents (whose self-efficacy perceptions are low). When designing messages, public safety educators should expand their definition of a fear appeal, as gore is not necessary to produce a strong effect and it is inappropriate in some (but certainly not all) instances. Additional Resources In summary, threat-appeal messages are a useful tool for intervention, but only if designed and targeted appropriately. Luckily, there are many resources available to help. At the top of the list is the 2001 book, Effective Health Risk Messages: A Step-by-Step Guide, by Witte, Meyer, & Martell. I’d also suggest visiting Kim Witte’s Website and the Communication Initiative Website. For a quick and easy assessment of your audience’s existing levels of fear and efficacy, look no further than the Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale, developed by Witte, Cameron, McKeon, and Berkowitz in 1996 and also available online. Kelli England Will, Ph.D. is Clinical Psychologist and Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA Contact Information:
Kelli England Will, Ph.D. ,Clinical Psychologist and Assistant Professor of Pediatrics
|
|
