If you advertise with fear, you must not lay it on too thick, because otherwise you often overshoot the markBy Wolfgang KoschnickNothing is more difficult than getting a consumer to change his behavior. Social psychological insights are therefore part of the basic equipment of an advertiser who uses the keyboard of threat to sell products or bring about changes in behavior.
Actually, that should work: If you want to warn about the dangers of smoking, you show a close-up of an open, festering smoker's leg. True to detail and disgusting. The viewers' hair stands on end so that they never touch a cigarette again.
In truth, things usually work differently. People are almost never influenced by fear or scaremongering appeals. And if they do let it happen, it is usually not in the desired direction.
Psychology distinguishes between anxiety and fear. It describes anxiety as a free-floating sensation of threat, in contrast to fear, which is an emotional reaction to a specific, consciously perceived and identified danger. Fear is, in a sense, "normal"; its trigger is a specific danger. Fear is the field in which psychologists make their living. Fear is the rational reaction to everyday dangers.
Fear appeals also achieve
undesirable effects
Advertising psychology uses anxiety and fear largely synonymously and in the sense of fear. Fear or fear-inducing advertising is particularly widespread in the field of non-commercial advertising, for example in health care, safety measures against burglary or the wearing of seat belts. People are described a concrete danger and told, "If you do this or that or buy this or that product, you can avoid this danger."
Social psychology and communication research have studied in detail the effect of such fear appeals in propaganda, public relations and advertising. Advertising with fear appeals always consists of two parts: The first part describes a fear-producing situation such as a catastrophe, a disaster, a disease - in short, the actual "fear appeal" - and in the second part the behavior or product that can be used to eliminate the danger - the "fear-reducing behavior".
The use of negative emotions to activate consumers is a double-edged sword. While it is undoubtedly easy to activate consumers with the help of "fear appeals", side effects can occur that contradict the marketing objective. However, side effects can occur that contradict the marketing objective. After all, in the case of advertising with fear triggers, the target persons may cope with their fear by repressing it instead of following the advertising recommendation.
Advertising psychology generally distinguishes between hot and cold emotions. Hot emotions are self-experienced sensations such as anger or euphoria. Cold emotions, on the other hand, are mediated sensations. For marketing, both forms of emotion play a role. If the consumer is strongly involved in his or her own purchase decision, hot emotions such as fear of accidents or anger at environmental pollution can inhibit purchases.
A classic study by the two American social psychologists Irving L. Janis and Seymour Feshbach in 1953 provided the first clarification. They investigated the effect of fear appeals of different intensities on the subjects' attitudes toward dental care. For this purpose, she used a drastic, a moderate and a weak fear appeal. The surprising result was that neither the drastic nor the moderate fear appeal led to changes in attitudes, but the weak appeal did. Here, too, one of the basic laws of advertising design applies: you must not lay it on too thick.
Man prefers to keep good memories
However, this finding was not substantiated in follow-up experiments. Irving Janis later assumed an inverted U-shaped course of effect. According to this, the communication effect initially increases with the increase in fear arousal, only to decrease again from a - relatively early - effect maximum. This means that a moderately strong fear appeal has the most lasting effect.
The U.S. psychologist William J. McGuire also found confirmation that there is a nonmonotonic, inverted-U-shaped relationship between the intensity of anxiety or fear and attitude change to fearful communication: "As intensity increases, attitude change initially rises in its extremity, then falls off again." So, this can probably be considered a somewhat established finding of today's advertising research.
The late German advertising researcher Werner Kroeber-Riel described emotional activation and conditioning in advertising with the phrase: "Emotions are the Trojan horse of advertising." Indeed, advertising with pronounced negative emotions has been shown to be less effective in the long run than those with pleasant feelings. This is because memory content with an unpleasant emotional tone is retained moderately, with a neutral emotional tone poorly, and with a pleasant emotional tone well. However, processing performance drops again with very strong positive or negative emotions.
Pronounced fear appeals lead to a defensive perceptual block on the part of consumers and therefore have little effect on behavior. All non-smoking campaigns have repeatedly shown that moral, rational and fear appeals are not particularly effective.
However, this result is also inconclusive. However, a study published in 1970 by the two American advertising researchers Michael L. Ray and William L. Wilkie on an anti-smoking campaign operating with strong fear appeals assumes that there is a clear connection between the subsequently observable decline in cigarette consumption and the campaign operating with fear appeals. This campaign featured a well-known actor. He publicly announced that he was dying of lung cancer because of years of cigarette smoking.
From this study concluded
the authors found that anxiety appeals are quite promising with target persons who are "low in anxiety and high in self-esteem," i.e., persons who themselves have little anxiety and high self-esteem. So the thing works in exactly the opposite way than one would expect: It's not the anxious who become more anxious when they are made anxious by advertising. It is the courageous with high self-esteem who are impressed by the drastic evocation of imminent dangers.
Behavioral changes are usually lengthy processes
The question of what the conditions are for people to turn to the message in order to avert danger is the subject of the "protection" motivation model developed by R. W. Rogers in 1975, which has been further developed over the decades by more recent authors into the "ordered protection motivation model" (OPM model) and the "extended protection motivation model" (EPM model). According to this model, three critical variables determine the effect of fear appeals: (1) the extent of possible harm, (2) the recipient's presumed probability of being personally affected if he or she does nothing about it, and (3) the presumed effectiveness of possible countermeasures.
Behavioral changes are often protracted processes. Certain psychological parameters play a role in this process, which must be in place if people who behave in one way or another in a risky manner are ultimately to find their way to a healthy lifestyle. Central here is the concept of protection motivation, i.e., health-specific resolutions, intentions and intentions.
In everyday language, "good intentions" usually refer to unsuccessful efforts. Nevertheless, a smoker who intends to quit smoking, for example, is at least one "step" closer to the healthy behavioral alternative than the person who has so far only thought about this topic.
Accordingly, numerous social-psychological theories such as that of action inducement and its extension, that of planned behavior, the theory of protective motivation and the social-cognitive process model of health-related action are based on the assumption that healthy behavior is primarily exhibited when people have formed corresponding intentions. The theory of action inducement even formulates the assumption that intentions are the only variables that ultimately determine concrete actions.
Exaggerated threat can form a defense reflex
In principle, the effect of an advertising message can probably be enhanced by arousing fear. A person who has been brought out of his emotional equilibrium by negative appeals looks for a way to restore the balance and avert the "threat".
If he is now offered a suitable way out together with the anxiety-provoking message (not smoking, vaccination, taking out an insurance policy), he usually accepts it and remembers it particularly well. However, if the perceived fear reaches a level that is subjectively no longer bearable, defense mechanisms are triggered: the message is - unconsciously - denied, falsified or distorted, or the advertiser is rejected as untrustworthy.
The effect of a fear appeal on a particular target depends on very different factors. First, on the basic mood of the personality (offensive, defensive) and their general level of anxiety. Second, the importance of the subject. Thirdly, the strength of the fear appeal in the message, i.e. the subjectively perceived probability that the unpleasant consequences could occur. The period of time that will elapse before the possible occurrence of the consequences and the credibility of the sender should also not be disregarded.
The numerous efforts to prevent AIDS have encouraged new research that critically examines the use of fear appeals. According to this research, the decisive factor is the risk perception of the target persons as well as their perception of the possibilities of self-activity ("self-efficacy"). If the target persons are not convinced that they can prevent infection by using condoms, they will not use them - a logical rather than a socio-psychological insight.
Examples of fear advertising can be found in insurance, pharmaceutical and hygiene products. Fear appeals, i.e., pointing out impending consequences if the advertising recommendation is not followed, are used primarily in the area of "social advertising" and "social marketing," in anti-smoking campaigns or campaigns for tick vaccination.
A feasible problem solution leads to successful advertising
Behavior reinforcement usually involves the presentation of rewards or the avoidance of punishment. Advertising mainly promises the occurrence of positive consequences. Various forms of rewards such as financial benefits, personal well-being and social recognition are available as reinforcers.
Various reactions are conceivable in the case of advertising with negative appeals: If the effect of the advertising medium is too much characterized by negative experiences, such as fear or disgust, the product itself can appear repulsive, even if it promises salvation from unpleasantness. However, this cannot be relied upon either, as recent research shows. Most findings are often countered by findings that point in the opposite direction.
The two U.S. researchers Anthony Pratkanis and Elliott Aronson explicitly state in their 1991 book "Age of Propaganda. The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion," they explicitly state that you can't lay it on thick enough at all if you want to mobilize fears: "All other things being equal, the more frightened a person is, the more likely he or she is to take positive preventive action."
However, this does not apply in situations in which the persons concerned feel powerless to change the fear-inducing situation. And in general, fear appeals are particularly effective when the target persons consider the proposed problem solution to be promising, promising, and feasible. According to Pratkanis and Aronson, fear appeals are only effective if these conditions are met.
However, all studies from the USA and also from Europe clearly indicate that it is always and under all circumstances more effective to address target persons with positive appeals. This is confirmed by a study conducted by the University of Daytona in 1997, which examined the effect of appeals to donate organs.
In the past, appeals that emphasized the plight of people waiting for donor organs had been used for this purpose with little success. The study used four different appeals - two with "fear appeals" and two with "positive appeals" that emphasized the blessings for recipients. Result: 25 percent of viewers who were appealed to via fear appeal said they had no intention of donating their organs. Viewers who had been positively appealed to said so only 5 percent of the time.
Quite clearly, there is also a correlation with the age of the target. This has been shown in the numerous campaigns against drug abuse around the world. Fear appeals work better the older the target persons are. The younger the targets, the more widespread the idea of their own immortality. A real curse: all anti-drug campaigns are aimed primarily at young people. And of all people, it doesn't work with them.
Theses about the effect of fear-producing advertising
-Fear of harm is an essential condition for changing one's risk-taking behavior.
-There seems to be a U-shaped or linear relationship between the extent of fear induction and the willingness to change behavior. The findings are contradictory on this point.
-It is also possible that a high perception of personal threat may result not only in desired but also in undesired behavioral changes.
-The perceived coping capabilities (competence expectations) among the target persons play a major role.
-When potential hazards are widely disseminated via mass media, the experience of fear and thus the willingness to change behavior may weaken.
-There is virtually no research at all on the long-term effects of fear appeals. The few studies that have been done on this so far suggest positive rather than negative effects.
-There are hardly any reliable findings on the effectiveness (strong/weak/contrasting) of fear appeals in target groups differentiated by age, gender or social status. Overall, fear appeals seem to be less effective with young people.
-There are conflicting findings about the effect of positive and negative appeals.
-The willingness to change behavior depends largely on the topic and the context of the message. For example, warnings about the harmfulness of smoking are noticeably weakened by the presentation of an attractive person.
-The perception of risk for certain diseases depends on the severity of the disease, the number of people at risk and the subjective experience of control. However, this subjective perception often does not correspond to the "real" risk, but is usually too low ("unrealistic optimism").
-The possibility of changing risk perceptions depends on numerous factors. For example, the novelty and scare potential of AIDS in campaigns has enabled behavioral changes that could never be achieved in alcohol and tobacco prevention.
Further leading literature
Anyone interested in a literature list on the subject of fear appeal research and advertising impact can obtain it free of charge from the editorial office of WerbeWoche (info@werbewoche). The list will be sent by e-mail.
Articles published so far
Sex in Advertising (WW 38/00), Humor in Advertising (WW 42/00), How Does the Environment Influence Advertising Impact? (WW 1/01), How does placement influence advertising impact (WW 14/01), Creativity and efficiency in advertising (WW 18/01).
How advertising really works
With this article by Allensbach journalist Wolfgang J. Koschnick, WerbeWoche continues its series of articles on advertising research. This installment, Part 6, deals with the effect of scary subjects in advertising.
Anyone with questions about aspects of advertising effectiveness research can send them to us ([email protected]). We will answer them to the best of our knowledge.
In selecting topics for this series, Wolfgang Koschnick can draw on several hundred scientific studies on advertising impact that have been published in Germany and abroad over the past 50 years.
