effects of fear-arousing communications - haileybury psychology

THB JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGYVol. 48, No. i, 1053

EFFECTS OF FEAR-AROUSING COMMUNICATIONS

IRVING L. JANIS AND SEYMOUR FESHBACHYale University

IT is generally recognized that when beliefsand attitudes are modified, learning proc-esses are involved in which motivational

factors play a primary role. Symbols in masscommunications can be manipulated in avariety of ways so as to arouse sociallyacquired motives such as need for achieve-ment, group conformity, power-seeking, andthe more emotion-laden drives arising fromaggression, sympathy, guilt, and anxiety.

The present experiment was designed tostudy the effects of one particular type ofmotive-incentive variable in persuasive com-munications, namely, the arousal of fear oranxiety by depicting potential dangers towhich the audience might be exposed.1 Fearappeals of this sort are frequently used toinfluence attitudes and behavior. For ex-ample, medical authorities sometimes try topersuade people to visit cancer detectionclinics by pointing to the dangerous conse-quences of failing to detect the early symp-toms of cancer; various political groups playup the threat of war or totalitarianism in anattempt to motivate adherence to their politi-cal program. Our interest in such attemptsis primarily that of determining the condi-tions under which the arousal of fear is effec-tive or ineffective in eliciting changes inbeliefs, practices, and attitudes.

Implicit in the use of fear appeals is theassumption that when emotional tension isaroused, the audience will become morehighly motivated to accept the reassuringbeliefs or recommendations advocated by the

1 This study was conducted at Yale University aspart of a coordinated program of research on attitudeand opinion change, financed by a grant from theRockefeller Foundation. The attitude change researchproject is under the general direction of Professor CarlI. Hovland, to whom the authors wish to express theirappreciation for many valuable suggestions concerningthe design of the experiment. Special thanks are dueto Dr. Isador Hirschfeld of New York City and Dr.Bert G. Anderson of the Yale Medical School for theirhelpful advice in connection with the preparation of theillustrated talks on dental hygiene. The authors alsowish to thank Dr. S. Willard Price, Superintendent ofSchools at Greenwich, Connecticut, and Mr. AndrewBella, Principal of the Greenwich High School, for theirgenerous cooperation.

78

communicator. But the tendency to acceptreassuring ideas about ways and means ofwarding off anticipated danger may notalways be the dominant reaction to a fear-arousing communication. Under certain con-ditions, other types of defensive reactions mayoccur which could give rise to highly unde-sirable effects from the standpoint of thecommunicator.

Clinical studies based on patients' reactionsto psychiatric treatment call attention to threemain types of emotional interference whichcan prevent a person from being influencedby verbal communications which deal withanxiety-arousing topics.

1. When a communication touches offintense feelings of anxiety, communicateeswill sometimes fail to pay attention to whatis being said. Inattentiveness may be amotivated effort to avoid thoughts whichevoke incipient feelings of anxiety. Thisdefensive tendency may be manifested byovert attempts to change the subject of con-versation to a less disturbing topic. Whensuch attempts fail and anxiety mounts to avery high level, attention disturbances maybecome much more severe, e.g., "inabilityto concentrate," "distractibility," or othersymptoms of the cognitive disorganizationtemporarily produced by high emotionaltension (4).

2. When exposed to an anxiety-arousingcommunication, communicatees will occa-sionally react to the unpleasant ("punishing")experience by becoming aggressive towardthe communicator. If the communicator isperceived as being responsible for producingpainful feelings, aggression is likely to takethe form of rejecting his statements.

3. If a communication succeeds in arousingintense anxiety and if the communicatee'semotional tension is not readily reducedeither by the reassurances contained in thecommunication or by self-delivered reassur-ances, the residual emotional tension maymotivate defensive avoidances, i.e., attemptsto ward off subsequent exposures to the

EFFECTS OF FEAR-AROUSING COMMUNICATIONS 79

anxiety-arousing content. The experience ofbeing temporarily unable to terminate thedisturbing affective state elicited by a discus-sion of a potential threat can give rise to apowerful incentive to avoid thinking or hear-ing about it again; this may ultimately resultin failing to recall what the communicatorsaid, losing interest in the topic, denying orminimizing the importance of the threat.

The above reaction tendencies, whileformulated in general terms, take accountof three specific types of behavior observedduring psychoanalytic or psychotherapeuticsessions (i, 2, 3). The first two refer toimmediate reactions that often occur whena therapist gives an interpretation whichbrings anxiety-laden thoughts or motives intothe patient's focus of awareness: (a) atten-tion disturbances, blocking of associations,mishearing, evasiveness, and similar formsof "resistance"; and (£) argumentativeness,defiance, contempt, and other manifestationsof reactive hostility directed toward thetherapist. The third refers to certain typesof subsequent "resistance," displayed duringthe later course of treatment, as a carry-overeffect of the therapist's disturbing commentsor interpretations.

Although the three types of defensive be-havior have been observed primarily in clini-cal studies of psychoneurotic patients (whoseanxiety reactions are generally linked withunconscious conflicts), it seems probable thatsimilar reactions may occur among normalpersons during or after exposure to communi-cations which make them acutely aware ofsevere threats of external danger. Neverthe-less, it remains an open question whethersuch sources of emotional interference playany significant role in determining the neteffectiveness of fear-arousing material in masscommunications, especially when the com-munications are presented in an impersonalsocial setting where emotional responses ofthe audience are likely to be greatlyattenuated.

The present experiment was designed toinvestigate the consequences of using fearappeals in persuasive communications thatare presented in an impersonal group situ-ation. One of the main purposes was toexplore the potentially adverse effects whichmight result from defensive reactions of the

sort previously noted in the more restrictedsituation of psychotherapy.

METHODThe experiment was designed so as to provide

measures of the effects of three different intensitiesof "fear appeal" in a standard communication ondental hygiene, presented to high school students.The influence of the fear-arousing material wasinvestigated by means of a series of questionnaireswhich provided data on emotional reactions to thecommunication and on changes in dental hygienebeliefs, practices, and attitudes.

The Three Forms of CommunicationA 15-minute illustrated lecture was prepared in

three different forms, all of which contained thesame essential information about causes of toothdecay and the same series of recommendationsconcerning oral hygiene practices. The three (re-corded) lectures were of approximately equal lengthand were delivered in a standard manner by thesame speaker. Each recording was supplementedby about 20 slides, which were shown on the screenin a prearranged sequence, to illustrate variouspoints made by the speaker.

The three forms of the illustrated talk differedonly with respect to the amount of fear-arousingmaterial presented. Form i contained a strong fearappeal, emphasizing the painful consequences oftooth decay, diseased gums, and other dangers thatcan result from improper dental hygiene. Form 2presented a moderate appeal in which the dangerswere described in a milder and more factual man-ner. Form 3 presented a minimal appeal whichrarely alluded to the consequences of tooth neglect.In Form 3, most of the fear-arousing material wasreplaced by relatively neutral information dealingwith the growth and functions of the teeth. In allother respects, however, Form 3 was identical withForms i and 2.

The fear appeals were designed to represent typi-cal characteristics of mass communications whichattempt to stimulate emotional reactions in order tomotivate the audience to conform to a set ofrecommendations. The main technique was thatof calling attention to the potential dangers thatcan ensue from nonconformity. For example, theStrong appeal contained such statements as thefollowing:

If you ever develop an infection of this kind fromimproper care of your teeth, it will be an extremelyserious matter because these infections are reallydangerous. They can spread to your eyes, or yourheart, or your joints and cause secondary infectionswhich may lead to diseases such as arthritic paralysis,kidney damage, or total blindness.

One of the main characteristics of the Strongappeal was the use of personalized threat-referencesexplicitly directed to the audience, i.e., statements tothe effect that "this can happen to you." TheModerate appeal, on the other hand, described thedangerous consequences of improper oral hygienein a more factual way, using impersonal language.

8o IRVING L. JANIS AND SEYMOUR FESHBACH

In the Minimal appeal, the limited discussion ofunfavorable consequences also used a purely factualstyle.

The major differences in content are summarizedin Table i, which is based on a systematic contentanalysis of the three recorded lectures. The datain this table show how often each type of "threat"was mentioned. It is apparent that the main differ-ence between the Strong appeal and the Moderateappeal was not so much in the total frequency ofthreat references as in the variety and types ofthreats that were emphasized. The Minimalappeal, however, differed markedly from the othertwo in that it contained relatively few threat refer-ences, almost all of which were restricted to"cavities" or "tooth decay."

TABLE 1

CONTENT ANALYSIS OF THE THREE FORMS OF THECOMMUNICATION: REFERENCES TO CONSE-

QUENCES OF IMPROPER CARE OFTHE TEETH

TYPE FORM i FORM 2OF (STRONG (MODERATE

REFERENCE APPEAL) APPEAL)

Pain from toothachesCancer, paralysis, blindness

or other secondary dis-eases

Having teeth pulled, cavitiesdrilled, or other painfuldental work

Having cavities filled orhaving to go to thedentist

Mouth infections: sore,swollen, inflamed gums

Ugly or discolored teeth"Decayed" teeth"Cavities"Total references to unfavor-

able consequences

ii

6

9

o

184

M9

7i

i

o

i

5

162

12

12

49

FORMS(MINIMALAPPEAL)

o

0

0

I

a069

18

One of the reasons for selecting dental hygieneas a suitable topic for investigating the influence offear appeals was precisely because discussions of thistopic readily lend themselves to quantitative andqualitative variations of the sort shown in Table I.Moreover, because of the nature of the potentialdangers that are referred to, one could reasonablyexpect the audience to be fairly responsive to suchvariations in content—the teeth and gums probablyrepresent an important component in the averageperson's body image, and, according to psycho-analytic observations, the threat of damage to theteeth and gums can sometimes evoke deep-seatedanxieties concerning body integrity. In any case,by playing up the threat of pain, disease, and bodydamage, the material introduced in Form I is prob-ably representative of the more extreme forms offear appeals currently to be found in persuasivecommunications presented via the press, radio, tele-vision, and other mass media.

The fear appeals did not rely exclusively uponverbal material to convey the threatening conse-quences of nonconformity. In Form i, the slidesused to illustrate the lecture included a series ofeleven highly realistic photographs which vividlyportrayed tooth decay and mouth infections.Form a, the Moderate appeal, included nine photo-graphs which were milder examples of oral pathol-ogy than those used in Form i. In Form 3,however, no realistic photographs of this kind werepresented: X-ray pictures, diagrams of cavities, andphotographs of completely healthy teeth were sub-stituted for the photographs of oral pathology.

Subjects

The entire freshman class of a large Connecticuthigh school was divided into four groups on arandom basis. Each of the three forms of the com-munication was given to a separate experimentalgroup; the fourth group was used as a control groupand was exposed to a similar communication on acompletely different topic (the structure and func-tioning of the human eye). Altogether there were200 students in the experiment, with 50 in eachgroup.

The four groups were well equated with respectto age, sex, educational level, and IQ. The meanage for each group was approximately 15 years andthere were roughly equal numbers of boys and girlsin each group. The mean and standard deviationof IQ scores, as measured by the Otis group test,were almost identical in all four groups.

Administration of the QuestionnairesThe first questionnaire, given one week before

the communication, was represented to the studentsas a general health survey of high school students.The key questions dealing with dental hygiene wereinterspersed among questions dealing with manyother aspects of health and hygiene.

One week later the illustrated talks were given aspart of the school's hygiene program. Immediatelyafter the end of the communication, the studentsin each group were asked to fill out a short ques-tionnaire designed to provide data on immediateeffects of the communication, such as the amountof information acquired, attitudes toward the com-munication, and emotional reactions. A follow-upquestionnaire was given one week later in order toascertain the carry-over effects of the different formsof the communication.

RESULTS

Affective Reactions

Evidence that the three forms of the illus-trated talk differed with respect to theamount of emotional tension evoked duringthe communication is presented in Table 2.Immediately after exposure to the communi-cation, the students were asked three ques-tions concerning the feelings they had just


TABLE 2

FEELINGS OF WORRY OR CONCERN EVOKED DURING THE COMMUNICATION

81

QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSESSTRONG MODERATE MINIMALGROUP GROUP GROUP

(AT=50) (JV=5o) (2V=50>

Felt worried-—a "few times" or "many times"—about own mouth conditionFelt "somewhat" or "very" worried about improper care o£ own teethThought about condition of own teeth "most of the time"

74% 60% 48%66% 36% 34%42% 34% 22%

experienced "while the illustrated talk wasbeing given." Their responses indicate thatthe fear stimuli were successful in arousingaffective reactions. On each of the threequestionnaire items shown in the table, thedifference between the Strong group and theMinimal group is reliable at beyond the .05confidence level.2 The Moderate group con-sistently falls in an intermediate position butdoes not, in most instances, differ significantlyfrom the other two groups.

Further evidence of the effectiveness of thefear-arousing material was obtained fromresponses to the following two questions,each of which had a checklist of five answercategories ranging from "Very worried" to"Not at all worried":

i. When you think about the possibility8 All probability values reported in this paper are

based on one tail of the theoretical distribution, sincethe results were used to test specific hypotheses whichpredict the direction of the differences.

that you might develop diseased gums, howconcerned or worried do you feel about it?

2. When you think about the possibilitythat you might developed decayed teeth, howconcerned or worried do you feel about it?Since these questions made no reference tothe illustrated talk, it was feasible to includethem in the pre- and postcommunicationquestionnaires given to all four groups.

Systematic comparisons were made interms of the percentage in each group whoreported relatively high disturbance (i.e.,"somewhat" or "very worried") in responseto both questions. The results, presented inTable 3, show a marked increase in affectivedisturbance among each of the three experi-mental groups, as compared with the controlgroup. Paralleling the results in Table's, thegreatest increase is found in the Stronggroup. The difference between the Moderateand the Minimal groups, however, isinsignificant.

TABLE 3

PERCENTAGE OP EACH GROUP WHO REPORTED FEELING SOMEWHAT OR VERY WORRIED ABOUT DECAYED TEETHAND DISEASED GUMS

One week before the communicationImmediately after the communication

Change

STRONGGROUP(W=5o)

3476

+42%

MODERATEGROUP

(N=5o)

245°

+26%

MINIMALGROUP

(N=5b)

22

46

+24%

CONTROLGROUP

<JV=5o)

3o38

+8%

GROUP RELIABILITY OF DIFFERENCE *CR p

Strong vs. ControlStrong vs. MinimalStrong vs. ModerateModerate vs. ControlModerate vs. MinimalMinimal vs. Control

3.061.591-371-540.171.43

<.OI.06.09.06•43.08

*The statistical test used was the critical ratio for reliability of differences in amount of change betweentwo independent samples, as described by Hovland, Lumsdaine, and Sheffield (5, p. 321).

82 IRVING L. JANIS AND SEYMOUR FESHBACH

In order to obtain an over-all estimate ofthe relative degree of emotional arousalevoked by the three forms of the communi-cation, a total score was computed for eachindividual in each experimental group, basedon answers to all five questions: two pointscredit was given to each response specifiedin Tables 2 and 3 as indicative of high dis-turbance; one point credit was given tointermediate responses on the checklist; zerocredit was given for the last two responsecategories in each check list, which uniformlydesignated a relative absence of worry orconcern. Hence individual scores rangedfrom zero to ten. The mean scores for theStrong, Moderate and Minimal groups were7.8, 6.6, and 5.9 respectively. The Stronggroup differs reliably at the one per centconfidence level from each of the other twogroups (t=2.T, and 3.6). The difference be-tween the Moderate and Minimal groupsapproaches reliability at the .08 confidencelevel (t=i.4).

In general, the foregoing evidence indicatesthat after exposure to the communications,the Strong group felt more worried about thecondition of their teeth than did the othertwo groups; the Moderate group, in turn,tended to feel more worried than the Mini-mal group.

Information Acquired

Immediately after exposure to the illus-trated talk, each experimental group wasgiven an information test consisting of 23separate items. The test was based on thefactual assertions common to all three formsof the communication, including topics suchas the anatomical structure of the teeth, thecauses of cavities and of gum disease, the"correct" technique of toothbrushing, andthe type of toothbrush recommended bydental authorities. No significant differenceswere found among the three experimentalgroups with respect to information testscores. Comparisons with the Control groupshow that the three forms of the dentalhygiene communication were equally effec-tive in teaching the factual material.

Attitude Toward the CommunicationThe questionnaire given immediately after

exposure to the illustrated talk included aseries of seven items concerning the students'

appraisals of the communication. From theresults shown in Table 4, it is apparent thatthe Strong group responded more favorablythan the other two groups.8

These findings imply that interest in thecommunication and acceptance of its educa-tional value were heightened by the Strongappeal. But this conclusion applies only torelatively impersonal, objective ratings of thecommunication. Additional evidence pre-sented in Table 5, based on questions whichelicited evaluations of a more subjective char-acter, reveals a markedly different attitudetoward the communication among those ex-posed to the Strong appeal.

One of the additional questions was thefollowing: "Was there anything in the illus-trated talk on dental hygiene that you dis-liked?" Unfavorable ("dislike") answerswere given by a reliably higher percentage ofstudents in the Strong group than in theModerate or Minimal groups (first row ofTable 5). A tabulation was also made ofthe total number of students in each groupwho gave complaints in their answers toeither of two open-end questions which askedfor criticisms of the illustrated talk. Theresults on complaints about the unpleasantcharacter of the slides are shown in row twoof Table 5; the difference between the Stronggroup and each of the other two groups isreliable at the .01 confidence level. Similarly,a reliably higher percentage of the Stronggroup complained about insufficient materialon ways and means of preventing tooth andgum disease (row three of Table 5).* Thelatter type of criticism often was accompaniedby the suggestion that some of the disturbingmaterial should be eliminated, as is illus-trated by the following comments from two

8 The Strong group differs significantlyfrom the Minimal group on five of the seven itemsand from the Moderate group on three items; theModerate group does not differ reliably from theMinimal group on any of the items.

4 In row three of Table 5, the difference between theStrong and Moderate groups is reliable at the .01confidence level, and the difference between the Strongand Minimal groups is significant at the .08 level.Other types of criticisms, in addition to those shownin Table 5, were also tabulated. Most of these inyolvedminor aspects of the presentation (e.g., "a movie wouldhave been better than slides") and were given byapproximately equal percentages of the three groups.The vast majority of students in the Moderate andMinimal groups expressed approval of the illustratedtalk or stated that they had no criticisms.


TABLE 4

PERCENTAGE OF EACH GROUP WHO EXPRESSED STRONGLY FAVORABLE APPRAISALS os THE COMMUNICATION

APPRAISAL RESPONSE

The illustrated talk does a very good teaching job.Most or all of it was interesting.It was very easy to pay attention to what the speaker was saying.My mind practically never wandered.The slides do a very good job.The speaker's voice was very good.The illustrated talk definitely should be given to all Connecticut high schools.

STRONGGROUP

62807458526674

MODERATEGROUP

5068364620

5658

MINIMALGROUP

(N=5°>

4064

4222

5870

students in the Strong group: "Leave out theslides that show the rottiness of the teeth andhave more in about how to brush your teeth";"I don't think you should have shown somany gory pictures without showing moreto prevent it." Comments of this sort, to-gether with the data presented in Table 5,provide additional evidence of residual emo-tional tension. They imply that the Strongappeal created a need for reassurance whichpersisted after the communication was over,despite the fact that the communicationcontained a large number of reassuringrecommendations.

The apparent inconsistency between theresults in Tables 4 and 5 suggests that theStrong appeal evoked a more mixed orambivalent attitude toward the communi-cation than did the Moderate or Minimalappeals. Some of the comments, particularlyabout the slides, help to illuminate the differ-entiation between the individual's objectiveevaluation of the communication and hissubjective response to it. The followingillustrative excerpts from the Strong groupwere selected from the answers given to theopen-end question which asked for criticismsand suggestions:

I did not care for the "gory" illustrations ofdecayed teeth and diseased mouths but I really thinkthat it did make me feel sure that I did not wantthis to happen to me.

Some of the pictures went to the extremes butthey probably had an effect on most of the peoplewho wouldn't want their teeth to look like that.

I think it is good because it scares people whenthey see the awful things that can happen.

Such comments not only attest to the moti-vational impact of the Strong appeal, but alsosuggest one of the ways in which the dis-crepancy between subjective and objectiveevaluations may have been reconciled. Insuch cases, the ambivalence seems to havebeen resolved by adopting an attitude to theeffect that "this is disagreeable medicine, butit is good for us."

Conformity to Dented Hygiene Recommen-dations

The immediate effects of the illustratedtalks described above show the type of affec-tive reactions evoked by the fear-arousing ma-terial but provide little information bearingdirectly on attitude changes. The question-naire administered one week later, however,was designed to measure some of the majorcarry-over effects of fear appeals, particularly

TABLE 5

PERCENTAGE OF EACH GROUP WHO EXPRESSED COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE COMMUNICATION

TYPE OP COMPLAINTSTRONG MODERATE MINIMALGROUP GROUP GROUP

(JV=5o) (2V=5o) (W=5o)

Disliked something in the illustrated talk.The slides were too unpleasant ("horrible," "gory," "disgusting," etc.).There was not enough material on prevention.

2834


with respect to changes in dental hygienepractices, beliefs, and preferences. The re-sults provide an empirical basis for estimatingthe degree to which such communicationssucceed in modifying attitudes.

Personal practices were investigated byasking the students to describe the way theywere currently brushing their teeth: the typeof stroke used, the amount of surface areacleansed, the amount of force applied, thelength of time spent on brushing the teeth,and the time of day that the teeth werebrushed. The same five questions wereasked one week before the communication

four groups had very low scores and thegroup differences were insignificant. Bycomparing the score that each individualattained one week after the communicationwith that attained two weeks earlier, it waspossible to determine for each group thepercentage who changed in the direction ofincreased or decreased conformity.

The results, shown in Table 6, reveal thatthe greatest amount of conformity was pro-duced by the communication which con-tained the least amount of fear-arousingmaterial. The Strong group showed reliablyless change than the Minimal group; in fact,

TABLE 6

EFFECT OF THE ILLUSTRATED TALK ON CONFORMITY TO DENTAL HYGIENE RECOMMENDATIONS

TYPE OF CHANGE

Increased conformityDecreased conformityNo change

Net change in conformity

STRONGGROUP

(JV=5°)

28%20%

52%+8%

MODERATEGROUP(W=5o)

44%22%

34%+22%

MINIMALGROUP

(JV=5o)

50%14%36%

+36%

CONTROLGROUP

(W=5o)

22%22%

56%o%

GROUP CRRELIABILITY OF DIFFERENCE

Control vs. MinimalControl vs. ModerateControl vs. StrongStrong vs. ModerateStrong vs. MinimalModerate vs. Minimal

2-541.500.590.951.960.93

<.OI.07.38

• 17.03.18

and again one week after. These questionscovered practices about which the followingspecific recommendations were made in allthree forms of the illustrated talk: (a) theteeth should be brushed with an up-and-down(vertical) stroke; (b) the inner surface of theteeth should be brushed as well as the outersurface; (c) the teeth should be brushedgently, using only a slight amount of force;(d) in order to cleanse the teeth adequately,one should spend about three minutes oneach brushing; (<?) in the morning, the teethshould be brushed after breakfast (ratherthan before).

Each student was given a score, rangingfrom zero to five, which represented thenumber of recommended practices on whichhe conformed. Before exposure to the com-munication, the majority of students in all

the Strong group failed to differ significantlyfrom the Control group, whereas the Mini-mal group showed a highly reliable increasein conformity as compared with the Controlgroup. The Moderate group falls in anintermediate position, but does not differreliably from the Strong or Minimal groups.Although there is some ambiguity with re-spect to the relative effectiveness of theModerate appeal, the data in Table 6 show afairly consistent trend which suggests that asthe amount of fear-arousing material is in-creased, conformity tends to decrease. Incontrast to the marked increase in conformityproduced by the Minimal appeal and thefairly sizable increase produced by the Mod-erate appeal, the Strong appeal failed toachieve any significant effect whatsoever.

One cannot be certain, of course, that the


findings represent changes in overt behavioralconformity, since the observations are basedon the 5s' own verbal reports. What remainsproblematical, however, is whether the verbalresponses reflect only "lip-service" to therecommendations or whether they also reflectinternalized attitudes that were actually car-ried out in action. The results, neverthe-less, demonstrate that the Strong appeal wasmarkedly less effective than the Minimalappeal, at least with respect to eliciting verbalconformity.

Further evidence in support of the sameconclusion comes from responses pertinent toa different type of dental hygiene behaviorwhich had also been recommended in theillustrated talk.8 The students were asked togive the approximate date on which they hadlast gone to a dentist. The percentage ineach group whose answers indicated that theyhad gone to the dentist during the week fol-lowing exposure to the illustrated talk wereas follows: 10 per cent of the Strong group,14 per cent of the Moderate group, 18 per centof the Minimal group, and 4 per cent of theControl group. The percentage differencebetween the Minimal group and the Controlgroup was found to be statistically reliableat the .04 confidence level; none of the othercomparisons yielded reliable differences.Although not conclusive evidence, these find-ings are in line with those in Table 6: theMinimal appeal again appears to have beensuperior with respect to eliciting conformityto a recommended practice.

Beliefs Concerning the "Proper" Type ofToothbrush

The illustrated talk presented an extensivediscussion of the "proper" type of toothbrushrecommended by dental authorities. Fourmain characteristics were emphasized: (a)the bristles should be of medium hardness,(b) the brush should have three rows ofbristles, (c) the handle should be completelystraight, and (d) the brushing surface shouldbe completely straight. Personal beliefs con-cerning the desirability of these four charac-

5 In all three forms of the illustrated talk, an explicitrecommendation was made concerning the desirabilityof obtaining advice from a dentist about one's owntoothbrushing technique. In addition, several referenceswere made to the importance of going to a dentist forprompt treatment of cavities, before the decay spreadsto the inner layers of the tooth.

85teristics were measured by four questionswhich were included in the precommuni-cation questionnaire as well as in thequestionnaire given one week after the com-munication. The main finding was that allthree experimental groups, as compared withthe Control group, showed a significantchange in the direction of accepting the con-clusions presented in the communication.Among the three experimental groups, therewere no significant differences with respectto net changes. Nevertheless, as will be seenin the next section, the fear-arousing materialappears to have had a considerable effect onthe degree to which the students adhered tosuch beliefs in the face of counteractingpropaganda.

Resistance to Counteracting PropagandaIn addition to describing the four essential

characteristics of the "proper" toothbrush,the illustrated talk contained numerous com-ments and illustrations to explain the needfor avoiding the "wrong" kind of toothbrush.Much of the material on cavities and otherunpleasant consequences of tooth neglect waspresented in this context. The importanceof using the proper fond of toothbrush wasthe theme that was most heavily emphasizedthroughout the entire communication.

The key questionnaire item, designed todetermine initial attitudes before exposure tothe communication, was the following:

Please read the following statement carefully anddecide whether you believe it is true or false.

It does not matter what kind of toothbrush aperson uses. Any sort of toothbrush that is sold ina drugstore will keep your teeth clean and healthy—if you use it regularly.

Do you think that this statement is true or false?(Check one.)

One week after exposure to the communi-cations, the question was asked again, inessentially the same form, with the samechecklist of five answer categories (rangingfrom "Feel certain that it is true" to "Feelcertain that it is false"). But in the post-communication questionnaire, the questionwas preceded by the following propagandamaterial which contradicted the dominanttheme of the illustrated talk:

A well-known dentist recently made the followingstatement:


Some dentists, including a number of so-called"experts" on dental hygiene, claim it is importantto use a special type of toothbrush in order to cleanthe teeth properly. But from my own experience,I believe that there is no sound basis for that idea.My honest opinion, as a dentist, is that it does notmatter what kind of toothbrush a person uses. Anysort of toothbrush that is sold in a drugstore willkeep your teeth clean and healthy—if you use itregularly.

That this propaganda exposure had a pro-nounced effect is revealed by the attitudechanges shown by the Control group. Astatistically reliable change in the direction

definite answer emerges from the results inTable 7, which shows the percentage of eachgroup who changed in the direction of agree-ment or disagreement with the counterpropa-ganda statement.

Before exposure to the illustrated talk, thegroup differences were negligible: approxi-mately 50 per cent of the students in each ofthe four groups agreed with the statementthat "it does not matter what kind of tooth-brush a person uses." But two weeks later(immediately after exposure to the counter-

TABLE 7

EFFECT OP THE ILLUSTRATED TALK ON REACTIONS TO SUBSEQUENT COUNTERPROPAGANDA: NET PERCENTACIOF EACH GROUP WHO CHANGED IN THE DIRECTION OF AGREEING WITH THE STATEMENT THAT

"!T DOES NOT MATTER WHAT KIND OF TOOTHBRUSH A PERSON USES"

TYPE OF CHANGE

More agreementLess agreementNo change

Net changeNet effect of exposure to the illustrated talk

STRONGGROUP

(JV=5o)

303832

—8—28

MODERATEGROUP

(JV=5o)

284230

—14—34

MINIMALGROUP

(JV=5o)

145432

—40—60

CONTROLGROUP

(W=5o)

442432

+ 20

GROUP RELIABILITY OF THE DIFFERENCES IN NET CHANGECR p

Control vs. MinimalControl vs. ModerateControl vs. StrongStrong vs. ModerateStrong vs. MinimalModerate vs. Minimal

3-662.051.710.362.031.66

<.OOI.02.05

.36

.02

.05

of more agreement with the counterpropa-ganda was found in the Control group.6

How effective were the three forms of theillustrated talk in preventing students fromaccepting the propaganda to which they wereexposed one week later? Did the fear appealsaugment or diminish the students' resistanceto the counteracting propaganda? A fairly

6 In the Control group, the percentage who disagreedwith the statement dropped from 54 to 34. This changeproved to be significant at below the .02 confidencelevel, according to the formula described by Hovland,Lumsdaine, and Sheffield (5, p. 319). The Controlgroup did not show any significant change on otherquestions dealing with dental hygiene beliefs, preferencesor practices, all of which were presented in the finalquestionnaire before the propaganda material was intro-duced. Consequently, it seems fairly safe to concludethat the propaganda exposure was responsible for thesignificant change displayed by the Control group.

propaganda) there were marked and statisti-cally reliable differences which indicate thatalthough all three forms of the illustratedtalk had some influence, the Minimal appealwas most effective in producing resistance tothe counterpropaganda. Thus, the resultssuggest that under conditions where peoplewill be exposed to competing communica-tions dealing with the same issues, the use ofa strong fear appeal will tend to be less effec-tive than a minimal appeal in producingstable and persistent attitude changes.

Some clues to mediating processes weredetected in the students' responses to an open-end question which asked them to "give thereason" for their answers to the key attitudeitem on which the results in Table 7 arebased. A systematic analysis was made of


the write-in answers given by those studentswho had disagreed with the counterpropa-ganda. In their refutations, some of thestudents made use of material that had beenpresented one week earlier, either by referringto the illustrated talk as an authoritativesource or by citing one of the main argumentspresented in the illustrated talk. From theresults presented in the first two rows ofTable 8, it is apparent that such refutationswere given more frequently by the Minimalgroup than by the other experimental groups.The comparatively low frequency of suchanswers in the Strong and Moderate groupswas not compensated for by an increase inany other type of specific reasons, as indicatedby the results in the last row of the table.7

were inclined to avoid recalling the contentof the fear-arousing communication.

DISCUSSION

The results in the preceding sections indi-cate that the Minimal appeal was the mosteffective form of the communication in thatit elicited (a) more resistance to subsequentcounterpropaganda and (b) a higher inci-dence of verbal adherence, and perhaps agreater degree of behavioral conformity, to aset of recommended practices. The absenceof any significant differences on other indi-cators of preferences and beliefs implies thatthe Moderate and Strong appeals had nounique positive effects that would compen-sate for the observed detrimental effects.

TABLE 8

TYPES OF REFUTATION GIVEN BY STUDENTS WHO DISAGREED WITH THE COUNTERPROPAGANDA

STRONG MODERATE MINIMAL CONTROLTYPE OF REFUTATION GROUP GROUP GROUP GROUP

Explicit reference to the illustrated talk as an authori-tative source for the opposite conclusion

One or more arguments cited that had been presentedin the illustrated talk

One or more arguments cited that contradicted thecontent of the illustrated talk

No answer or no specific reason given

7%

43%

o%50%

14%

38%

0%

52%

1 8%

59%

o%36%

0%

28%

22%

Although the group differences are notuniformly reliable, they reveal a consistenttrend which suggests an "avoidance" tend-ency among the students who had beenexposed to the fear appeals. Apparently, eventhose who resisted the counterpropaganda

TOn the first type of reason (reference to the illus-trated talk), the only difference large enough to approachstatistical reliability was that between the Minimalgroup and the Control group (p=.o8). On the secondtype of reason (arguments cited from the illustratedtalk), the difference between the Minimal group andthe Control group was found to be highly reliable(/>=:. 03) while the difference between the Minimaland Moderate groups approached statistical reliability(/>=.o8). The Control group differed reliably fromeach of the experimental groups (at beyond the .10confidence level) with respect to giving argumentswhich contradicted those contained in the illustratedtalk (row three of the table). None of the otherpercentage differences in Table 8 were large enoughto be significant at the .10 confidence level. (In somecolumns, the percentages add up to more than 100 percent because a few students gave more than one typeof refutation.)

Thus, the findings consistently indicate thatinclusion of the fear-arousing material notonly failed to increase the effectiveness of thecommunication, but actually interfered withits over-all success.

The outcome of the present experiment byno means precludes the possibility that, undercertain conditions, fear appeals may prove tobe highly successful. For instance, the Strongappeal was found to be maximally effectivein arousing interest and in eliciting a highdegree of emotional tension. The evocationof such reactions might augment the effective-ness of mass communications which aredesigned to instigate prompt audience action,such as donating money or volunteering toperform a group task. But if the communi-cation is intended to create more sustainedpreferences or attitudes, the achievement ofpositive effects probably depends upon anumber of different factors. Our experi-

IRVING L. JANIS AND SEYMOUR FESHBACH

mental results suggest that in the latter case,a relatively low degree of fear arousal islikely to be the optimal level, that an appealwhich is too strong will tend to evoke someform of interference which reduces the effec-tiveness of the communication. The findingsdefinitely contradict the assumption that asthe dosage of fear-arousing stimuli (in a masscommunication) is increased, the audiencewill become more highly motivated to acceptthe reasssuring recommendations containedin the communication. Beneficial motivatingeffects probably occur when a relatively slightamount of fear-arousing material is inserted;Lut for communications of the sort used inthe present experiment, the optimal dosageappears to be far below the level of thestrongest fear appeals that a communicatorcould use if he chose to do so.

Before examining the implications of thefindings in more detail, it is necessary to takeaccount of the problems of generalizing fromthe findings of the present study. Thepresent experiment shows the effects of onlyone type of communication, presented in aneducational setting to a student audience.Until replications are carried out—using othermedia, topics, and fear-eliciting stimuli, in avariety of communication settings, with dif-ferent audiences, etc.—one cannot be certainthat the conclusions hold true for other situ-ations. The results from a single experimentare obviously not sufficient for drawing broad•generalizations concerning the entire rangeof fear-arousing communications which are•currently being brought to the focus of publicattention. Nor can unreplicated results berelied upon for extracting dependable rubricsthat could be applied by educators, editors,public relations experts, propagandists, orother communication specialists who face thepractical problems of selecting appropriateappeals for motivating mass audiences.

Nevertheless, the present experiment helpsto elucidate the potentially unfavorable effectsthat may result from mass communicationswhich play up ominous threats, alarmingcontingencies, or signs of impending danger.For instance, the findings tend to bear outsome of the points raised concerning the needfor careful pretesting and for other cautionswhen warnings about the dangers of atomicbombing are presented in civilian defense

communications that are intended to preparethe public for coping with wartime emer-gencies (6). Moreover, despite our inabilityto specify the range of communications towhich our conclusions would apply, we canderive tentative inferences that may have im-portant theoretical implications with respectto the dynamics of "normal" fear reactions.

We turn now to a central question posedby the experimental findings: Why is it thatthe fear-arousing stimuli resulted in lessadherence to recommended practices and lessresistance to counterpropaganda ? Althoughour experiment cannot give a definitiveanswer, it provides some suggestive leadsconcerning potential sources of emotionalinterference.

In the introduction, we have describedthree forms of "resistance" frequently ob-served in psychotherapy that might alsooccur among normal personalities exposed tomass communications which evoke strongfear or anxiety: (a) inattentiveness duringthe communication session, (£) rejection ofthe communicator's statements motivated byreactive aggression, and (c) subsequent de-fensive avoidance motivated by residual emo-tional tension. We shall discuss briefly thepertinent findings from the present experi-ment with a view to making a preliminaryassessment of the importance of each of thethree types of interfering reactions.

i. Our results provide no evidence that astrong fear appeal produces inattentiveness orany form of distraction that would interferewith learning efficiency during the communi-cation session. The three forms of the com-munication were found to be equally effectivein teaching the factual material on dentalhygiene, as measured by a comprehensiveinformation test given immediately afterexposure to the communication. Beliefs con-cerning the desirable characteristics of the"proper" type of toothbrush were alsoacquired equally well. One might even sur-mise (from the results in Table 4) that theStrong appeal may have had a beneficial effecton attention, because a significantly higherpercentage of the Strong group reported that(a) it was very easy to pay attention to whatthe speaker was saying and (b) they experi-enced very little "mind-wandering."

The absence of any observable reduction of


learning efficiency is consistent with numer-ous clinical observations which imply thatnormal personalities can ordinarily tolerateunpleasant information concerning potentialthreats to the self without manifesting anymarked impairment of "ego" functions. Ourfindings definitely suggest that the use offear-arousing material of the sort presentedin the illustrated talks would rarely give riseto any interference with the audience's abilityto learn the content of the communication.

It is necessary to bear in mind, however,that in the present experiment the communi-cation was given to a "captive" classroomaudience. When people are at home listeningto the radio, or in any situation where theyfeel free to choose whether or not to termi-nate the communication exposure, the use ofstrong emotional appeals might often havedrastic effects on sustained attention. Con-sequently, the tentative generalization con-cerning the low probability of inattentivenesswould be expected to apply primarily to thosefear-arousing communications which are pre-sented under conditions where social normsor situational constraints prevent the audiencefrom directing attention elsewhere.

Even with a "captive" audience, it is quitepossible that under certain extreme conditionsa strong fear appeal might interfere withlearning efficiency. For instance, the samesort of temporary cognitive impairment thatis sometimes observed when verbal stimulihappen to touch off unconscious personalconflicts or emotional "complexes" might alsooccur when a mass communication elicitssharp awareness of unexpected danger, par-ticularly when the audience immediatelyperceives the threat to be imminent andinescapable. Hence, the inferences from ourexperimental findings probably should berestricted to fear appeals which deal withremote threats or with relatively familiardangers that are perceived to be avoidable.

2. The fact that the Strong group expressedthe greatest amount of subjective dislike ofthe illustrated talk and made the most com-plaints about its content could be construedas suggesting a potentially aggressive attitude.But if the aggressive reactions aroused by theuse of the Strong fear appeal were intenseenough to motivate rejection of the conclu-sions, one would not expect to find this group

giving the most favorable appraisals of theinterest value of the illustrated talk, of thequality of its presentation, and of its over-alleducational success. Thus, although the pos-sibility of suppressed aggression cannot beprecluded, it seems unlikely that this factorwas a major source of emotional interference.In drawing this tentative conclusion, how-ever, we do not intend to minimize theimportance of aggression as a potential sourceof interference. In the present experiment,the communication was administered as anofficial part of the school's hygiene programand contained recommendations that wereobviously intended to be beneficial to theaudience. Under markedly different condi-tions, where the auspices and intent of thecommunication are perceived to be less be-nign, the audience would probably be lessdisposed to suppress or control aggressive re-actions. The low level of verbalized aggres-sion observed in the present study, however,,suggests that in the absence of cues whicharouse the audience's suspicions, some factorother than reactive hostility may be a muchmore important source of interference.

3. Subsequent defensive avoidance arisingfrom residual emotional tension seems to bethe most likely explanation of the outcome ofthe present study. We have seen, from the dataon immediate affective reactions, that the dis-turbing feelings which had been arousedduring the illustrated talk tended to persistafter the communication had ended, despite-the reassuring recommendations which hadbeen presented. The analysis of complaints,made by the three experimental groups(Table 5) provides additional evidence thatthe need for reassurance persisted primarilyamong the students who had been exposedto the Strong appeal. Such findings supportthe following hypothesis: When a mass com-munication is designed to influence an audi-ence to adopt specific ways and means ofaverting a threat, the use of a strong fearappeal, as against a milder one, increases thelivelihood that the audience will be left in astate of emotional tension which is not fullyrelieved by rehearsing the reassuring recom-mendations contained in the communication.This hypothesis is compatible with the gen-eral assumption that when a person is exposedto signs of "threat," the greater the intensity

90

of the fear reaction evoked, the greater thelikelihood that his emotional tension willpersist after the external stimulus hasterminated.

Whether or not the above hypothesis iscorrect, the fact remains that "unreduced"emotional tension was manifested immedi-ately after the communication predominantlyby the group exposed to the Strong appeal.Our findings on subsequent reactions providesome suggestive evidence concerning theconsequences of experiencing this type ofresidual tension. In general, the evidenceappears to be consistent with the followinghypothesis: When fear is strongly arousedbut is not fully relieved by the reassurancescontained in a mass communication, theaudience will become motivated to ignore orto minimize the importance of the threat.This hypothesis could be regarded as aspecial case of the following general propo-sition which pertains to the effects of humanexposure to any fear-producing stimulus:other things being equal, the more persistentthe fear reaction, the greater will be the(acquired) motivation to avoid subsequentexposures to internal and external cues whichwere present at the time the fear reaction wasaroused. This proposition is based on thepostulate that fear is a stimulus-producingresponse which has the functional propertiesof a drive (2, 7).8

8 In the sphere of human communication, the keytheoretical assumption could be formulated as follows:If rehearsal of the reassuring statements contained in acommunication fails to alleviate the emotional tensionelicited by the use of a fear appeal, the audience willbe motivated to continue trying out other (symbolic orovert) responses until one occurs which succeeds inreducing fear to a tolerable level. Thus, a strong fearappeal which is intended to motivate the audience totake account of a realistic threat of danger could havethe paradoxical effect of motivating the audience toignore the threat or to adopt "magical," "wishful" orother types of reassuring beliefs that are antithetical tothe communicator's intentions. Moreover, according tothe same theoretical assumption, when a communicationproduces a high degree of persistent fear, the audiencewill be motivated to engage in overt escape activities,some of which may prove to be incompatible with theprotective actions recommended by the communicator.Unintended effects of this kind can be regarded asspontaneous "defensive" reactions which are motivatedby residual emotional tension. In the present experi-ment, it would be expected that, in addition to thetendency to avoid thinking about the threat, otherdefensive reactions would also occur. For example,following exposure to the Strong appeal, some of thestudents may have succeeded in alleviating their residualemotional tension through spontaneous interpersonalcommunication with fellow students.


In the context of the present experiment,one would predict that the group displayingthe greatest degree of residual fear would bemost strongly motivated to ward off thoseinternal symbolic cues—such as anticipationsof the threatening consequences of improperdental hygiene—which were salient duringand immediately after the communication.This prediction seems to be fairly well borneout by the evidence on carry-over effects, par-ticularly by the finding that the greatestdegree of resistance to the subsequent coun-terpropaganda was shown by the groupwhich had been least motivated by fear. Theuse of the Strong appeal, as against theMinimal one, evidently resulted in less rejec-tion of a subsequent communication whichdiscounted and contradicted what was saidin the original communication. In effect, thesecond communication asserted that onecould ignore the alleged consequences ofusing the wrong type of toothbrush, and, inthat sense, minimized the dangers which pre-viously had been heavily emphasized by thefear-arousing communication.

The results obtained from the students'reports on their dental hygiene practices couldbe interpreted as supporting another predic-tion from the same hypothesis. It would beexpected that those students who changedtheir practices, after having heard and seenone of the three forms of the illustrated talk,were motivated to do so because they recalledsome of the verbal material which had beengiven in support of the recommendations,most of which referred to the unfavorableconsequences of continuing to do the"wrong" thing. In theoretical terms, onemight say that their conformity to the recom-mendations was mediated by symbolic re-sponses which had been learned during thecommunication. The mediating responses(anticipations, thoughts, or images) acquiredfrom any one of the three forms of the illus-trated talk would frequently have, as theircontent, some reference to unpleasant conse-quences for the self, and consequently wouldcue off a resolution or an overt action thatwould be accompanied by anticipated successin warding off the threat. But defensiveavoidance of the mediating responses wouldreduce the amount of conformity to whateverprotective action is recommended by the


fear-arousing communication. Hence theprediction would be that when rehearsal ofstatements concerning potential danger isaccompanied by strong emotional tensionduring and after the communication, theaudience will become motivated to avoid re-calling those statements on later occasionswhen appropriate action could ordinarily becarried out. An inhibiting motivation ofthis kind acquired from the illustrated talkwould tend to prevent the students fromadopting the recommended changes in theirtoothbrushing habits because they would failto think about the unpleasant consequencesof improper dental hygiene at times whenthey subsequently perform the act of brush-ing their teeth.

Much more direct evidence in support ofthe "defensive avoidance" hypothesis comesfrom the analysis of spontaneous write-inanswers in which the students explained whythey disagreed with the counterpropaganda(Table 8). Those who had been exposed tothe least amount of fear-arousing materialwere the ones who were most likely to referto the illustrated talk as an authoritativesource and to make use of its arguments.The relative absence of such references inthe spontaneous answers given by those whohad been exposed to the Moderate andStrong appeals implies a tendency to avoidrecalling the content of the fear-arousingcommunication.

Although the various pieces of evidencediscussed above seem to fit together, theycannot be regarded as a conclusive demon-stration of the defensive avoidance hypothe-sis. What our findings clearly show is thata strong fear appeal can be markedly lesseffective than a minimal appeal, at least underthe limited conditions represented in ourexperiment. Exactly which conditions andwhich mediating mechanisms are responsiblefor this outcome will remain problematicaluntil further investigations are carried out.Nevertheless, so far as the present findingsgo, they consistently support the conclusionthat the use of a strong fear appeal will tendto reduce the over-all success of a persuasivecommunication, if it evokes a high degree ofemotional tension without adequately satisfy-ing the need for reassurance.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The experiment was designed to investigatethe effects of persuasive communicationswhich attempt to motivate people to conformwith a set of recommendations by stimulatingfear reactions. An illustrated lecture ondental hygiene was prepared in three differ-ent forms, representing three different inten-sities of fear appeal: the Strong appealemphasized and graphically illustrated thethreat of pain, disease, and body damage; theModerate appeal described the same dangersin a milder and more factual manner; theMinimal appeal rarely referred to the un-pleasant consequences of improper dentalhygiene. Although differing in the amountof fear-arousing material presented, the threeforms of the communication contained thesame essential information and the same setof recommendations.

Equivalent groups of high school studentswere exposed to the three different forms ofthe communication as part of the school'shygiene program. In addition, the experi-ment included an equated control groupwhich was not exposed to the dental hygienecommunication but was given a similarcommunication on an irrelevant topic. Alto-gether there were 200 students in the experi-ment, with 50 in each group. A questionnairecontaining a series of items on dental hygienebeliefs, practices, and attitudes was adminis-tered to all four groups one week before thecommunications were presented. In order toobserve the changes produced by the illus-trated talk, postcommunication question-naires were given immediately after exposureand again one week later.

1. The fear appeals were successful inarousing affective reactions. Immediatelyafter the communication, the group exposedto the Strong appeal reported feeling moreworried about the condition of their teeththan did the other groups. The Moderateappeal, in turn, evoked a higher incidence of"worry" reactions than did the Minimalappeal.

2. The three forms of the illustrated talkwere equally effective with respect to (a)teaching the factual content of the com-munication, as assessed by an informationtest, and (b) modifying beliefs concerningfour specific characteristics of the "proper"


type of toothbrush. The evidence indicatesthat the emotional reactions aroused by theStrong appeal did not produce inattentivenessor reduce learning efficiency.

3. As compared with the other two formsof the communication, the Strong appealevoked a more mixed or ambivalent attitudetoward the communication. The studentsexposed to the Strong appeal were morelikely than the others to give favorable ap-praisals concerning the interest value and thequality of the presentation. Nevertheless,they showed the greatest amount of subjectivedislike of the communication and made morecomplaints about the content.

4. From an analysis of the changes in eachindividual's reports about his current tooth-brushing practices, it was found that thegreatest amount of conformity to the com-municator's recommendations was producedby the Minimal appeal. The Strong appealfailed to produce any significant change indental hygiene practices, whereas the Mini-mal appeal resulted in a reliable increase inconformity, as compared with the Controlgroup. Similar findings also emerged froman analysis of responses which indicatedwhether the students had gone to a dentistduring the week following exposure to theillustrated talk, reflecting conformity toanother recommendation made by the com-municator. The evidence strongly suggeststhat as the amount of fear-arousing materialis increased, conformity to recommended(protective) actions tends to decrease.

5. One week after the illustrated talk hadbeen presented, exposure to counterpropa-ganda (which contradicted the main themeof the original communication) produced agreater effect on attitudes in the Controlgroup than in the three experimental groups.The Minimal appeal, however, proved to bethe most effective form of the illustrated talkwith respect to producing resistance to thecounterpropaganda. The results tend to sup-port the conclusion that under conditions

where people are exposed to competing com-munications dealing with the same issues, theuse of a strong fear appeal is less successfulthan a minimal appeal in producing stableand persistent attitude changes.

6. The main conclusion which emergesfrom the entire set of findings is that theover-all effectiveness of a persuasive com-munication will tend to be reduced by theuse of a strong fear appeal, if it evokes ahigh degree of emotional tension without ade-quately satisfying the need for reassurance.The evidence from the present experimentappears to be consistent with the followingtwo explanatory hypotheses:

a. When a mass communication is de-signed to influence an audience to adoptspecific ways and means of averting a threat,the use of a strong fear appeal, as against amilder one, increases the likelihood that theaudience will be left in a state of emotionaltension which is not fully relieved by rehears-ing the reassuring recommendations con-tained in the communication.

b. When fear is strongly aroused but is notfully relieved by the reassurances containedin a mass communication, the audience willbecome motivated to ignore or to minimizethe importance of the threat.

REFERENCES

1. ALEXANDER, F., & FRENCH, T. M. Psychoanalytictherapy. New York: Ronald, 1946.

2. DOLLARD, J., & MILLER, N. E. Personality and psy-chotherapy. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.

3. FENICHEL, O. Problems of psychoanalytic technique.New York: Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1941.

4. HANFMANN, EUGENIA. Psychological approaches tothe study of anxiety. In P. H. Hoch and J.Zubin (Eds.), Anxiety. New York: Grune &Stratton, 1950. Pp. 51-69.

5. HOVLAND, C. I., LUMSDAINE, A. A., & SHEFFIELD,F. D. Experiments on mass communication.Princeton: Princeton Univer. Press, 1949.

6. JANIS, I. L. Air war and emotional stress. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1951.

7. MOWRER, O. H. Learning theory and personalitydynamics: Selected papers. New York: Ronald,1950.

Received March 14, 1952.

effects of fear-arousing communications - haileybury psychology

Documents