This meta-analysis of studies of the persuasive impact of fear appeals evaluated the contribution of our stage model of the processing of fear-arousing communications relative to other fear appeal theories. In contrast to other theories, our stage model (a) specifies the cognitive processes underlying persuasion through fear-arousing communications, (b) proposes that threat-induced defensive processing does not interfere with the effectiveness of fear-arousing communications but actually contributes to it, and (c) predicts that vulnerability and severity manipulations have differential effects on measures of attitude as compared with intention and behavior. To evaluate these predictions, the authors expanded on previous meta-analyses by assessing the independent as well as joint effects of vulnerability to and severity of a risk, both on information processing and on measures of persuasion (attitude, intention, behavior). Overall, findings were consistent with the stage model. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

A stage model of processing of fear-arousing communications was tested in an experiment that examined the impact of vulnerability to a severe health risk, the quality of the arguments supporting a protective action recommendation, and the source to which the recommendation was attributed, on processing and acceptance of the recommendation. Argument quality influenced attitudes toward the recommendation (but not intention to act), and this effect was mediated by negative thoughts about the recommendation. Vulnerability influenced intention to act (but not attitudes), and this effect was mediated by perceived threat and positive thoughts about the recommendation. The pattern of findings suggests that although vulnerability to a severe health risk induces biased processing of the recommendation, biased processing is restricted to intentions and does not compromise the evaluation of the recommendation. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

No abstract

There is evidence that exposure to negative news is making people feel bad, but not much is known about why this only affects some people or whether this also applies to everyday news exposure. This study examined the direct and indirect effects of daily news exposure on people's affective states. Using ecological momentary assessment (EMA), 63 respondents (24 men and 39 women) reported their news exposure and affective states five times a day for 10 days. In addition, personal relevance of the news and personality characteristics, neuroticism and extraversion, were assessed. Results showed that negative news perceptions were related to more negative affect and less positive affect, and these effects were moderated by personal relevance, but not personality characteristics. The implications of these outcomes are discussed.

The underlying process of reactions to social identity threat was examined from a defense motivation perspective. Two studies measured respondents’ social identification, after which they read threatening group information. Study 1 compared positive and negative group information, attributed to an ingroup or outgroup source. Study 2 compared negative and neutral group information to general negative information. It was expected that negative group information would induce defense motivation, which reveals itself in biased information processing and in turn affects the evaluation of the information. High identifiers should pay more attention to, have higher threat perceptions of, more defensive thoughts of, and more negative evaluations of negative group information than positive or neutral group information. Findings generally supported these predictions.