“…A final possible source of inconsistency in the threat-appeal findings lies in the criterion of persuasive effectiveness of a threat appeal. This may be an important practical consideration because, for example, in most applied settings a communication which changes only Dabbs & Leventhal (1966), Fischer et al (1967), Gollob & Dittes (196S), Janis & Milholland (1954), Janis & Terwilliger (1962), , Leventhal & Perloe (1962), , Nunnally & Bobren (1959) Hewgill & Miller (1965, Millman (1968), Powell (1965), Powell & Miller (1967), Robbins (1962a, 1962b) Berkowitz & Cottingham (1960, Duke (1967), Goldstein (1959), Insko et al (1965), Janis & Feshbach (1953), Janis & Feshbach (1954), Leventhal & Singer (1966), Moltz & Thistlethwaite (1955) Leventhal & Niles (1964, Leventhal & Niles (1965), Leventhal & Trembly (1968), Leventhal & Watts (1966), Leventhal et al (1967) Chu (1966, Cohen (1957), Stern et al (1965) Berkowitz & Cottingham (I960), Cohen (1957), DeWolfe & Governdale (1964, Frandsen (1963), Gollob & Dittes (1965), Hewgill & Miller (1965, Janis & Terwilliger (1962), Leventhal & Perloe (1962), Millman (1968), …”