Some Effects of Relevant Stories Portraying Danger on Retention of Information Associated with the Stories

The effect of fear‐inducing content on memory for advertisements and on retroactive and proactive interference of programme information

“…The findings of this study are consistent with previous research, which has shown that the use of fear in advertising is effective in improving memorability of the advertisements (Biener et al, ; Fischer et al, ; Janis & Feshbach, ; Rayner et al, ; Snipes et al, ), and with the finding that eliciting moderate levels of fear in advertising seems to be most effective in improving memory for advertisement content (Chebat et al, ; Fischer et al, ). However, some previous research also suggested that eliciting fear in advertisements leads to an impairment in memory of advertisement information (Brooker Jr, ; Newhagen & Reeves, ), but these findings are not supported by the current study.…”

“…Previous research has shown that the effectiveness of fear in advertising on memory is dependent on the intensity of fear that is elicited (Chebat et al, ; Fischer, Cohen, Schlesinger, & Bloomer, ; Ray & Wilkie, ). Moderate levels of fear were found to be effective in increasing the memorability of advertisements, whereas low and high levels of fear led to poorer memory for the content of the advertisements.…”

Fifteen years of fear arousal: Research on threat appeals: 1953-1968.

“…In contrast with the finding by Duke (1967) of differential learning due to differential message lengths, several studies have not found any differences between the different levels of threat in the subjects' comprehension of the factual content of the communications (Fischer et al, 1967;Goldstein, 1959;Gollob & Dittes, 1965;Janis & Feshbach, 1953;Millman, 1968;Singer, 1965).…”

“…This same consideration may be a reason for the importance of differences in subjects. Subjects of wide age and education-level Berkowitz & Cottingham (1960), Cohen (1957), Dabbs & Leventhal (1966), Duke (1967), Frandsen (1963), Gollob & Dittes (1965), Leventhal & Niles (1965), Leventhal & Perloe (1962), , Leventhal et al (1967), Millman (1968), Robbins (1962aRobbins ( , 1962b, Stern et al (1965) Hewgill & Miller (1965, Janis & Milholland (1954), Janis & Terwilliger (1962), Kraus et al (1966), , Powell (1965), Powell & Miller (1967) Leventhal & Niles (1964, Leventhal & Singer (1966), Leventhal & Watts (1966), Nunnally & Bobren (1959) Fischer et al (1967, Goldstein (1959), Insko et al (1965), Janis & Feshbach (1953), Janis & Feshbach (1954), Leventhal & Trembly (1968) Moltz & Thistlethwaite (1955 DeWolfe & Governdale (1964( ) Chu (1966 ranges may differ in their knowledge concerning any given topic (although it was found above they do not seem to differ in their perceived familiarity with the topics). For example, Cannel and MacDonald (1956) found that education level interacts with smoking habits in the perception of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer.…”

A Protection Motivation Theory of Fear Appeals and Attitude Change1

“…Although Janis has not been disposed explicitly to adopt all of the reinforcement learning theory position, it is clear that fear retains the functional properties of an acquired drive and that the effects of fear upon attitude change depend upon the amount of drive reduction (or reduction of emotional tension) contiguous with rehearsal of the communicator's recommendations. However, there has been a growing disenchantment with drive constructs expressed in recent texts on motivation (6,8,12), and several tests of fear-reduction reinforcing attitude change clearly have not supported that hypothesis (20,44). Although Janis might not insist upon retaining these drive and drive-reduction concepts, he has not explicitly rejected them.…”