Download Fear: The Potential of an Appeal Neglected by Marketing

Fear: The Potential of an Appeal
Neglected by Marketing
MICHAEL L. RAY
AND
WILLIAM L. WILKIE
Considerable social psychology and communications research show that intelligent
use of fear messages can have
favorable effects on attitude
change and action. Yet the
unique persuasive possibilities offered by the fear appeal
have been neglected by marketing. This is in sharp contrast to the creative pursuit
of positive advertising appeals. This article presents
a marketing-oriented discussion and summary of research
on the fear appeal.
Journal of Marketing.
1970). pp. 64-62.
Vol. 34 (January.
neglect of the fear appeal is a prime example
M ARKETING'S
of the field's failure to take full advantage of communication
research findings. While a large number of behavioral studies on
fear have been published, marketing ignores their hints for segmentation, communication goal setting, message construction, and
product differentiation. Instead of looking at these detailed results, marketing seems content to ask the simple question, "Is fear
effective or not?," and to reach the premature conclusion that fear
is not effective as an appeal.
There is now enough evidence from research and from practical
applications to indicate that fear should no longer be eliminated
from consideration as a marketing and advertising appeal. This
paper is an attempt to present some of these research results on
fear; it suggests how they might be used to make marketing
decisions.
Past Marketing Treatment of Fear
' A search of the marketing literature reveals either that fear
appeals are not mentioned, or that they are guardedly rejected for
marketing and advertising application on the basis of Janis and
Feshbach's 1953 research on fear appeals and dental hygiene.^
Their findings indicated that a strong fear appeal was less effective
than moderate or mild fear appeals in producing reported adherence to recommended dental hygiene practices. This negative
finding—the more the fear the less the effect—is the only research
result on fear reported by Cox.'- In Crane's text the Janis and
Feshbach study is outlined under the headline " 'Scare Appeal' on
Teeth Boomerangs."'* Myers and Reynolds list as "Principle S-2"
the notion that "strong appeals to fear, by arousing too much
tension in the audience, are less effective in persuasion than
minimal appeals."* Engel, KoUat and Blackwell, while citing a
wide range of fear studies in their one-page treatment of the
I. Janis and S. Feshbach, "Effects of Fear-Arousing Communications,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 'Vol. 48 (January, 1963),
pp. 78-92.
D. F. Cox, "Clues for Advertising Strategists: I," Harvard Business
Review, 'Vol. 39 (September-October, 1961), pp. 160-164.
E. Crane, Marketing Communications: A Behavioral Approach to
Men, Messages and Media (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1965), pp. 137-138.
J. H. Myers and W. H. Reynolds, Consum-er Behavior and Marketing
Matiagement (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1967), p. 280.
54
Fear: The Potential of an Appeal Neglected by Marketing
area, decide only that "Further research is needed."^
The fact is that further research has been done.
Over 90 studies have been reported in Psychological
Abstracts since the Janis and Feshbach research.
Further, quite a few of these studies have actually
found that high fear was more effective than low
or no fear. This is the reverse of what Janis and
Feshbach found and the reverse of what marketing
has seemingly been assuming over the last 15 or 16
years.
But the key point from these studies is not that
high fear, low fear, or no fear was successful. The
key point is that these studies provide information
which could help marketers make advertising decisions. Fear research has been conducted with many
types of people and should provide hints for segmentation. The findings should help marketers set
communication goals, because several levels of effect
—from interest and awareness to attitude and action
—have been studied. And a number of different
message approaches have been tried. These findings
should be of particular interest to advertising copy
and media people.
While marketing as a whole tended to ignore
fear research, the American Cancer Society and
other anti-cigarette forces used these indications on
fear when their advertising campaign was stepped
up in 1967. 1968, and 1969. In 1968—for the first
time since 1964 when the Surgeon General's report
on 8moking was issued—there was a drop in per
capita and total cigarette consumption.^
As in all advertising situations, it is difficult to
determine causality in the case of anti-cigarette advertising and the drop in smoking. In the first
place the nature of the fear appeals that were used
is not unambiguous. Some fear appeals dealt with
the pestiferous nature of smoking, some with the
ridiculous addiction of smokers, some with the
effect of parental smoking on children and the
family, some with the strength of the evidence
against smoking, and some with well-known spokesmen (William Talman, Tony Curtis) who argued
against the practice."
The drop in smoking could be due to any of the
above appeals or to increased and more efficient advertising media spending. It could also be due to
increasing environmental support. While it is
obvious that the switch to strong fear appeals
cannot be given total credit for the drop in smoking,
it is now abundantly clear that marketing can no
longer ignore fear appeals.
J. F. Engel, D. T. Kollat, and R. D. Blackwell, Con8Xi7ner Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, Inc., 1968), p. 203.
R. Kessler, "Kicking the Habit. Cigaret Foes Suggest a Long-Term Decline in Smoking Has Started,"
Wall Street Journal (March 27, 1969), pp. 1 and 19.
Same reference as footnote 6.
55
The General Evidence on Fear
The picture emerging from the more recent research on fear is that neither extremely strong nor
very weak fear appeals are maximally effective." It
seems that appeals at a somewhat moderate level of
fear are best. A simple explanation for this might
be that if an appeal is too weak it just does not
attract enough attention. If it is too strong, on the
other hand, it may lead people to avoid the message
or ignore the message's recommendations as being
inadequate to the task of eliminating the feared
event.
A more thorough explanation is presented in
Figure 1. Here there are two types of effects
hypothesized to occur as fear increases. First,
there are the facilitating effects that are most often
overlooked in marketing. If fear can heighten
drive, there is the possibility of greater attention
and interest in the product and message than if no
drive were aroused. This aspect of fear appeals
A number of excellent reviews of the fear literature
have recently appeared. For instance, see K. L. Higbee, "Fifteen Years of Fear Arousal: Research on
Threat Appeals, 1953-1968," Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 72 (in press, 1969); I. L. Janis, "When Fear
is Healthy," Psychology Today, Vol. 1 (April, 1968),
p. 46 ff.; or W. F. McGuire, "Attitudes and Opinions," Annual Reviexv of Psychology, Vol. 17 (1966),
pp. 484-485. Janis and McGuire are most responsible for the nonmonotonic (moderate fear best)
reconciliation of fear findings presented here. See
also W. J. McGuire, "Personality and Susceptibility
to Social Influence," in Handbook of Personality
Theory and Research, E. F. Borgatta and W. W.
Lambert, eds. (Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally,
1968).
• ABOUT THE AUTHORS. Michael L.
Ray is assistant proiessor of marketing
at Stanford University Graduate School
oi Business. He has taught marketing,
advertising, and communication research at DePaul and Northwestern
Universities. From 1961 to 1965, he
worked on a variety of client and
special research projects at Foote,
Cone and Belding. Dr. Ray received
his PhD in social psychology from
Northwestern University in 1967. His publications have appeared in Science, the Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, the Journal of Advertising Research, Contemporary Psychology, and in American Marketing Association
Proceedings.
William L. Wilkie is a PhD candidate
in marketing at the Stanford University
Graduate School of Business. He received a BBA in marketing from the
University of Notre Dame in 1966, was
a PhD Fellow in the Stanford-Sloan
Program in 1967, and received a concurrent MBA from Stanford in 1969. Mi.
Wilkie's dissertation research concerns
models oi attitude change and market segmentation.
Journal of Marketing, January, 1970
56
Faci1itat ing Effects
N
\
\
Acceptance of
Message
Recommendat1 on
Resultant
Nonmonotonic Curve
High
Level of Fear
\
\
\
nhibiting Effects
FIGURE
1: Facilitating and inhibiting effects leading to nonmonotonic curve.
should be especially attractive in the context of the
need in marketing for distinctive approaches. A
sufficiently strong fear might lead to acceptance of
the message recommendation by first inducing interest in the ad and then prompting a search for
solution to the problem presented.
But fear also brings the important characteristic of inhibition into the picture. The lower curve
in Figure 1 representing inhibiting effects shows
the possible results of "irrational" behavior caused
by high fear. If fear levels are too high, there is
the possibility of defensive avoidance of the ad.
denial of the threat, selective exposure or distortion
of the ad's meaning, or a view of the recommendations as being inadequate to deal with so important
a fear. Marketing, in its examination of fear, has
unwittingly put all its emphasis on these inhibiting
effects of fear.
The dashed line in Figure 1 shows the resulting
total effects curve resulting from both facilitating
and inhibiting effects. This curve represents the
higher effectiveness for moderate fear appeals
mentioned earlier.
If this curvilinear or nonmonotonic explanation is
true, however, why did Janis and Feshbach find the
most minimal fear level to be most effective? Why
do other researchers find maximal fear levels to be
most effective? And, more important for market-
ers, how can this curvilinear explanation be used to
plan advertising?
In order to answer these questions, it is helpful
to examine the differences between two studies which
obtained opposite results on fear. The Janis and
Feshbach study and another piece of research by
Insko, Arkoff, and Insko" serve as good examples
for this purpose.
In the Janis and Feshbach research four groups
of 50 Connecticut high school students were each
exposed to one of the following 15-minute lectureslide presentations on the consequences of improper
dental hygiene:
Strong Appeal: The message contained 71 references to unfavorable consequences presented
in a threatening, personalized, "this-can-happento-you" manner.
Moderate Appeal: The message contained 49
references to unfavorable consequences presented in a more factual and less personal way
than the strong message.
Mild Appeal: The message contained 18 references to unfavorable consequences, again presented
»C. A. Insko, A. ArkofF and V. M. Insko, "Effects of
High and Low Fear-Arousing Communications upon
Opinions Toward Smoking," Joumal of Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 1 (August, 1965), pp. 256266.
57
Fear: The Potential of an Appeal Neglected by Marketing
High
Acceptance
of Message
Recommendat i on
Hypothesized
Levels of
Insko et al.
Messages
Hypothesized Levels
of Janis & Feshbach
Messages
Level of Fear
Low
FIGURE
High
2: Nonmonotonic reconciliation of Janis and Feshbach and Insko et al. findings.
factually and impersonally. The scare material
of the other messages was replaced with relatively neutral material having to do with the
growth and formation of the teeth.
Control: The message was on a topic (the human
eye) irrelevant to the dental hygiene lectures
received by the other groups.
Insko, Arkoff and Insko studied the reactions of
144 seventh-grade students in Honolulu. Half of
the group saw each of the following messages on
smoking and lung cancer.
High Fear: The message consisted of full color
slides of cancerous body parts described in an
"it-could-happen-to-you" manner.
The link
between smoking and lung cancer was made
explicit and suggestions to avoid smoking
were made.
Low Fear: The message mentioned the smokinglung cancer link, and there were black and
white photomicrographs of diseased tissue
which were discussed dispassionately.
This
message also recommended that the students
avoid smoking.
In both studies there was the appropriate reaction
to fear. In other words, people become more nervous in response to the stronger fear messages. But
beyond this, the results of the two studies seem
quite contradictory. The Janis and Feshbach research indicated that the stronger the fear appeal
the less the reported adherence to the messages'
recommendations on dental hygiene. Insko et al.,
on the other hand, found that the high fear message
was more effective than the low in decreasing the
seventh graders' stated intentions to smoke in the
future.
Figures 2 and 3 demonstrate the usefulness of
the curvilinear explanation in dealing with the
seemingly contradictory results of the two studies.
In Figure 2 the emphasis is on the degree of fear
in the messages. All of Janis and Feshbach's messages are positioned on the high end of the curve.
This seems reasonable since even their mild appeal
contained as many as 18 references to the unfavorable consequences of improper dental hygiene. The
' Insko et al. messages are placed on the low end of
the fear continuum, because, although the messages
contained references to smoking and lung cancer,
these references could not be extremely threatening
to seventh graders who did not smoke and who
probably considered themselves to be far from a
disease state. This positioning of the messages in
the two studies is entirely consistent with the results: The high fear message being most effective
in Insko et al., the mild fear message in Janis and
Feshbach.
Journal of Marketing, January, 1970
58
High
Hypothesized Curve
of Acceptance for
Janis and
Feshbach
Study
Levels of Fear
for the Two Studies
Hypothetical Curve
of Acceptance for
Insko et al. Study
\
Acceptance
of Message
Recommendations
I
Low
"Mild"
or
"Low"
" S t rong"
or
"H i g h "
High
Level of Fear
FIGURE
3: Nonmonotonic reconciliation of fear findings with curves for two kinds of audiences and topics.
The explanatory approach taken in Figure 3 is
really more useful for marketing, however, because
it treats different consumer segments and topics
(product categories) with different curves. With
such a treatment marketers can realistically consider
the fear appeal response functions within various
segment-product category groupings. In the case
of the research discussed here, the high schoolerdental hygiene grouping is seen as lower on the
fear continuum (responding better to lower levels of
fear) then the seventh-grader .smoking and cancer
grouping. Thus, Figure 3 demonstrates, even if
the fear levels of the messages in the studies were
equivalent, the groups would respond differently
because they have different fear response functions.
It is interesting to note that Insko and his associates were attempting to find a segment and topic
for which there was such a response function. Their
hypothesis was that for seventh graders, the topic
of smoking would not be as threatening (i.e.,
would not produce as many inhibiting effects), because the messages would not be dealing with a
present, personal behavior of the seventh graders.
One might speculate that if the Insko group had
constructed additional, stronger fear messages which
underlined dangers of lung cancer to seventh
graders, they may have tapped the part of the response function in which extremely high fear is
hypothesized to be less effective.
Segmentation Hints from Fear Research
Figure 3 actually could be considered as a model
of how marketing's concept of segmentation might
utilize fear research. The basic idea is simple. If
the marketer is dealing with a segment that has a
response curve like that of Insko's subjects, it
should be possible to effectively use a relatively
strong fear appeal in advertising, in product positioning, etc. A segment with a response function
like that hypothesized for the Janis and Feshbach
group, however, would be less responsive to fear,
and it might be better to use low fear or some other
kind of appeal.
This segmentation approach to fear appeals is
quite viable, because the fear research findings on
segment response functions include all three of the
basic segmenting approaches used in marketing:
socioeconomic, personality, and usage.
Personality was probably the first segment characteristic studied in fear appeal research. In a paper
published in 1954, Janis and Feshbach»" analyzed
their 1953 study, separating the sample into high
and low anxiety groups with the use of test scores
and teacher ratings. The low anxiety group was
I. L. Janis and S. Feshbach, "Personality Differences
Associated with Responsiveness to Fear-Arousing
Communications," Journal of Personality, Vol. 23
(December, 1954), pp. 154-166.
Fear: The Potential of an Appeal Neglected by Marketing
more heavily infiuenced by the strong fear message
than was the high anxiety group. For the minimal
fear message the reverse pattern was true; i.e., the
high anxiety group was affected more by the message than was the low anxiety group. The same sort
of finding—positive effect of fear in low anxiety
groups and negative in high anxiety—occurred in
a study by Niles on smoking.ii Niles' anxiety
measure was the subjects' perceived vulnerability
to lung cancer.
Related personality results are reported in a
study by Goldstein'-' dealing with copers (those who
characteristically make active efforts to deal with
impulses and dangers) and avoiders (those who
deny dangers). Copers did not react differently to
high and low fear messages. Avoiders, however,
were less receptive to recommendations under high
than under low fear. Leventhal'^ has conducted a
series of studies utilizing the personality variable
of self-esteem. His general finding is that the
higher a person's self-esteem, the higher is his
optimal level of fear. Most of this research was
done with communications recommending tetanus
innoculation.
"Usage" (or topic relevance) was probably the
second segmenting variable studied in the fear area.
The general finding is that the greater the relevance
of the topic for the audience, the lower the optimal
level of fear appeal. For instance Insko et al. found
a positive relation between fear and acceptance of
anti-smoking messages when respondents were not
smokers. Berkowitz and Cottingham found that
greater automobile usage was associated with diminished effectiveness of a strong fear message
advocating the use of seat belts. Leventhal and
Watts found the same sort of negative relationship
between usage of cigarettes and acceptance of strong
fear messages on smoking.^*
Few fear studies have been conducted using the
common socioeconomic segmenting descriptions. In
most cases the fear experiments utilize fairly small
samples with all respondents coming from one socioeconomic class. Two studies, by Haefner and by
Singer, seem to suggest that fear appeals are more
" P. Niles, "The Relationship of Susceptibility and
Anxiety to Acceptance of Fear-Arousing Communications," unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1964.
12 M. Goldstein, "Relationship Between Coping and
Avoiding Behavior and Response to Fear-Arousing
Propaganda," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 58 (March, 1959), pp. 247-252.
" H. Leventhal, "Fear—For Your Health," Psychology
Today, Vol. 1 (September, 1967), pp. 54-58.
" L . Berkowitz and D. R. Cottingham, "The Interest
Value and Relevance of Fear Arousing Communications," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
Vol. 60 (January, 1960), pp. 37-43; H. Leventhal and
J. C. Watts, "Sources of Resistance to Fear Arousing Communications on Smoking and Lung Cancer,"
Journal of Personality, Vol. 34 (June, 1966), pp.
155-175.
59
effective with lower than with high socioeconomic
classes, but the results are confused by source effects
(such as deference to authority).*^
In general, then, fear research mirrors marketing
findings in that the segmenting characteristics which
have discriminated best have been those most closely
related to the product or topic. High fear appeals
have worked best with people who are low in anxiety
and high in self-esteem, who exhibit coping behavior, who normally find the topic or category of
low relevance, and who normally see themselves as
having low vulnerability to the threat in the fear
message.
An interesting conclusion for marketing is that
fear motivation should be most effective for those
who have not seen themselves as part of the market
for the recommended product or brand. Thus, it
might be surmised that strong Cancer Society appeals would be more effective for younger than
older smokers, since younger smokers are less likely
to see themselves as vulnerable to the cancer threat.
If the anti-cigarette forces can further segment the
market to find low anxiety, high self-esteem copers
among the smokers, they will have segments for
which extremely strong fear messages should be
effective if presented well.
In a similar way, insurance companies might find
that fear appeals work best with groups who tjiJically do not see themselves as needing insurance, even
though they have already been exposed to insurance
ads dealing with security, benefits, etc. Mouthwash
advertisers might find that fear appeals would work
best with those who have not really considered the
bad breath problem. Dietetic foods might be sold
with fear appeals to those on the verge of gaining
weight who have not yet considered weight gain a
problem. Safety features in cars might best be sold
with fear to those infrequent drivers who have not
considered the dangers of short trips in the city.
The list of possible applications is virtually endless. The general implication, however, can be
stated in a brief way. Fear motivation seems to be
more effective in opening new segments rather than
selling old ones.
Fear and the Several Levels of
Communication Effect
Despite the fact that they are stimulating,
the ideas on segmentation presented above leave
many questions about the use of fear appeals in
marketing. For instance, fear appeals are more
effective for some groups in the laboratory, but are
they not likely to be avoided in a more realistic exposure situation? How does the high arousal caused
" D . Haefner, "Use of Fear Arousal in Dental Health
Education," unpublished paper cited in McGuire,
same reference as footnote 8 (1966); R. P. Singer,
"The Effects of Fear-Arousing Communications on
Attitude Change and Behavior," unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut, 1965.
60
by fear affect learning? What about behavior; does
fear really get people to act on recommendations?
All of these are questions about levels of effect.
Most of the discussion of fear to this point has
dealt with reported acceptance of recommendations.
But in order to use fear in specific situations in
marketing, it is necessary to have some idea of its
effect on several levels—exposure, learning, action
—as well as acceptance.
Fear's Effect on Message Exposure
Although direct fear research evidence on exposure is sparse,'^ considerable evidence can be
gleaned from the broader research area of selective
exposure to all types of messages. A number of
studies in the selective exposure literature deal with
the differential interest people have in being exposed to positive and negative arguments on a series
of topics.'" In general, people seem to prefer positive arguments, but persons who have had a history
of exposure to only positive arguments express
greater interest in exposure to the negative.
Thus the segmentation decision discussed in the
preceding sections is intimately related to exposure
potential. Exposure for single fear messages is
more likely for individuals who have already been
exposed to positive messages and for those whose
anxiety and arousal on the topic, product, or brand
is initially low. In most marketing conditions, it
would seem that fear appeals would be particularly
effective with those segments which would not
normally search for information in the product
category. In such situations the more intrusive
broadcast media might be used to overcome the
problem. Or ad implementation will have to be
handled in such a way as to quickly inform the
reader of the problem.
Journal of Marketing, January, 1970
of fear levels used in most attitude change studies.^"
While there is a loss in efficiency (e.g., distraction,
errors, poor retention) for extreme fear situations,
there does not seem to be any negative effect on at^
tention and learning for fear levels up to this
threshold. And some research shows an increase in
attention accompanying an increase in fear within
this relevant range.'"
There are, however, distinct problems in directly
adopting these findings for marketing. The research has tended to measure quantity rather than
quality of learning. It has always been done in
settings which strongly discouraged "leaving the
field," and thu.s has implicitly encouraged attention,
comprehension, and learning. Respondents have no
options like svntching TV channels, going to the
kitchen to get a drink, or engaging in a short conversation (possible "inhibitors" in a marketing
setting). On the other hand, the novelty and distinctiveness of the fear appeal versus the common
expectations generated by most advertisements has
not been tested either. This characteristic, plus the
hypothesis that marketing objectives would not lead
to the use of an extremely high level of fear anyway,
indicates that the question of attention and learning
with fear in marketing should be kept open for
examination in each individual problem situation.
Fear's Effect on Learning
Given that the novelty of the fear appeal can
induce exposure to a communication, the real question remains of whether or not this initial arousal
can be converted to continuing attention and resultant learning. Janis, in an excellent review covering
research from physiological psychology through fear
messages to disaster situations, concludes that there
is little effect on cognitive efficiency within the range
Fear's Effect on Action
The real focus of marketing communications is on
eliciting some form of desired behavior, and considerable fear research on action has been conducted.
Respondents have been induced to get tetanus inoculations, improve dental practices, see their
doctor, receive a free toothbrush or dental hygiene
booklet, stop smoking, sign petitions, and take chest
X-rays.-" Specific results on action response range
from Janis and Feshbach's research, in which there
was less adherence to recommended dental practices
two weeks after strong fear messages, to a study
of emotional role playing by Mann and Janis^' in
which a single one-hour fear session was shown to
be effective in decreasing smoking over an 18-month
period.
General findings parallel marketing communication knowledge in the action or behavior area.
Recommended behavior is more likely to occur if
consumers have been adequately exposed to mes-
i« See, for example: C. F. Cannell and J. C. MacDonald, "The Impact of Health News on Attitudes
and Behavior," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 33 (Summer, 1956), pp. 315-323; J. C. Nunnally and H. M.
Broben, "Variables Governing the Willingness to Receive Communications on Mental Health," Journal of
Personality, Vol. 27 (March, 1959), pp. 38-46; P. R.
Robbins, "Self-Reports of Reactions to Fear-Arousing
Information," Psychological Reports, Vol. 11 (December, 1962), pp. 761-764.
" J . L. Freedman and D. 0. Sears, "Selective Exposure," Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
Vol. 2 (1966), pp. 58-97.
i" I. L. Janis, "Effects of Fear Arousal on Attitude
Change: Recent Developments in Theory and Experimental Research," Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol. 3 (1967), pp. 167-225.
'"See, for example: Janis and Feshbach, same reference as footnote 1; Berkowitz and Cottingham,
same reference as footnote 14.
•^ For a review of most of these studies see same reference as footnote 18.
21 L. Mann and I. L, Janis, "A Follow-Up Study on
the Long-Term Effects of Emotional Role Playing,"
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 8
(April, 1968), pp. 339-342.
Fear: The Potential of an Appeal Neglected by Marketing
s, if the environment is supportive of the
message recommendation, if the action is not too
difficult to undertake, and if there is little time delay
between message recommendation and action.
Thus, the problems of eliciting action with fear
messages are not greatly different from the problems of eliciting action with messages utilizing
other types of appeals. As such, however, fear
appeals must be used carefully in order to promote
behavior. A study by Leventhal and Watts on
smoking and lung cancer illustrates this point.-At first glance it seems that Leventhal and Watts'
results represent an example of low attitude-behavior correlation. The paper and pencil acceptance
of recommendations correlated positively with respondent fear, while the frequency of the recommended behavior of actually getting a chest X-ray
showed a highly significant decrease going from the
low to the high fear condition.
There were further results, however, that made
the study more intere.sting. The study was done
at the JCew York State Fair, and many of the respondents in the high fear condition said they
wanted to go to their doctors to get an X-ray
rather than take one at the Fair. This seemed reasonable to Leventhal and Watts, since respondents
in the high fear condition might have thought
something could really have been wrong with them.
So the researchers sent a questionnaire to participants five months after the original interviews. Few
new X-rays were reported, but those in the high
fear groups reported .significantly more success in
stopping smoking than did the lower fear groups.
Leventhal and Watts explain these results on the
basis that the act by individuals to stop smoking
was an effective way to deal with the fear raised in
the strong fear messages. Getting X-rays or seeing
a doctor, on the other hand, might merely increase
the chance of fear. Further analysis of their data
produced support for this interpretation.
If Leventhal and Watts were marketing men attempting to sell chest X-rays, they might have considered their strong fear message a failure, even
though it was most effective in getting people to
stop smoking. In this case, it may have been better
to emphasize the effectiveness of the X-ray in detecting and preventing disease rather than to
strongly emphasize the threat of cancer. Or it may
be that the message could have been more specific
as to how to secure the X-rays.
These kinds of questions can be asked every time
fear appeals are attempted in marketing. Fear research provides many of the answers. For instance,
in the Leventhal and Watts study there are data on
segmentation characteristics, eligibility for X-rays,
perceived threat, and degree to which recommendations were seen as efficacious. In other fear studies
there are findings about the order of fear evocation
22 Same reference as footnote 14.
61
and recommendations within a message (probably
better to put the fear first), the object of the threat
(better to threaten someone close to the prospect
rather than the prospect himself), source credibility
(quite important when fear is used), and the physical size of the message (important when the audience is likely to have low self-esteem i. It is up to
marketing to use findings like these and to add to
them with results in the marketing area.-^
Summary and Conclusions
The puri)ose of this paper has not been to
thoroughly review the behavioral literature on fear
or to argue strongly for the use of fear appeals in
a wide variety of marketing situations. Rather the
purpose has been to systematically sample the research evidence on fear, and show how it can be used
to determine when and how fear appeals might be
used in marketing.
A large number of studies have been done on the
que.stion of fear appeals and. surprisingly, marketing's emphasis has been on only one of these, a study
reported by Janis and Feshbach about 16 years ago.-*
Behavioral research on fear indicates that fear
produces some effects which are facilitating and some
which are inhibiting to audience acceptance of recommendations. These facilitating and inhibiting
effects underlie a curvilinear explanation for the
diverse results on fear.
Marketing's technique of segmentation can be
used to find groups for which relatively high fear
appeals are effective. In general, these seem to be
people who do not see the product category in question as highly relevant to them, thus offering the
possibility that fear appeals should be especially
considered for opening new segments. In addition
to this usage or interest characteristic, segments
with high fear potential are those characterized by
low anxiety, high self-esteem, and the tendency to
attempt to cope with problems rather than avoiding
them.
While marketing has typically emphasized the
potential inhibiting effects of fear motivation, the
recent research indicates that fear can have facilitating effects. In situations where consumers have
heard all the positive arguments on a category, it is
likely that negative fear appeals will generate interest. There is also evidence that fear can facili23 H. Leventhal and R. P. Singer, "Affect Arousal
and Positioning of Recommendations in Persuasive
Communications," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 4 (February, 1966), pp. 137-146;
F. A. Powell, "The Effects of Anxiety-Arousing
Messages When Related to Personal, Familial and
Impersonal Referents," Speech Monographs, Vol. 32
(June, 1965), pp. 102-106; M. A. Hewgill and G. R.
Miller, "Source Credibility and Response to FearArousing Communication," Speech Monographs, Vol.
32 (June, 1965), pp. 95-101; same reference as footnote 13.
-* Same reference as footnote 1.
62
tate learning and action on recommendations, although the problems of eliciting action from fear
communication are just as severe as with communications utilizing other types of appeals. The fear
research provides a number of hints for message
construction which may lead to consumer action.
The greatest problem with the application of fear
in marketing is the same problem that occurs for
the use of any kind of appeal or motivation. It can
only be applied in specific situations, and no amount
of previous research can indicate the effect of fear
in a new situation. Behavioral research can answer
many questions; on segmentation, on levels of effect,
and on message construction. By applying the results of fear reported here and in more thorough
reviews, the marketer should be able to determine
whether fear can be applied in his situation, and
what some of the most likely results of this application will be. But it is also likely that he will have
to make assumptions or conduct further research in
the following areas:
1. Level of fear—The curvilinear model of fear
mentioned in this paper has not often been
fully tested within a single study. This is
likely to happen in a marketing study, especially since marketing is very likely to utilize
the very low levels of fear.
2. Source credibility—Most of the studies reported here deal with situations in which the
source is unspecified or of high credibility
(e.g., the medical profession, the Cancer Society). Even then the audiences often questioned strong fear appeals. But in marketing
the basic source will be the brand or company,
and ways of overcoming the obvious bias of
such a source will have to be developed.
3. Consideration of other types of fear—Most of
Journal of Marketing, January, 1970
the behavioral research on fear deals with
physiological fear. In marketing it will be
necessary to do some research to determine if
findings hold for other kinds of fears such as
social fears.
4. Repetitive effects—Vse of fear in marketing
will undoubtedly raise questions about repetitive use in competitive conditions. Behavioral
research has been done in these areas, but
other, more realistic work can be done in
marketing. Some research is under way at
Stanford on the repetitive use of fear.
In addition to these questions the issue of ethics
should naturally be considered. The basic question
here is whether the fear necessary for effective
marketing communications may have deleterious
consequences for those high anxiety persons who
happen to be in the message audience. Considering
the nonmonotonic notion and relevant communication research, however, it seems likely that the level
of fear that is effective in marketing would not be
high enough to be even remotely unethical. It must
be remembered that the primary advantage of the
fear appeal for marketing lies in its novelty. Because of this, destructively high levels of fear
should not be necessary for effective marketing
communication.
Fear is only one of several areas in communication research that has been neglected and handled in
a rather unsophisticated way by marketing. Hopefully, this paper has illustrated how the findings
from such research might be used in conjunction
with various marketing techniques. Careful analysis is necessary to utilize behavioral findings.
However, it should provide numerous dividends in
the form of rewards to marketing and knowledge in
the behavioral area itself.