Current Psychology

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 75–83 | Cite as

When Defensive Reactions Contribute to the Acceptance of Fear-Arousing Communications

  • Jérôme BlondéEmail author
  • Fabien Girandola


Literature on fear-arousing communications has led to divergent conclusions. On the one hand, studies have shown that fear increases attitude change via systematic processing. On the other hand, it has been observed that arousing fear provokes defense-motivated reactions. Nevertheless, few studies have embedded measures of persuasion, information processing, and defensiveness all at once. Consequently, we conducted an experiment to assess the effects of fear-arousal on these three outcomes in order to clarify this ambiguous issue. The participants were instructed to watch a public service announcement video with two conditions of fear. Our results showed that an increase of fear generated a more positive attitude, as well as systematic processing but, surprisingly, more defensive reactions. Further analyses revealed a mediating effect of these reactions between fear and attitude. These results suggest an alternative pathway to understand the effects of fear-appeals, emphasizing the positive influence of defensive responses.


Fear arousal Attitude Information processing Defensive reactions 


Compliance with Ethical Standards


The author(s) received no funding for the present research.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Conflict of Interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest.


  1. Arthur, D., & Quester, P. (2003). The ethicality of using fear for social advertising. Australasian Marketing Journal, 11(1), 12–27. doi: 10.1016/S1441-3582(03)70115-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blondé, J., & Girandola, F. (2016). Faire « appel à la peur » pour persuader? Revue de la littérature et perspectives de recherche [appealing to fear to persuade? Review of literature and research perspectives]. L’Année Psychologique/Topics in Cognitive Psychology, 116(1), 67–103. doi: 10.4074/S0003503316000282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blumberg, S. J. (2000). Guarding against threatening HIV prevention messages: An information processing model. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 780–795. doi: 10.1177/109019810002700611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, S., & Locker, E. (2009). Defensive responses to an emotive anti-alcohol message. Psychology & Health, 24, 517–528. doi: 10.1080/08870440801911130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrnes, J. P., Miller, D. C., & Schafer, W. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125(3), 367–383. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.3.367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacioppo, J. T., Hippel, W., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Mapping cognitive structure and processes through verbal content: The thought-listing technique. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 928–940. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.65.6.928.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–756. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  9. Das, E., DeWit, J. B. F., & Stroebe, W. (2003). Fear appeals motivate acceptance of action recommendations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 650–664. doi: 10.1177/0146167203029005009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. DeHoog, N., Stroebe, W., & DeWit, J. B. F. (2005). The impact of fear appeals on the processing and acceptance of action recommendations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 24–33. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DeHoog, N., Stroebe, W., & DeWit, J. B. F. (2007). The impact of vulnerability to and severity of a health risk on processing and acceptance of fear-arousing communications: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 11, 258–285. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.11.3.258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DeHoog, N., Stroebe, W., & DeWit, J. B. F. (2008). The processing of fear-arousing communications: How biased processing leads to persuasion. Social Influence, 3, 84–113. doi: 10.1080/15534510802185836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dejoy, D. M. (1989). The optimism bias and traffic accident risk perception. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 21, 333–340. doi: 10.1016/0001-4575(89)90024-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Dillard, J. P., & Anderson, J. W. (2004). The role of fear in persuasion. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 909–926. doi: 10.1002/mar.20041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frijda, N. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Good, A., & Abraham, C. (2007). Measuring defensive responses to threatening messages: A meta-analysis of measures. Health Psychology Review, 1, 208–229. doi: 10.1080/17437190802280889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Granié, M. A. (2009). Sex differences, effects of sex-stereotype conformity, age and internalization on risk-taking among pedestrian adolescents. Safety Science, 47, 1277–1283. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2009.03.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Granié, M. A. (2010). Gender stereotype conformity and age as determinants of preschoolers’ injury-risk behaviors. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(2), 726–733. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.10.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Hanna, C. L., Taylor, D. M., Sheppard, M. A., & Laflamme, L. (2006). Fatal crashes involving young unlicensed drivers in the US. Journal of Safety Research, 37(4), 385–394. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr2006.05.007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansen, W. B., Raynor, A. E., & Wolkenstein, B. H. (1991). Perceived personal immunity to the consequences of drinking alcohol: The relationship between behavior and perception. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 14, 205–224. doi: 10.1007/BF00845452.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Harré, N., Brandt, T. P., & Dawe, M. (2000). The development of risky driving in adolescence. Journal of Safety Research, 31(4), 185–194. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4375(00)00035-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris, P., & Middleton, W. (1994). The illusion of control and optimism about health: On being less at risk but no more in control than others. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 369–386. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology and Marketing, 21(11), 961–986. doi: 10.1002/mar.20043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Janis, I. L. (1967). Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent developments in theory and experimental research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 166–225). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Janis, I. L., & Feshbach, S. (1953). Effects of fear-arousing communications. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78–92. doi: 10.1037/h0060732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keller, P. A., & Block, L. G. (1996). Increasing the persuasiveness of fear appeals: The effect of arousal and elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 448–459. doi: 10.1086/209461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kessels, L. T., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2012). Eye movement responses to health messages on cigarette packages. BMC Public Health, 12, 352. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-352.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kessels, L. T., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Jansma, B. M. (2010). Increased attention but more efficient disengagement: Neuroscientific evidence for defensive processing of threatening health information. Health Psychology, 29, 346–354. doi: 10.1037/a0019372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kessels, L. T., Ruiter, R. A. C., Brug, J., & Jansma, B. M. (2011). The effects of tailored and threatening nutrition information on message attention: Evidence from an event-related potential study. Appetite, 56, 32–38. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.11.139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kessels, L. T., Ruiter, R. A. C., Wouters, L., & Jansma, B. M. (2014). Neuroscientific evidence for defensive avoidance of fear appeals. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 80–88. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12036.
  31. King, K. W., & Reid, L. N. (1990). Fear arousing anti-drinking and driving PSA's: Do physical injury threats influence young adult? Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 12, 155–176. doi: 10.1080/01633392.1990.10504950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leventhal, H., & Singer, R. (1966). Affect arousal and positioning of recommendations in persuasive communications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 137–146. doi: 10.1037/h0023569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leventhal, H., Watts, J. C., & Pagano, F. (1967). Effects of fear and instructions on how to cope with danger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 313–321. doi: 10.1037/h0021222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lewis, I. M., Watson, B., Tay, R., & White, K. M. (2007). The role of fear appeals in improving driver safety: A review of the effectiveness of fear-arousing (threat) appeals in road safety advertising. International Journal of Behavioral and Consultation Therapy, 3, 203–222. doi: 10.1037/h0100799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis, I. M., Watson, B., & White, K. M. (2008). An examination of message-relevant affect in road safety messages: Should road safety advertisements aim to make us feel good or bad? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(6), 403–417. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2008.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis, I. M., Watson, B., & White, K. M. (2009). Internet versus paper-and-pencil survey methods in psychological experiments: Equivalence testing of participant responses to health-related messages. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61(2), 107–116. doi: 10.1080/00049530802105865.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personal relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669–679. doi: 10.1177/0146167292186002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lonczak, H. S., Neighbors, C., & Donovan, D. M. (2007). Predicting risky and angry driving as a function of gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(3), 536–545. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2006.09.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 469–479. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, R., & Hewstone, M. (2008). Majority versus minority influences, message processing and attitude change: The source-context-elaboration model. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 237–326). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence. In E. Borgatta & W. Lambert (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (pp. 1130–1187). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  42. Mehrabian, A., & Russell, J. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Meijnders, A. L., Midden, C. J. H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). Role of negative emotion in communication about CO2 risks. Risk Analysis, 21, 955–966. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.215164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (1996). Effects of message anxiety on disease detection and health promotion behaviors. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 61–74. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp1801_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nielsen, J., & Shapiro, S. (2009). Coping with fear through suppression and avoidance of threatening information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 258–274. doi: 10.1037/a0017018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Peters, G. J. Y., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: A critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychology Review, 7, 8–31. doi: 10.1080/17437199.2012.703527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 193–205. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. Ruiter, R. A. C., Kok, G., Verplanken, B., & Brug, J. (2001a). Evoked fear and effects of appeals on attitudes to performing breast self-examination: An information processing perspective. Health Education Research, 16, 307–319. doi: 10.1093/her/16.3.307.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Ruiter, R. A. C., Abraham, C., & Kok, G. (2001b). Scary warnings and rational precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology & Health, 16, 613–630. doi: 10.1080/08870440108405863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ruiter, R. A. C., Kessels, L. T. E., Peters, G. J. Y., & Kok, G. (2014). Sixty years of fear appeal research: Current state of the evidence. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 63–70. doi: 10.1002/ijop.12042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Saadellaoui, I., & Gharbi, J. E. (2012). Effect of the self-efficacy on the perceived ethicality of fear-appeals in anti-tobacco advertising. Journal of Marketing Research & Case Studies, 2012, 1–9. doi: 10.5171/2012.740962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sibley, C. G., & Harré, N. (2009). A gender role socialization model of explicit and implicit biases in driving self-enhancement. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(6), 452–461. doi: 10.1016/j.trf.2009.08.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Snipes, R. L., LaTour, M. S., & Bliss, S. J. (1999). A model of the effects of self-efficacy on the perceived ethicality and performance of fear-appeals in advertising. Journal of Business Ethics, 19(3), 273–285. doi: 10.1023/A:1005822414588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Süssenbach, P., Niemeier, S., & Glock, S. (2013). Effects of and attention to graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. Psychology & Health, 28, 1192–1206. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2013.799161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tanner, J. F., Hunt, J. B., & Eppright, D. R. (1991). The protection motivation model: A normative model of fear appeals. Journal of Marketing, 55(3), 36–45. doi: 10.2307/1252146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806–820. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wheeler, S. C., Briñol, P., & Hermann, A. D. (2007). Resistance to persuasion as self-regulation: Ego-depletion and its effects on attitude change processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 150–156. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiebe, D. J., & Korbel, C. (2003). Defensive denial, affect, and the self-regulation of health threats. In L. D. Cameron & H. Leventhal (Eds.), The self-regulation of health and illness behavior (pp. 184–203). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329–349. doi: 10.1080/03637759209376276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 61, 113–134. doi: 10.1080/03637759409376328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591–616. doi: 10.1177/109019810002700506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de Psychologie SocialeUniversité of Aix-MarseilleAix-en-ProvenceFrance

Personalised recommendations