204 MOTIVATION AND BEHAVIOUR
and severity as well as the effectiveness of the recommended protection and self-efficacy
enhancement (see Chapter 8). Collectively, these messages should prompt protective
intentions. Such threat-inducing messages can enhance systematic processing of
subsequent messages (as might be expected because of enhanced personal relevance –
see ELM in Chapter 8). For example, Das, de Wit and Stroebe (2003) found that fear
appeals generated favourable cognitive responses and consequent attitude change
ifparticipants felt susceptible to the threat (see too Witte and Allen, 2000). The way
such warnings are presented, that is, the delivery method (see Table 9.1) also determines
their effectiveness. A meta-analysis by Noar et al. (2015) (see Research methods 8.1
in Chapter 8) found that 12 of 17 experimental tests showed that fear appeals using
pictures on cigarette packets generated greater change than warnings without pictures.
Pictorial warnings held attention for longer, led to stronger cognitive and emotional
responses and elicited more negative attitudes towards smoking and stronger intentions
to avoid or quit smoking. Focus 9.2 presents different approaches to pictorial warnings
for smokers. When you finish reading this section read Focus 9.2 and reflect on how
we can best persuade smokers to quit.
Fear appeals may also fail to persuade. Two types of failure have been identified. First,
if people are not persuaded that the threat is relevant to them this may undermine
subsequent intervention and even threaten attitudes towards the recommended
preventive action (‘if the threat is not personally relevant why bother to take
precautions?’). Second, if people do not believe they can protect themselves (i.e. they
have low self-efficacy) they tend to protect themselves psychologically through
defensive cognitive responses (see Chapter 8 on reactance and Chapter 5 on coping).
When defensive processing (sometimes called fear control) occurs, then recipients may
dismiss the message as untrustworthy – rejecting it altogether – or rejecting its
relevance to them (Ruiter, Abraham and Kok, 2001). Whether threat-based messages
prompt intention formation (as protection motivation theory would suggest) or result
in undesirable defensive processing depends on the relationship between the perceived
threat and efficacy information. When self-efficacy and the perceived effectiveness of
the behaviour change to prevent negative consequences are more salient than perceived
threat (e.g. ‘I know I can do what I need to do to protect myself against the threat’)
then positive (danger control) motivational and behavioural change are likely.
However, when self-efficacy is weak (‘it’s a threat I cannot manage’) then coping is
likely to be defensive (see Chapter 3). Thus fear appeals need to incorporate strong and
persuasive threat information (to affect message processing) as well as strong self-efficacy
and response efficacy messages (suggesting that behaviour change is feasible and
effective against the threat) to be effective (Witte, 1992; Witte and Allen, 2000). Note
too that the framing of risk awareness messages may also be crucial (see Chapter 8).
One approach to reducing the likelihood that threat messages will encourage
defensive processing is to affirm valued images of the self before a threat message is
presented. Self-affirmation (discussed in Chapter 8) reduces the need to defend the
self against threat. One might prompt message recipients to think about positive aspects
of themselves before receiving threat information. Affirmed participants have been
found to be more convinced by threat information and more willing to accept risk or
severity of threat (Steele, 1988). For example, in a study conducted by Harris and
Napper (2005) male participants in a self-affirmation condition wrote about their
most important value, why it was important and how it affected their everyday lives.