Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory

<p>Despite decades of research, consensus regarding the dynamics of fear appeals remains elusive. A meta-analysis was conducted that was designed to resolve this controversy. Publications that were included in previous meta-analyses were re-analysed, and a number of additional publications were located. The inclusion criteria were full factorial orthogonal manipulations of threat and efficacy, and measurement of behaviour as an outcome. Fixed and random effects models were used to compute mean effect size estimates. Meta-analysis of the six studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria clearly showed a significant interaction between threat and efficacy, such that threat only had an effect under high efficacy (d = 0.31), and efficacy only had an effect under high threat (d = 0.71). Inconsistency in results regarding the effectiveness of threatening communication can likely be attributed to flawed methodology. Proper tests of fear appeal theory yielded the theoretically hypothesised interaction effect. Threatening communication should exclusively be used when pilot studies indicate that an intervention successfully enhances efficacy.</p>

尽管历经数十年研究，学界关于恐惧诉求（fear appeals）的作用机制仍未达成共识。为解决这一学术争议，本研究开展了一项元分析（meta-analysis）：对既往元分析纳入的文献进行重新分析，并检索到多篇新增文献。本研究的纳入标准为：对威胁（threat）与效能感（efficacy）实施全因子正交操纵，且以行为作为测量结局指标。研究采用固定效应模型与随机效应模型计算平均效应量（effect size）估计值。对符合纳入标准的6项研究开展的元分析结果清晰显示，威胁与效能感之间存在显著交互作用——仅在高效能感条件下，威胁才会产生显著效应（d=0.31）；而仅在高威胁条件下，效能感才会产生显著效应（d=0.71）。以往关于威胁性传播有效性的研究结果不一致，大概率源于方法学缺陷。对恐惧诉求理论的严谨检验得到了理论预设的交互效应。仅当预试验表明某干预可有效提升效能感时，方可采用威胁性传播策略。