Introduction to Theories of Communication Effects: Emotional Appeals With special emphasis on Fear Appeals A service of the Communication Science & Research Resource Group

Persuasive Appeals Aristotle – 3 Means to Persuasion LOGOS Logic/Reasoning ETHOSEthics/Credibility PATHOS Emotion/Passion

Positive Emotions –Altruism –Love –Humor Negative Emotions –Guilt –Pity –Anger –Fear Example of Pathos Appeal

Work for brand recall Biases Processing Sympathy / Altruism – Feel sympathy in response to emotional appeal Positive Appeals

Guilt Anger Fear Negative Appeals

Fear Appeals (Health Risk Message) Will this message work?

Fear Appeals (Health Risk Message) How About This one?

Fear Appeals (Health Risk Message) This one?

Fear Appeals (Health Risk Message)

Health Risk Messages (Fear Appeals) – Two Components A Threat Component –Severity of Threat - is it serious or severe? (magnitude of threat) –Susceptibility to Threat - can it happen to me? (possibility of experiencing threat) A Recommended Response (addresses efficacy issues) –Response Efficacy - does response work? –Self-Efficacy - can I do response? –Barriers to Self-Efficacy - what blocks me from doing response? Target of Threat Key

How it Works

Outcomes Predicted by the Model PerceptionsHigh Efficacy Ability and Effectiveness Low Efficacy Inability/Ineffectiveness High Threat Vulnerable to Serious Harm Control the Danger: Take Protective Action Control One’s Fear: Denial, Defensive Avoidance, Reactance Low Threat Invulnerable Trivial Threat Control Some Danger: Motivation to act weak; may be some protective action No Response: No motivation to act

Threat determines Strength of Response Efficacy determines Nature of Response

Individually-targeted fear appeals were more frightening than family- targeted fear appeals for members of individualist cultures. Family-targeted fear appeals were more frightening than Individually- targeted fear appeals for members of collectivist cultures.

n Materials Testing and Evaluation n Program Development n HIV Counseling and Testing n Systematic Formative Evaluation, Message Design, Summative Evaluation. Applications

Materials Evaluation

Sample Focus Group Protocol [THREAT - SEVERITY] Question 1. Do any harmful or negative consequence come from being infected with HIV according to these messages? Please explain. Question 2. Do any harmful or negative consequence come from actually getting the disease AIDS according to these messages? Please explain. [THREAT - SUSCEPTIBILITY] Question 3. What level of risk for you getting infected with HIV is implied in these materials? Probe 1. Does it make you feel like you might get infected? Why or why not? Probe 2. Do you think it might make your friends or family members feel like they could get infected? Why or why not? [EFFICACY - RESPONSE EFFICACY] Question 4. What kinds of responses do these materials recommend to prevent HIV/AIDS? Probe 1. Do you think these responses are effective in preventing HIV infection? Why or why not? Probe 2. Do you think your friends or family would think these responses are effective in preventing HIV infection? Why or why not? [EFFICACY - SELF-EFFICACY] Question 5. Do these materials address one's ability to use the recommended responses? Why or why not? Probe 1. Do these materials make you feel like you can successfully use the recommended responses? Why or why not? Probe 2. Do you think these materials would make your friends or family believe they were able to use them? Why or why not?

Program Development (Formative Research) FLOWCHART OF FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS' BELIEFS AND BEHAVIORS High Threat/ ----->Fear Control ----->Fatalism Low Efficacy ProcessesDenial PerceptionsDefensive Avoidance Juju Causes Disease Reactance (perceive manipulation from whites or government)

Program Development for EE Program in Ethiopia

Examine Theoretical Variables

BELIEFS TO CHANGE BELIEFS TO REINFORCE BELIEFS TO INTRODUCE AUDIENCE PROFILE Category of BeliefsResults of Formative Res. From Formative Research, Create Table of Beliefs

Journey of Life Results

BaselineSummative

HIV Counseling and Testing n RISK BEHAVIOR DIAGNOSIS SCALE n A Rapid Assessment Tool n Determines whether danger control or fear control processes are dominating n A Quick 12-item template scale

HIV Counseling and Testing Define Threat= HIV/AIDS Define Recommended Response: Use Condoms Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree RE 1. Condoms are effective in preventing HIV/AIDS infection: RE 2. Condoms work in preventing HIV/AIDS infection: RE 3. If I use condoms, I am less likely to get infected with HIV/AIDS: SE 4. I am able to use condoms to prevent getting infected with HIV/AIDS : SE 5. I am capable of using condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS infection: SE 6. I can easily use condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS infection:  Eff___ ******************************************************************************************************************* Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree SEV 7. I believe that HIV/AIDS infection is severe: SEV 8. I believe that getting HIV/AIDS has serious negative consequences: SEV 9. I believe that getting HIV/AIDS is extremely harmful: SUSC 10. It is possible that I will get HIV/AIDS: SUSC 11. I am at risk for getting HIV/AIDS: SUSC 12. It is likely that I will get HIV/AIDS:  Thr_____

On-The-Spot Theoretically Based Messages Perceptions High Efficacy Ability and Effectiveness Low Efficacy Inability and Ineffectiveness High Threat Vulnerable to Serious Harm Message Strategy: Emphasize severity and susceptibility to the threat; reinforce response and self-efficacy beliefs. Message Strategy: Emphasize response and self-efficacy only (already motivated to act given high threat perceptions). Low Threat Invulnerable and/or Trivial Threat Message Strategy: Emphasize severity and susceptibility to the threat to motivate action; reinforce response and self-efficacy beliefs. Message Strategy: Emphasize response and self-efficacy first, then emphasize severity & susceptibility to the threat to motivate action.

Message Design Strategies

Develop High Threat/High Efficacy Message A high threat message is: –personalistic –vivid (language and pictures) A high efficacy message: –explains how to do the recommended response –addresses barriers to recommended response –gives evidence of recommended response’s effectiveness –may role play recommended response

Give Explicit Recommended Response

Low Threat PictureHigh Threat Picture

Target population: White, heterosexual young adults (18-22), living in Orange County, California. Low Threat Moderate Threat High Threat

Example

Evaluation

Summary n High Threat messages Work, as long as Perceived Efficacy is High too n There are many kinds of Threats n Integrated Theoretically-Based Research/Program Works!

Next Week: Review, Synthesis, GRADUATION! Looking ahead

The End

Example of Logos Appeal Logical or Rational Appeals Deduction -- reasoning from general to specific Induction -- reasoning from specific to general Syllogism is deductive reasoning. For example, Major PremiseIf all A is B, and Minor Premiseif all C is A, then Conclusionall C is B

Example of Ethos Appeal Credibility –Trustworthiness –Competence –Dynamism Liking –Physical Attractiveness –Similarity –Disliked communicators when have choice