JANIS AND FESHBACH (1953)- EFFECTIVENESS OF FEAR APPEALS Flashcards
When did Janis and Feshbach conduct their research?
1953
What was the aim(s) of Janis and Feshback’s research?
- To investigate the effectiveness of using fear appeals when communicating health-promotion messages.
- To explore possible adverse reactions to fear appeals due to defensiveness
Descrive the methods used in Janis and Feshbach’s research?
- Field experiement.
- 4 different conditions (3 experimenal groups and 1 control group). independent measures design.
- Materials: Presentations, questionnaires , films.
How much conditions were there in this experiment?
- 3 conditions which were exposed to 3 different levels of fear appeals.
- The control group- received a similar lecture on a different topic.
Describe the sample of Janis and Feshbach’s study?
- 200 High School students.
- 4 groups equal in terms of age, sex, eductaion and IQ (reduces ppt variables)
What measures of standardisation were used in Janis and Feshback’s study?
All groups were presented with a recorded lecture and films.
* All the slides were all the same length
* Presented by the same speaker (similar manner)
* Provided same info about the causes of tooth decay and oral hygiene recommendations.
What were the moderate fear group presented with?
containing only 49 anxiety-arousing references and 9 photos of less graphic images
What were the low fear group presented with?
They saw techniques of effective brushing and teeth cleaning, without unpleasant topics an no graphic slides, only X rays
What were the high fear group presented with?
- 71 different references to the painful consequences of tooth decay, disease gum disease, discolored teeth, dental drills, and cancer (illustrated with 11 graphic photos)
Can you summarise/ explain the procedure of Janis and Feshbach’s study (1953)?
- QUESTIONNAIRES: Questionnaire’s were filled one week before the lecture as part of a broader health questionnaire (questions directly relating to dental hygiene where dispersed)
- HIGH FEAR GROUP: The film contained strong fear appeals, focusing on 71 different references to the painful consequences of tooth decay, gum disease, discoloured teeth and cancer. 11 graphic photos.
- MODERATE FEAR GROUP: Contained moderate fear appeals. The film contained some of the same topics but only contained 49 anxiety-arousing references and 9 photos of less graphic images.
- LOW FEAR GROUP: Presented minimal fear appeals. They saw techniques of effective brushing and teeth cleaning, without unpleasant topics an no graphic slides, only X rays
- CONTROL GROUP: Received a similar lecture about a completely different subject.
- FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONNAIRES: One questionnaire immediatley after the lecture (immediate effects measured) and another one week later (carry on effects)
What were the results of the study in terms of the emotional (worry) reactions after the lecture about dental hygine?
- ## When asked if they felt worried about their mouth condition:
- 74% of the strong fear group said “yes”
- 60% of the moderate fear group said “yes”
- 48% of the minimal fear group said “yes”
This shows that more fear led to more worry about dental health.
What were the results of the study in terms of the overall concern scores (how concerned the students were after the lecture?)?
- The strong fear group had the highest concern score: 7.8
- The moderate fear group scored 6.6
- The minimal fear group had the lowest score: 5.9
What were the results of the study in terms of behavioural changes (tooth cleaning & dentist visits)
- minimal fear- improved their tooth cleaning the most. (18% of them visited the dentist)
- moderate fear- 14% visited dentist
- strong fear group- showed the least improvement in tooth cleaning. (10% visited the dentist)
Dentist vists 1 WEEK after the talk
What was the results of the study in terms of resistance to propaganda?
The minimal fear group was more resistant to persuasive messages about dental care.
For example, when asked about using the “right toothbrush,” they were less likely to be influenced by persuasive claims than the moderate or strong fear groups.
What was the conclusion of the study?
- Strong fear arousal does NOT increase the likelihood of changing health behaviors. It seems to have the opposite effect in the long term.
- Minimal fear is the most effective for health promotion stategy (because it led to more resistance to contradictory propaganda and led to higher advice adherence)
This supports the Yerkes-Dodson Law: A little fear can motivate behaviour, but too much fear can backfire and reduce performance (in this case, dental care).
Name 1 strength and 1 weakness of Janis & Feshbach (1953) study?
strengths- high reliability due to standardised methdology, reducing variability (externaous variables) across conditions, allowing researchers to make better inferences.
Weakness- cultural bias (American sample) limits generalisbility of the results as fear appeals could work differently in different cultural/ social context (+ younger ppts)
Some cultures may have varying obedience levels/ different relationships to health/ fear
How can the study be viewed as deterministic?
challenges the idea of free will by implying that people’s actions are heavily influenced by external stimuli like fear.
