Fear‐pattern analysis supports the fear‐drive model for antispeeding road‐safety TV ads

John R. Rossiter · Jennifer A. Thornton

115 citations0/0 files storedPsychology and Marketing

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Behavioral Health and Interventions Traffic and Road Safety Media Influence and Health

Abstract

Abstract Previous studies of fear appeals in advertising have relied on a procedure that measures only the overall level of fear produced by the ad. That procedure cannot validly test the effect of drive reduction, which is the central causal mechanism in Hovland, Janis, and Kelley's (1953) original fear‐drive model. To overcome this limitation, the present research identifies the fear pattern of the ad, based on moment‐to‐moment ratings of fear‐to‐relief taken for its duration. In Study 1, which examines ratings of seven antispeeding TV commercials, it is shown that a postexposure overall rating of fear is in fact measuring the maximum level of fear experienced, not the average level, and that this static rating of fear cannot distinguish very different patterns, such as the pattern of rising fear with no relief, the “shock” pattern of sudden fear with no relief (both representing positive punishment), and the classic fear‐relief pattern (the drivereduction pattern). In Study 2, which is a laboratory experiment using antispeeding road‐safety TV commercials and a dependent variable of speed choice on a realistic simulated driving test, it is demonstrated that the fear‐relief pattern reduces young drivers' speed choice not only initially but after heavy repetition of the ad, whereas fear without relief increases speed choice initially, then, after heavy repetition, it decreases speed choice, although not down to the driving speed produced by fear‐relief. The reason why a shock ad starts to work following heavy repetition is that viewers begin to anticipate the shock and the ad becomes, in effect, a fear‐relief ad. The overall results strongly support the fear‐drive model. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 115 citations exist upstream.

References

2008Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research 2000A Meta-Analysis of Fear Appeals: Implications for Effective Public Health Campaigns 1954Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change.1944Social Learning and Imitation 1957Behavior Theory and Conditioning 1953Effects of fear-arousing communications.1956Behavior theory and conditioning.2014Ordinal Methods for Behavioral Data Analysis

Cited by

2019The Role of Emotions in Advertising: A Call to Action 2014Environmental threat appeals in green advertising 2012Mixing emotions: The use of humor in fear advertising 2011Emotional Information Management and Responses to Emotional Appeals 2014The Calm before the Storm: Examining Emotion Regulation Consumption in the Face of an Impending Disaster 2007Hope and self-regulatory goals applied to an advertising context

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.