---
title: Fear messaging
url: https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/
description: A fear appeal is a message that tries to change what people think or do by showing them a threat.
section: Learn
---

![Illustration: a redacted Cold War intelligence-dossier collage centred on a world map of influence operations, with the U.S. Capitol among the evidence.](https://propagandaarchive.org/static/generated/hero-home.jpg)

[Learn](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/) · Emotion and fear

# Fear messaging

In brief

Messages that show a threat usually change attitudes and behavior, as several large meta-analyses find, and they work best when paired with a believable action; a large threat with no workable remedy tends to be rejected.

On this page

- [In brief](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#in-brief)
- [What the research shows](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#what-the-research-shows)
- [Has it held up?](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#has-it-held-up)
- [How it shows up in political messaging](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#how-it-shows-up-in-political-messaging)
- [How to spot it](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#how-to-spot-it)
- [Persuasion or manipulation?](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#persuasion-or-manipulation)
- [Archive techniques that lean on this](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#archive-techniques-that-lean-on-this)
- [Related topics](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#related-topics)
- [Sources](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#sources)
- [Images](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/fear-messaging/#images)

On this page

*Area: [Emotion and fear](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/emotion-and-fear/) · Evidence:**strong**([How we rate the evidence](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/evidence-ratings/)). Several large meta-analyses find that fear appeals change attitudes and behavior; how much the effect depends on offering a workable remedy is still debated.*

## In brief

A fear appeal is a message that tries to change what people think or do by showing them a threat. The research finds that fear appeals usually work, and work best when the threat is paired with a clear, believable action people feel able to take. When the threat is large and the way out is missing or doubtful, people are more likely to push the message away than to act on it.

## What the research shows

The most influential account is Kim Witte's Extended Parallel Process Model, published in 1992 [1]. Witte proposed that people appraise a frightening message twice. First they ask whether the threat is serious and whether it applies to them (perceived severity and susceptibility). If it does, they then ask whether the recommended response would work (response efficacy) and whether they could actually carry it out (self-efficacy). When both threat and efficacy are high, people engage in what Witte called "danger control": they deal with the threat, usually by accepting the recommendation. When threat is high but efficacy is low, they switch to "fear control": they manage their own fear instead, by avoiding the message, denying it applies to them, or reacting against the messenger.

Witte and Mike Allen tested this in a 2000 meta-analysis, a study that statistically pools the results of many earlier studies [2]. Stronger fear appeals produced higher perceived severity and susceptibility and were more persuasive than weak ones. The pooled evidence also fit the model's central prediction: strong fear combined with high-efficacy messages produced the most behavior change, while strong fear combined with low efficacy produced the most defensive reactions.

The largest review to date, by Melanie Tannenbaum, Dolores Albarracín and colleagues in 2015, pooled 127 articles covering 248 independent samples and more than 27,000 participants [3]. Fear appeals had a positive average effect on attitudes, intentions and behaviors (a standardized effect of about 0.29, conventionally a small-to-moderate effect). They were more effective when they included efficacy statements, when they depicted a severe threat, and when they recommended a one-time action (such as getting a vaccine or a screening) rather than a repeated one (such as changing a daily habit). The authors found no conditions under which fear appeals reliably backfired.

Political science has found parallel effects in campaign advertising. In experiments run during a real election campaign, Ted Brader edited the music and images of otherwise identical political ads [4]. Ads cued with fear made viewers more vigilant, made them rely more on their assessment of the current campaign than on their prior loyalties, and made them easier to persuade. Ads cued with enthusiasm instead motivated participation and reinforced existing preferences.

## Has it held up?

The broad claim that fear appeals can change attitudes and behavior is well supported by multiple meta-analyses [2][3]. The disputed part is the role of efficacy. Gjalt-Jorn Peters, Robert Ruiter and Gerjo Kok argued that most earlier studies did not manipulate threat and efficacy independently, which is what the theory requires [5]. Restricting their meta-analysis to the six studies that did, and that measured behavior, they found a clear interaction: threat changed behavior only when efficacy was high, and efficacy mattered only when threat was high. Tannenbaum's review [3] found that efficacy statements helped but did not find the same strong dependency. In 2018 Kok and colleagues went further, arguing that the evidence does not support using fear appeals in health promotion at all unless efficacy has first been raised [6]. That paper drew several commentaries in the same journal that disagreed, so the question remains open.

Two further cautions apply. Most studies measure intentions or short-term behavior, not long-term change. And topic matters: in interviews and experiments on climate change, Saffron O'Neill and Sophie Nicholson-Cole found that dramatic, fearful images grabbed attention but tended to leave people feeling helpless and distanced rather than engaged [7]. That fits the "fear control" branch of Witte's model: fear without a sense of personal agency.

## How it shows up in political messaging

- **Wartime posters on every side.** The US Army's [Destroy This Mad Brute — Enlist](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/destroy-this-mad-brute-1917/) and Britain's [Remember Belgium — Enlist To-Day](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/remember-belgium-1915/) staged an invading enemy and offered enlistment as the single remedy. Imperial Germany's [Helft uns siegen! Zeichnet die Kriegsanleihe (Help Us Win! Subscribe to the War Loan)](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/helft-uns-siegen-1917/) paired an exhausted soldier with the purchase of war bonds. In the Second World War, US and British home-front posters such as [Loose Lips Might Sink Ships](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/loose-lips-might-sink-ships/), [Wanted! For Murder — Her Careless Talk Costs Lives](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/wanted-for-murder-careless-talk/) and [He's Watching You](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/hes-watching-you/) tied a lethal threat to a simple act almost anyone could perform: stay silent. That is textbook high threat, high efficacy.

**Content note:** Dehumanizing caricature of Germans as an ape, implied sexual violence and partial nudity. This object is shown as it was published. [Why](https://propagandaarchive.org/about/#as-it-was) ![US Army recruiting poster showing an ape in a German helmet](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/destroy-this-mad-brute-1917.jpg)

*"Destroy This Mad Brute: Enlist," US Army recruiting poster, 1917. From the FRAME gallery: [Destroy This Mad Brute — Enlist](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/destroy-this-mad-brute-1917/)*

![German war-bond poster showing a steel-helmeted infantryman](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/helft-uns-siegen-1917.jpg)

*"Helft uns siegen! Zeichnet die Kriegsanleihe" (Help Us Win! Subscribe to the War Loan), German war-bond poster, 1917. From the FRAME gallery: [Helft uns siegen! Zeichnet die Kriegsanleihe (Help Us Win! Subscribe to the War Loan)](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/helft-uns-siegen-1917/)*

![US wartime poster of a sinking ship under the words Loose Lips Might Sink Ships](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/loose-lips-might-sink-ships.jpg)

*"Loose Lips Might Sink Ships," US wartime home-front poster, 1942. From the FRAME gallery: [Loose Lips Might Sink Ships](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/loose-lips-might-sink-ships/)*

- **US presidential advertising, both parties.** Lyndon Johnson's 1964 Democratic campaign aired the "Daisy" ad once, cutting from a girl picking petals to a nuclear countdown and explosion to imply that his Republican opponent, Barry Goldwater, risked nuclear war. In 1988 George H. W. Bush's Republican campaign ran "Revolving Door," showing prisoners cycling through a turnstile to attack Michael Dukakis's record on prison furloughs [8].
- **Referendum campaigns in the United Kingdom.** In the 2014 Scottish independence campaign, the pro-union Better Together campaign's fear messages about independence became known as "Project Fear," a label coined inside that campaign and then taken up by its pro-independence opponents [9]. In the 2016 EU referendum, both sides used fear messages. HM Treasury, backing the government's Remain position, published an analysis forecasting that a vote to leave would push the economy into recession and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs [11]. Vote Leave stated that "Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU," although Turkey's accession talks had stalled and no entry date was in prospect [10], [12].
- **Government risk communication.** The US [Homeland Security Advisory System threat-level chart](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/homeland-security-advisory-system-2002/) announced color-coded threat levels with little information about the threat or what to do, a high-threat, low-efficacy design. The FDA's anti-smoking campaign [The Real Cost — "Your Skin"](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/real-cost-your-skin-2014/) dramatized a documented health harm to deter teenagers from starting.

![Homeland Security Advisory System five-color threat-level chart](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/images/homeland-security-advisory-system-2002.svg)

*US Homeland Security Advisory System threat-level scale, in use 2002 to 2011. From the FRAME gallery: [Homeland Security Advisory System threat-level chart](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/homeland-security-advisory-system-2002/)*

## How to spot it

- A vivid harm is shown with no indication of how likely it is or how many people it affects.
- One remedy is offered, and alternatives or tradeoffs are not mentioned.
- The threat is urgent but the requested action is vague ("stay vigilant") or out of the reader's control, which tends to produce anxiety rather than action.
- The threat is personalized ("you," "your family") while the evidence for it is general or absent.
- The message spends far more space on the danger than on whether the proposed response would actually reduce it.

## Persuasion or manipulation?

Warning people about a real danger is often the most honest thing a writer can do, and the research suggests how to do it well: say how serious and how likely the harm is, show the evidence, and give a specific action that would reduce it and that readers can realistically take. Pairing threat with efficacy is both more effective and more respectful of the audience. Fear messaging becomes manipulative when the threat is exaggerated or invented, when base rates are hidden so a rare event feels common, when the only remedy offered happens to serve the messenger (a vote, a donation, a crackdown), or when urgency is used to stop people comparing options.

## Archive techniques that lean on this

- [Fear appeal](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/fear-appeal/) — Fear appeal: stages imminent harm so the offered protection is accepted without comparison; the research here explains when that works and when it backfires.

## Related topics

- [Negativity bias](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/negativity-bias/) — Negativity bias
- [Hope appeals](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/hope/) — Hope appeals
- [Affect heuristic](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/affect-heuristic/) — Affect heuristic
- [Base-rate neglect](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/base-rate-neglect/) — Base rate neglect
- [Availability heuristic](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/availability-heuristic/) — Availability heuristic
- [Moral outrage](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/moral-outrage/) — Moral outrage

## Sources

1. Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. *Communication Monographs*, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
2. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. *Health Education & Behavior*, 27(5), 591–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506
3. Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. *Psychological Bulletin*, 141(6), 1178–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729
4. Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. *American Journal of Political Science*, 49(2), 388–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00130.x
5. Peters, G.-J. Y., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Kok, G. (2013). Threatening communication: A critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. *Health Psychology Review*, 7(Suppl. 1), S8–S31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2012.703527
6. Kok, G., Peters, G.-J. Y., Kessels, L. T. E., ten Hoor, G. A., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2018). Ignoring theory and misinterpreting evidence: The false belief in fear appeals. *Health Psychology Review*, 12(2), 111–125.
7. O'Neill, S., & Nicholson-Cole, S. (2009). "Fear won't do it": Promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. *Science Communication*, 30(3), 355–379. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547008329201
8. Museum of the Moving Image. *The Living Room Candidate* (online archive of US presidential campaign commercials; 1964 Johnson "Peace, Little Girl (Daisy)" and 1988 Bush "Revolving Door" entries). https://www.livingroomcandidate.org/
9. Simpkins, F. (2015). Better Together and the No campaign: From Project Fear to grace? *Revue Française de Civilisation Britannique*. https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/418
10. CNN. (2016, May 23). New Brexit tactic: Target Turkey. https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/23/europe/turkey-brexit/index.html
11. HM Treasury. (2016, May 23). *HM Treasury analysis: The immediate economic impact of leaving the EU* (Cm 9292). London: HM Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-immediate-economic-impact-of-leaving-the-eu
12. Ker-Lindsay, J. (2018, February 15). Did the unfounded claim that Turkey was about to join the EU swing the Brexit referendum? *LSE British Politics and Policy*. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/unfounded-claim-turkey-swing-brexit-referendum/

## Images

| Image | Source | Licence |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Destroy This Mad Brute, 1917 | FRAME gallery, [Destroy This Mad Brute — Enlist](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/destroy-this-mad-brute-1917/) (provenance in the entry) | See entry |
| Helft uns siegen!, 1917 | FRAME gallery, [Helft uns siegen! Zeichnet die Kriegsanleihe (Help Us Win! Subscribe to the War Loan)](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/helft-uns-siegen-1917/) (provenance in the entry) | See entry |
| Loose Lips Might Sink Ships, 1942 | FRAME gallery, [Loose Lips Might Sink Ships](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/loose-lips-might-sink-ships/) (provenance in the entry) | See entry |
| Homeland Security Advisory System chart | FRAME gallery, [Homeland Security Advisory System threat-level chart](https://propagandaarchive.org/collection/homeland-security-advisory-system-2002/) (provenance in the entry) | See entry |

### Image gaps

- The 1988 "Revolving Door" advertisement, the 2014 "Project Fear" material and the 2016 referendum posters and Treasury analysis: copyright status not verified as open, so not hosted. The 1964 "Daisy" frame is shown on [Affect heuristic](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/affect-heuristic/).

## Techniques

[Fear appeal](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/fear-appeal/)

## Related

- [Negativity bias](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/negativity-bias/)
- [Hope appeals](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/hope/)
- [Affect heuristic](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/affect-heuristic/)
- [Availability heuristic](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/availability-heuristic/)
- [Base-rate neglect](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/base-rate-neglect/)
- [Moral outrage](https://propagandaarchive.org/learn/moral-outrage/)
- [Fear appeal](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/fear-appeal/)
- [Card stacking](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/card-stacking/)
- [Scapegoating](https://propagandaarchive.org/techniques/scapegoating/)