PERSUADING PEOPLE TO BECOME MORE GREEN

It seems that everyday there is a new report warning of the consequences of global warming. Undoubtedly changing our behaviour to become more environmentally friendly is necessary, but how should individuals be persuaded?

USE OF FEAR

Many of the messages about the consequences of global warning are scary, whether they mean to be or not, with dire consequences for later this century.

It may seem that fear of the consequences is a good way to motivate individuals to change. The "fear-drive model" saw the reduction of fear as a strong motivator and reinforcer of new behaviour (1). But the psychological research studies do not necessarily all support this idea.

Classic Research Examples

1. Janis and Feshbach (1953)(2)

This classic research set out to persuade participants about dental hygiene using different levels of fear about tooth decay in the message.

There were three conditions; each seeing a slightly

different film about tooth decay, while the control group saw a film about the eye. The main film varied the number of references to the unpleasantness of tooth decay. In the "high fear" condition, there were 71 references to unpleasant effects of tooth decay, compared to 49 references in the "moderate fear" condition, and 18 in the "low fear" condition.

The "high fear" condition produced the greatest immediate attitude change. But, in the longer term, the "low fear" condition produced the most behaviour change (37% showing a change in behaviour compared to 8% for the "high fear" condition).

Creating a small amount of fear allows the individual to feel they can control it by doing something. Too much fear produces a feeling of helplessness and behaviour does not change (3).

2. Dabbs and Leventhal (1966)(4)

This research was a similar experiment to above, but it was trying to persuade students to get inoculation for tetanus by using descriptions of the illness.

Students in the "high fear" condition rated their intention to get inoculated as high (average 5.17 out of 7), but only 22% actually did it. Thus the "high fear" message prtoduced an immediate attitude change but not a longer-term behaviour change.

3. Bernadi (1970)(5)

This study investigated attitude change towards forest fire prevention in California using three short films about forest fires (and a control film). The level of fear varied in the films based around the damage caused by forest fires (eg "high threat" film showed wildfire damage).

Just under 200 high school students living in a high fire-risk area were asked about their attitudes towards forest fire prevention before and after watching one of the films.

Only the "no threat" film (showing forest scenes) produced a significant attitude change towards the statement "Where the countryside or forests are green one need not worry about discarding cigarette butts and used matches on the ground" compared to the control film (non-fire film). But the "mild threat" film (some scenes of fire damage) was most effective in attitude change among students who lived or worked in "wildland" areas.

Research Reviews

1. Sutton (1982)(6)

This review of 35 studies between 1953 and 1980 found a pattern that fear messages changed behaviour more than no fear, and that higher levels of fear were better than lower levels.

2. Barth and Bengel (2000) (7)

This is a review of studies from 1980 to 1995. Studies have shown increasing attitude change with increasing fear (eg crime prevention (8)) as well as the least attitude change or even attitude change in the opposite direction due to high levels of fear in the message (eg drinking alcohol and driving (9)). Other studies have found no relationship between attitude change and fear (eg fluoridation of water to prevent tooth decay (10)).

Key Factors in the Use of Fear in Persuasion

1. Presentation of realistic ways to prevent consequences. Unfortunately, many of the warnings of dire consequences suggest that they will happen whatever an individual does now. "If we're just making people more and more scared without building their sense of agency, we've missed half of the equation" (11).

2. Perceived self-efficacy about the recommended action. This is the degree to which individuals feel that they can (and want) to carry out the recommended action.

3. Extreme fear messages produce denial ("it won't happen here" or "it won't happen in my lifetime" or "it's never as bad as they say") particularly if not perceived as self-relevant. It can also produce "reactance", which is a counter-reaction (ie attitude change in the opposite direct to that desired).

4. The degree of fear of the message interacts with the anxiety level of the individual ("initial level of concern" (12)). Highly anxious individuals can feel overwhelmed by fearful messages, and low anxiety individuals may not be motivated by "low fear" messages.

5. Fear appeals can be more effective than erotic, humourous or factual-type messages for some behaviours (eg using condoms as protection against AIDS (13)).

References

(1) Dollard, J & Miller, N.E (1950) "Personality and Psychotherapy" New York: McGraw Hill

(2) Janis, I.L & Feshbach, S (1953) "Effects of fear-arousing communication" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78-92

(3) Brewer, K (2003) "The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change: A Brief Introduction" Orsett, Essex: Orsett Psychological Services [orsettpsychologicalservices@phonecoop.coop]

(4) Dabbs, J.M & Leventhal, H (1966) "Effects of varying the recommendations in a fear-arousing communication" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 173-181

(5) Bernardi, G.C (1970) "Three fire prevention television films varying in 'threat' content ..their effectiveness in changing attitudes" Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service (Research Paper PSW-63) {http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_rp063/psw_rp063.pdf]

(6) Sutton, S.R (1982) "Fear-arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and research" in Eiser, J.R (ed) "Social Psychology and Behavioural Medicine" Chichester: Wiley

(7) Barth, J & Bengel, J (2000) "Prevention Through Fear?" Koln, Germany: Federal Centre for Health Education [http://www.juergen-barth.de/en/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/PreventionThroughFear.pdf]

(8) Gleicher, F & Petty, R.E (1992) "Expectations of reassurance influences the nature of fear-stimulating attitude change" Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 28, 86-100

(9) Kohn, P.M et al (1982) "Ineffectiveness of threat appeals about drinking and driving" Acciental Analysis and Prevention, 14, 457-464

(10) Baron, R et al (1994) "Negative emotion and message processing" Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 181-201

(11) Solitaire Townend, director of Futerra, speaking on "Analysis: Go Green, or Else!" BBC Radio 4, 19/07/07 [http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/19_07_07.txt]

(12) McGuire, W.J (1968) "Personality and susceptibility to social influence" in Borgatta, E.F & Lambert, W.W (eds) "Handbook of Personality Theory and Research" Chicago: Rand McNally

(13) Struckman-Johnson, C.J et al (1994) "Effect of persuasive appeals in AIDS PSAs and condom commercials on intentions to use condoms" Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 2223-2244

MODELS TO EXPLAIN EFFECTS OF FEAR IN PERSUASION

1. Drive-Reduction Model

Originating from the ideas of Behaviourism, drives exist when there is a need (eg hunger) and the individual is motivated to stop the drive and satisfy the need. The way they do this is reinforced by the reduction of the drive, and this sets the pattern for future behaviour. The hunger need is satisfied by eating chocolate, and thus, in the futue, the individual immediate gets chocolate when hungry, for example.

Dollard and Miller (1) proposed that fear is similar to a drive, and so needs reducing. Fear-arousing communications produce the drive which is reduced by a change in behaviour. So it is crucial that there is a way for individuals to reduce the fear drive, which then becomes a learned behaviour.

Too many messages about the future disasters do not give individuals that opportunity. Whatever you do will not stop global warming. So there is no behaviour that can reduce the fear drive.

Evaluation

Limited empirical evidence: "Overall, the empirical verification of the model is poor" (2 p25).

2. Curvilinear Model

Janis and Feshbach (3) found a greater desirable change in behaviour for the lower levels of fear. One explanation was that strong feelings of fear produce a defence response and the message is not attened to sufficiently. Thus fear-arousing messages lead to non-attention at a certain point. Also aggression towards the speaker (message source) can be a defence reaction.

Overall a curvilinear relationship exists between the fear level and behaviour change in the form of an inverted U shape. Too low fear produces no behaviour change, some fear produces the most, and too much fear leads to no behaviour change. Janis (4) preferred a "family" of curves rather than a single one as individuals will vary in their "maximum tolerable level of fear" depending upon the topic and the prior attitude of the individual.

McGuire (5) proposed six stages to persuasion which can be linked here:

Stage 1 - receive message

Stage 2 - process message

Stage 3 - understand message

Stage 4 - acceptance of arguments in message

Stage 5 - retention of message

Stage 6 - behaviour change

Each stage must be passed through in order for an individual to be persuaded. If high fear produces a defence reaction, it stops this process at the earlier stages, and thus the individual is not persuaded. While low fear does not stop the process.

McGuire also proposed a mathematical equation to explain persuasion:

p(I) = p(R) x p(Y)

where:

p(I) is the probability of being influenced by a persuasion message

p(R) is the probability of receiving the message (stages 1-3 above)

p(Y) is the probability of accepting (yielding) the mesage (stage 4 above) (5 p1143).

Testing this equation produces an inverted U shape relationship for the level of fear because p(R) declines with increasing fear while p(Y) increases with increasing fear for McGuire.

Evaluation

1. There is no prediction of what level of fear will produce a defence reaction (2).

2. This model proposes that low and high fear produce the least positive behaviour change, and moderate fear the most.

a) Evidence for (example) Skilbeck et al (1977)(6)

This study found that moderate fear about the effects of weight gain was best for motivation to join a weight reduction programme.

b) Evidence against (example) Leventhal and Niles (1965)(7)

participants viewed one of four fear-arousing films about road safety with the aim of encouraging car seatbelt use. Positive attitudes increased with increasing length of the film (fear) (ie positive correlation).

c) Evidence unclear (example) Leventhal and Watts (1966)(8)

This study measured behaviour change towards giving up smoking by agreeing to an X-ray immediately after the experiment, and reduction of smoking five months later. Increasing fear led to less agreements to X-ray, but greater reduction in smoking.

Overall, Barth and Bengel (2) felt that there was more evidence not finding a curvilinear relationship between fear and behaviour change. part of the problem was that studies have measured and operationalised fear in different ways. Sutton (9) talked of the "myth of the inverted u function" because of the lack of supporting evidence.

3. Parallel Response Model

This model (Leventhal; Leventhal et al; 10) distinguishes between two processes in response to a fear message:

i) Danger control motivation - This is an "objective-control" process where the individual finds a solution to the risk presented in the fear message. This underlies long-term behaviour change;

ii) Fear control motivation - This is a "subjective-emotion" process which seeks to reduce the unpleasant emotions created by the fear message. It tends to produce a short-term reaction.

Though these processes are independent, the degree of fear in the persuasive communication will influence which process dominates. If the level of fear is too high, fear control motivation dominates and the individual concentrates on avoiding the unpleasant emotions rather than making positive behaviour change (danger control motivation). The opposite could be true for low fear messages.

One upshot of this model is the benefit of giving clear advice on how to reduce the risk and this will aid the danger control motivation. Leventhal et al (11) set up an experiment to improve tetanus vaccination uptake, and varied the degree of fear (based on the consequences of getting tetanus) and the level of concrete advice (eg: where and when to get vaccinated). The latter proved more effective in chnaging behaviour than the level of fear.

Evaluation

i) Processes of fear control and danger control motivation are not "explicitly seaparated" in experiments (2).

ii) The model tends to be more theoretical than practical. For example, it does not specify precisely when one type of motivation dominates the other (2).

iii) The positive conclusion from the model is that fear messages should also include instructions about how to reduce the risks in order to aid danger control motivation.

4. Protection Motivation Theory

This model (Rogers; 12) sees the response to a fear message dependent upon certain variables:

a) Severity of the threat (or perceived severity) - how bad will it be;

b) The likelihood of the event occurring; ie: perceived personal risk or vulnerability. These two variables are the "threat appraisal";

c) The "coping appraisal" which includes the perception of skill to implement recmmended changes, perceived effectiveness of the new behaviour, and rewards for change greater than costs and greater than rewards for not changing (reward for maladaptive behaviour; 13).

Some models see individuals as trying to avoid the fear message, but here individuals can accept it (threat appraisal) and not change their behaviour because they perceive the new behaviour as ineffective (coping appraisal), for example.

In terms of research examples, Rogers and Mewborn (14) varied the three variables above in scenarios to encourage safer driving, and to stop smoking. Perceived effectiveness of new behaviour was key to individual's intention to change.

Applied to the topic of becoming more green - individuals perceive their changes in lifestyle as ineffective or having greater costs for them compared to the benefits of change. In the West, major lifestyle changes are needed which individuals would prefer not to do, particularly if the message is received that climate change is inevitable.

Evaluation

i) Plenty of research on the variables in this model, but less on how they are linked (2). For example, do they work separately, or are they additive (as proposed by Rogers; 15)?

ii) Much of the research for this model has used students (2). This is not untypical of many psychology experiments, simply because university researchers have easy access to them, but it does limit the generalisability of findings to the wider population.

Conclusions

Some models suggest that increasing the level of fear will increase positive changes in behaviour, other models say the opposite, and there is the curvilinear relationship where a moderate amount of fear is beneficial. The important point is that fear alone will not, on the whole, terrify people into changing their behaviour or lifestyle. There are other factors involved including advice on what to do, beliefs about the consequences of changing or not changing, and social norms.

The problem with climate change is that there is not a direct relationship between a certain behaviour and the consequences that individuals can perceive. If driving a petrol-thirsty car 1 km per day to the shops and back led to that individual having their basement flooded once a year, then fear messages would be more effective. The individual could see their personal vulnerability, and the costs and benefits of not changing their behaviour. Unfortunately, it is in the West that individuals drive their cars for short distances, and in the Third World where flooding is the consequence. There is little personal relevance. Fear messages are more effective when there is real personal relevance (White; 16).

References

(1) Dollard, J & Miller, N.E (1950) "Personality and Psychotherapy" New York: McGraw Hill

(2) Barth, J & Bengel, J (2000) "Prevention Through Fear?" Koln, Germany: Federal Centre for Health Education [http://www.juergen-barth.de/en/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/PreventionThroughFear.pdf]

(3) Janis, I.L & Feshbach, S (1953) "Effects of fear-arousing communication" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 78-92

(4) Janis, I.L (1967) "Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent developments in theory and experimental research" in Berkowitz, L (ed) "Advances in Experimental Social Psychology vol 3" New York: Academic Press

(5) McGuire, W.J (1968) "Personality and susceptibility to social influence" in Borgatta, E.F & Lambert, W.W (eds) "Handbook of Personality Theory and Research" Chicago: Rand McNally

(6) Skilbeck, C et al (1977) "The effects of fear arousal, fear position, fear exposure, and sidedness on compliance with dietary instructions" European Journal of Social Psychology, 7, 221-239

(7) Leventhal, H & Niles, P (1965) "Persistence of influence for varying durations of exposure to threat stimulus" Psychological Reports, 16, 223-233

(8) Leventhal, H & Watts, J.C (1966) "Sources of resistance to fear-arousing comunications on smoking and lung cancer" Journal of Personality, 34, 155-75

(9) Sutton, S (1992) "Shock tactics and the myth of the inverted U" British Journal of Addiction, 87, 517-519

(10) Leventhal, H (1970) "Findings in theory in the study of fear communcations" in Berkowitz, L (ed) "Advances in Experimental Social Psychology vol 5" New York: Academic Press; Leventhal, H et al (1983) "The Impact of communications on the self-regulation of health beliefs, decisions, and behaviour" Health Education Quarterly, 10, 3-29

(11) Leventhal, H et al (1965) "Effects of fear and specificity of recommendation upon attitudes and behaviour" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 20-29

(12) Rogers, R.W (1975) "A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change" Journal of Psychology, 91-114

(13) Rippetoe, P.A & Rogers, R.W (1987) "Effects of components of Protection Motivation Theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with health threat" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 596-604

(14) Rogers, R.W & Mewborn, C.R (1976) "Fear appeals and attitude change: Effects of threat's noxiousness, probability of outcome and the efficacy of coping response" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 227-233

(15) Rogers, R.W (1983) "Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation" in Cacioppo, J.T & Petty, R.E (eds) "Social Psychophysiology: A Source-Book" New York: Guilford Press

(16) White, K (1992) "Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model" Communication Monographs, December, 329-349