[[missing key: loading-pdf-error]] [[missing key: loading-pdf-link]]
Abstract
Background: Fear appeals are widely used in health communication, despite conflicting views on their effectiveness. Unresolved issues include possible mediation mechanisms and the effect of defensive reactions aimed at controlling a perceived danger.
Methods: The present study compared the impact of three versions of an existing online course on how to prevent noncommunicable diseases. Participants, recruited in South America via a crowdsourcing platform, were divided randomly between three versions of the course – ‘threat only’/‘threat plus coping information’/‘coping information plus threat’ (reverse order). We then asked them to complete a questionnaire measuring perceived efficacy, perceived threat, defensive reactions, and intention to change unhealthy behaviors.
Results: Using a serial parallel mediation model to test the course's impact on our dependent variables did not reveal any significant differences between the three versions. Perceived efficacy was positively associated with intention to change behavior, as well as with lower suppression, lower reappraisal, and greater denial. Suppression was the only defensive reaction to be associated with intention to change behavior: greater suppression was linked to less intention to change.
Conclusions: Our results open interesting perspectives for research into defensive reactions.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Health Psychology Research Group, Psychology Section, Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
2 Health Department, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, Switzerland