ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
Emotions of Fear, Guilt Or Shame in Anti-Alcohol Messages: Measuring Direct Effects on Persuasion and the Moderating
Role of Sensation Seeking
Imene BECHEUR, Wesford, FRANCE
Hayan DIB, Wesford, FRANCE
Dwight MERUNKA, University Paul Cezanne (I.A.E. Aix-en-Provence), FRANCE
Pierre VALETTE-FLORENCE, University Pierre Mendes France (I.A.E. Genoble), FRANCE
We study the effects of fear, shame and guilt on persuasiveness of anti-alcohol messages among young people. We experimentally test
three distinct messages, each one focusing on one of the three negative emotions using a total sample of more than a thousand
students. Results show that all three messages have a positive impact on persuasion and that the stimulation of shame is very effective
in the case of anti-alcohol abuse advertising directed at young people. We demonstrate that sensation seeking moderates the impact of
negative emotions on persuasion in the case of fear and shame appeals.
[to cite]:
Imene BECHEUR, Hayan DIB, Dwight MERUNKA, and Pierre VALETTE-FLORENCE (2007) ,"Emotions of Fear, Guilt Or
Shame in Anti-Alcohol Messages: Measuring Direct Effects on Persuasion and the Moderating Role of Sensation Seeking", in E European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 8, eds. Stefania Borghini, Mary Ann McGrath, and Cele Otnes, Duluth, MN :
Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 99-106.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/13917/eacr/vol8/E-08
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
Emotions of Fear, Guilt or Shame in Anti-Alcohol Messages: Measuring Direct Effects on
Persuasion and the Moderating Role of Sensation Seeking
Imene Becheur, Wesford Business School Grenoble, France
Hayan Dib, Wesford Business School Grenoble, France
Dwight Merunka, University Paul Cezanne, IAE Aix and Euromed Marseille, France
Pierre Valette-Florence, University Pierre Mendes France, IAE and CERAG Grenoble
ABSTRACT
CONCEPTUAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS
We study the effects of fear, shame and guilt on persuasiveness
of anti-alcohol messages among young people. We experimentally
test three distinct messages, each one focusing on one of the three
negative emotions using a total sample of more than a thousand
students. Results show that all three messages have a positive
impact on persuasion and that the stimulation of shame is very
effective in the case of anti-alcohol abuse advertising directed at
young people. We demonstrate that sensation seeking moderates
the impact of negative emotions on persuasion in the case of fear
and shame appeals.
Several studies have shown that, in the context fear appeals,
the stronger the perception of threat, the higher the activation of fear
(Block and Keller 1995; LaTour and Pitts 1989). Therefore:
H1a: In the case of fear appeals, the perception of the severity
of the threat has a positive impact on the level of activation of
fear emotion.
H2a: In the case of fear appeals, the perception of the susceptibility to the threat has a positive impact on the level of
activation of fear emotion.
INTRODUCTION
It is established that the cognitive processes at work for the
evaluation of the threat are at the origin of negative emotions
(Lazarus 1991). Although guilt is a public emotion linked to
individual conscience and shame is a public emotion linked to
exposure to others (Tangney 1995), research shows that it is
difficult to distinguish between shame and guilt. Both are considered being self-conscious emotions (Lewis 1993) and they both
imply a self-evaluative process. As guilt, shame is a useful emotion
which reminds of social norms. It implies adaptive behaviors since
it motivates the individual to respect internal ideals (Lazarus 1991)
and to conform to social ideals (Scheff 1988). Therefore, we
propose that the relationships between constructs formulated in
hypotheses H1a and H1b in the case of fear appeals, also apply to
guilt and shame appeals. Hence:
Messages using fear appeals has been used in a variety of
domains as road safety, prevention of drug, tobacco and alcohol
abuse or prevention of AIDS. Since the pioneering study of Janis
and Feshbach (1953) concerning dental hygiene, research on persuasion through fear appeals have lead to contrasting results,
revealing either strong positive effects (Arthur and Quester 2004;
Bennett 1996) or little or no effects (Krisher, Darley, and Darley
1973; Schoenbachler and Whittler 1996) on persuasion. However,
fear is not the only emotion generating stress. Other negative
emotions as guilt or shame are used in marketing communications
in different domains as politics, consumption or public health.
Interestingly, research concerning the effects of these emotions
remains scarce and results are mixed. For example, Lazarus (1991)
proposes that shame favors pro-social behavior and leads to conformity to social standards, as Bennett (1998) believes in an adaptive
role of guilt and shows that guilt-oriented messages may lead to
persuasion if shame is not activated. Also, recent research has
focused on the social dimension of threat, whereby a social threat
ties the dangerosity of the individual behavior to a rejection by the
social group (Gallopel 2006, Laroche et al. 2001).
The objective of this research is to demonstrate that a variety
of negative emotions (i.e. fear but also shame and guilt) may have
a positive impact on persuasion and to compare the effects of each
of these emotions. For that purpose, we propose a conceptual
framework including three personal constructs, i.e. self-esteem,
affect intensity and sensation-seeking. We expect not only fear, but
also guilt and shame to have a positive impact on persuasion. We
also expect sensation-seeking to moderate this relationship.
We focus on the use of negative emotions appeals (fear, guilt
and shame) in the case of advertising targeting an audience of young
adults and directed towards prevention of physical and psychosocial risks linked to alcohol abuse. In spite of limited beneficial
effects when consumed very moderately, alcohol consumption is a
major public health issue in many countries. Developing behaviors
such as “binge drinking” or the mixing of alcohol to other psychotropic substances constitute aggravating risks especially for young
populations.
H1b, c: In the case of guilt (shame) appeals, the perception of
the severity of the threat has a positive impact on the level of
activation of guilt (shame) emotion.
H2b, c: In the case of guilt (shame) appeals, the perceptions of
the susceptibility to the threat have a positive impact on the
level of activation of guilt (shame) emotion.
In order to avoid defensive reactions after exposition to
threatening messages possibly leading to minimization or ignorance of the problem, a solution must be offered to the viewer. The
presentation of this solution enables dealing with the threat presented in the message (Witte 1992). Also, self-efficacy or the belief
that the individual is in a position to implement the recommended
solution influences the adoption of the solution (Block and Keller
1997; Snipes, LaTour, and Bliss 1999). Therefore:
H3: For highly threatening messages, perceived efficacy of the
recommended solution has a positive impact on persuasion.
H4: For highly threatening messages, perceived ability to
adopt the recommended solution has a positive impact on
persuasion.
99
European Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 8, © 2008
100 / Emotions of Fear, Guilt or Shame in Anti-Alcohol Messages
Also, fear facilitates the persuasion process because it attracts
attention and develops memorization of the message (Rogers
1983). Hence:
H5a: In the case of fear appeals, the intensity of fear activated
by the message has a positive impact on persuasion.
By contrast, research devoted to the study of effects of messages containing guilt or shame appeals are scarce. Bennett (1998)
stipulates a positive effect of guilt and a negative effect of shame on
persuasion. However, Tangney (1999) suggests that both emotions
impact behaviors of reparation and cooperation and favor empathy.
We therefore propose:
(Zuckerman 1994). When a difference exists between present and
ideal levels of stimulation, the individual feels a need for or an
excess of stimulation which leads to the search of activities enabling
the stimulation level to approach the optimum. Palmgreen et al.
(2003) recommend the use of preventive messages with high
sensation value for targets in need of sensations because these
individuals search for new, complex, ambiguous and emotionally
intense stimuli. Also, Donohew et al. (1990) demonstrate that
individuals looking for strong sensations (High Sensation Seekers)
show higher levels of attitudinal and behavioral persuasion against
drug abuse if exposed to messages communicating strong sensations (e.g. highly emotional messages). We therefore propose that
sensation seeking moderates the impact of negative emotions on
persuasion.
H5b, c: In the case of guilt (shame) appeals, the intensity of
guilt (shame) activated by the message has a positive impact
on persuasion.
Individual variables have been included in models linking
negative emotions to persuasion and explain some contrasting
results. For example, high self-esteem individuals, when confronted to threatening information concerning alcohol abuse, will
try to minimize their perceptions of the severity and the susceptibility to the threat (Gerrard et al. 2000). Following this finding, we
propose:
H6: In the context of a threatening message, the intensity of
self-esteem has a negative impact on the level of perceived
threat.
H7: In the context of a threatening message, the intensity of
self-esteem has a negative impact on the level of perceived
susceptibility to the threat.
Schaninger and Sciglimpaglia (1981) suggest that an
individual’s self-esteem has a significant impact on responses to
emotional messages because self-esteem influences his or her
confidence in decision making. Hence:
H8: In the context of a threatening message, the intensity of
self-esteem has a positive impact on the level of perceived selfefficacy.
Aaker and Stayman (1989) show that some individuals exposed to emotionally intense messages have a tendency to react to
their emotions with a high intensity level. This individual characteristic is named affect intensity (Larsen 1984). Moore, Harris, and
Chen (1995) demonstrate that individuals with high affect intensity,
compared to individuals with low scores of affect intensity, exhibit
intense emotional responses to emotional ads. Since negative
emotions develop with perceptions of threat intensity and susceptibility to the threat, we propose:
H9: In the context of a threatening message, the magnitude of
affect intensity has a positive impact on perceived severity of
the threat.
H10: In the context of a threatening message, the magnitude of
affect intensity has a positive impact on perceived susceptibility to the threat.
H11a, b, c: In the case of fear (guilt, shame) appeals, intensity
of sensation-seeking positively impacts the relationship between the level of fear (guilt, shame) activated by the message
and the level of persuasion.
The conceptual model we propose is given in figure 1 and
shows all relationships among constructs developed in the set of
hypotheses.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In a large number of countries, important problems linked to
alcohol abuse are linked to social consumption of non-dependent
drinkers, mainly young adults. Since we study the effects of fear,
guilt and shame appeals within the context of alcohol abuse, our
sample is composed of young adults aged between 18 and 25.
Stimuli: Four advertising messages were created (see figure
2), one for the fear and one for the guilt scenarios and two for the
shame scenario (one for each gender). The ads created aimed at
generating perceptions of severe threat, high susceptibility to
threat, efficacy of the solution and high self efficacy (Witte 1992).
Measurements: we measured responses for all items on a
seven-point Likert type scale. Measurements of threat perceived
severity, threat perceived susceptibility, perceived response efficacy, and perceived self-efficacy are adapted from Witte (1992).
The emotion of fear is measured through five items adapted from
Block and Keller (1995) and Laroche et al. (2001). Guilt is measured through three items adapted from Cotte, Coulter, and Moore
(2005) and Izard (1977) and shame is measured through four items
adapted from Rolland and De Fruyt (2003). Other measurements
were drawn from existing scales: persuasion (Block and Keller
1997), self-esteem (Rosenberg (1965) from which we eliminated
reverse items1), affect intensity (second dimension of the Geuens
and De Pelsmacker’s (2002) scale2 which corresponds to negative
emotions), and sensation seeking (Zuckerman et al. 1964).
Sample and preliminary tests: An on-line questionnaire was
answered by students belonging to different French universities.
We collected 1082 usable questionnaires (391, 401 and 290 respectively for the fear, the guilt and the shame scenarios). We verified
scale unidimensionality through exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. We verified convergent and discriminant validities of
the scales as well as reliability (see Table 1)3. Concerning sensation-seeking, results of the analysis indicate a two-dimensional
1
Following Wong and al’s (2003) recommendation.
2Reduced scale from the « Affect Intensity Scale » (AIM) by Larsen
Sensation seeking is a biological trait best described as the
pursuit of novel, intense and complex sensations and experiences,
and the willingness to take risks for the sake of such experience
(1984).
Results of the CFA shown in appendix B have been obtained after
a bootstrap (1000 iterations) to deal with problems of normality.
3
European Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 8) / 101
FIGURE 1
Conceptual model and hypotheses
TABLE 1
Reliability and validity of measurement scales
αCronbach
0,883
0,776
0,908
0,898
0,870
0,711
0,924
0,810
0,681
0.795
0.726
ρJöreskog
0,885
0,778
0,908
0,900
0,871
0,728
0,924
0,815
0,683
0.757
0.728
RHO vc
0.61
0.47
0.77
0.75
0.77
0.48
**
0.67
0.47
0.42
0.51
0.41
Fear
Shame
Guilt
Severity
Susceptibility
Response
efficacy
Self
efficacy
Persuasion
Self
esteem
Affect
intensity
Thrill
Experience
Fear
***
Shame
0.207
Guilt
0.076
0.321
Severity
0.216
0,002*
0.053
Susceptibility
0.157
0,000*
0.060
0.229
Response
efficacy
0.050
0,001*
0.019
0.112
0.111
Self
efficacy
0,003*
0.012
0.007
0.019
0,004*
0.017
Persuasion
0.280
0.043
0.108
0.326
0.224
0.141
0.030
Self
esteem
0.006
0,002*
0,001*
0,001*
0,000*
0,004*
0.001
0,000*
Affect
intensity
0.064
0.037
0.068
0.092
0.056
0.043
0.010
0.103
0.021
Thrill
0.006
0,004*
0,000*
0,000*
0,001*
0,000*
0.008
0,002*
0.022
0,000*
Experience
0,000*
0,001*
0,003*
0,000*
0,003*
0,000*
0,002*
0,002*
0.013
0,004*
*
Non significant correlations
** One-item Measure
*** Values below diagonal represent the shared variance between variables
0.263
102 / Emotions of Fear, Guilt or Shame in Anti-Alcohol Messages
FIGURE 2
Ads used as stimuli for the experiment
structure (one dimension being thrill-seeking and the other being
experience seeking).
Manipulation of emotions was satisfactory since levels of fear,
guilt and shame are higher for each corresponding scenario. Also,
within each scenario, we found that (1) the fear scenario leads to
more fear than guilt or shame, (2) the guilt scenario leads to more
guilt than either fear or shame and (3) the shame scenario implies
more shame than fear or guilt.
European Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 8) / 103
RESEARCH RESULTS
Estimation of Direct effects
To uncover differences between the three emotional situations
(fear, guilt, and shame), we used a structural multi-group approach.4 We compared a model with free structural parameters to
a model in which structural parameters were constrained to 1. We
found a significant difference (∆χ2(32)=119.59, p<.001) and must
therefore identify the structural parameters that differ across conditions. We compared the χ2 of the free models,5 constrained models6
and pair-wise constrained models.7 These comparisons were done
for each structural relation in the model. The rule followed is that
the best model is the most constrained one in case of non-significant
difference and the least constrained model otherwise. The models
retained furnish estimates for each structural parameter and for each
scenario (see figure 3).
Results show, for all scenarios, that affect intensity has a
positive impact on perceived severity of the threat (in support of
H9) and perceived susceptibility to the threat (in support of H10).
The higher the perceived efficacy of the solution, the higher the
persuasion level (H3 is supported). Similarly, perceived selfefficacy has a positive impact on persuasion (in support of H4).
Concerning self-esteem, we did not find any significant effect
of the construct on perceived susceptibility to the threat (H7 is
rejected), nor on perceived self-efficacy (H8 rejected). Self-esteem
does not impact perceived severity of the threat within the shame
scenario. For the fear and the guilt scenarios, self-esteem has a
positive influence on perceived severity which contradicts hypothesis 6 (H6 is rejected).
In the case of the fear scenario, perceived severity of and
susceptibility to the threat has an impact on the level of fear
activated. (H1a and H2a supported) and fear has a positive impact
on persuasion (in support of H5a). Consequently, fear is a mediator
between perceptions of the threat and persuasion. By contrast, for
this scenario, relationships concerning guilt and shame are nonsignificant. It may be that the perceptions of threat (severity and
susceptibility) do not translate into sufficient shame or guilt to
influence persuasion.
In the case of the guilt scenario, perceived threat susceptibility
has a positive impact on fear and guilt only (H1b supported).
However, perceived susceptibility to the threat does not influence
fear, shame or guilt (H2b is rejected), but guilt does have a positive
impact on persuasion (in support of H5b). This might be explained
by the significant impact of perceived severity on guilt (H1b).
Moreover, the significant impact of fear on persuasion can be linked
to a significant effect of perceived severity on fear which may
4
A test of the invariance of the measures has been conducted. It
reveals the existence of variance in the measurement scales across
scenarios. To avoid error due to measurement variance, we constrained all measurement parameter to be equal across groups. The
goal is to guarantee an equal structure for measurement instruments across groups.
5Structural parameters are different (free) across the 3 groups.
6Structural parameters are constrained to be equal for the three
groups.
7Fear free: structural parameters are constrained to be equal for the
two scenarios shame and guilt and free for the fear scenario.
Guilt free: structural parameters are constrained to be equal for the
two scenarios fear and shame and free for the guilt scenario.
Shame free: structural parameters are constrained to be equal for
the two scenarios fear and guilt and free for the shame scenario.
compensate the lack of impact of susceptibility on fear. This
indicates that the guilt scenario might imply fear as well as guilt.
Individuals might have been frightened to feel guilty (Ghingold
1981) and emotions of fear and guilt might overlap. As hypothesized, guilt has a significant impact on persuasion (H5b supported). Since perceptions of threat do not imply shame in this
scenario, shame does not impact persuasion.
In the case of the shame scenario, perceptions of severity and
susceptibility to the threat have an impact on shame (H1c and H2c
supported) which, in turn, has an impact on persuasion (in support
of H5c). Perceptions of the severity of the threat imply fear and
perceived susceptibility imply guilt. Both of these effects explain
the impacts of fear and guilt on persuasion (all results are summarized in Figure 3).
Estimation of the moderating effect of sensation-seeking
In order to test this moderating effect, we partition each group
(exposed to either fear, shame or guilt ads) into three sub-groups of
approximately equal sizes (with high, medium and low levels of
“thrill-seeking” or “experience-seeking”). We then contrast results
for the high vs. low sensation-seeking groups and test the moderating impact of both thrill-seeking and experience-seeking through
multi-group analysis. Considering the exploratory nature of the
moderation hypotheses and the limited size of the samples (for each
sub-group), we focus on the analysis of the potential differences
across sub-groups. Results (see Figure 4) demonstrate that that
sensation-seeking moderates the impact of negative emotions on
persuasion when fear appeals are used. Therefore, hypothesis H11a
is supported. In the case of the use of shame appeal, there is a partial
moderating effect of sensation-seeking, since moderation is not
found for one of the six tested relationships (no effect of experienceseeking on the impact of shame on persuasion) and hypothesis H11c
is therefore partially supported. In the case of guilt appeals, H11b
is rejected since a moderating effect of sensation-seeking is found
for only one out of six relationships.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Overall, our findings confirm the role of fear in messages for
prevention against alcohol abuse and also demonstrate the impact
of other emotions (fear and guilt) on persuasion, which might help
advertisers in their search of persuasive strategies.
We demonstrate, for all scenarios, the influence of affect
intensity on both perceived severity of and perceived susceptibility to the threat. This confirms results from Moore, Harris,
and Chen (1994) showing that cognitive responses (perceptions
of threat) mediate the relationships between affect intensity and
emotional responses. Even if the impact of perceived susceptibility on guilt is non-significant (for the guilt scenario), the
negative emotions that we studied seem to play a mediating role
between perceptions of the threat and persuasion. This confirms
the importance of negative emotions and the fact that a threat
leads to negative emotions (fear, guilt, shame) which themselves determine behavior (Arthur and Quester 2004).
Results also confirm the importance of perceptions of
efficacy which lead to the acceptance of the message and to
persuasion. Many authors having dealt with fear have already
demonstrated that importance of perceived efficacy (Block and
Keller 1997; Hale and Dillard 1995; Witte 1992).
In the case of the shame scenario, persuasion occurs because the three emotions studied here are activated. This confirms the proposition of Lazarus (1991) concerning the role of
shame. Shame motives a social behavior and leads to conformity to
social norm. Contrarily to Bennett (1998) who proposes that guilt
messages may be persuasive if shame is not activated, our results
104 / Emotions of Fear, Guilt or Shame in Anti-Alcohol Messages
FIGURE 3
Results of hypotheses testing
European Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 8) / 105
FIGURE 4
Moderating effects of sensation-seeking
show that a threatening message implying fear, guilt and shame
together might well be the most persuasive.
Overall, sensation-seeking moderates the impact of negative emotions on persuasion. This is an empirical validation of
research hypotheses stipulating that individuals looking for
strong sensations are more influenced by messages with a high
emotional content (Palmgreen et al. 2003). However, our results
contradict those obtained by Schoenbachler and Whittler (1996).
It is therefore important that further research refines methodologies
and furnishes additional support for our hypotheses.
This research contributes to the persuasion literature with the
proposition and test of a model including constructs often tested
separately. It enables better understanding the mechanisms through
which the stimulation of negative emotions may convince individuals to abandon risky behaviors. Also, this work leads to the validation of the cognitive evaluation model for emotions (Lazarus 1991)
which stipulates that a cognitive evaluation of the threat is at the
origin of negative emotions. From a practical standpoint, it seems
that the shame scenario was the most persuasive and that it enabled
generation of all studied emotions. It is probably in that direction
that advertising and creative strategies need to be developed to fight
against substance abuse for young people.
Of course, this research suffers from limitations, one of which
being that emotions have been measured through questionnaires
which may lead to an overestimation of the emotional states and to
a difficulty for respondents to express their affective state (Derbaix
and Poncin 2005). The expansion of this research to other populations and the use of other measurement instruments are highly
recommended. Beyond sensation-seeking, other individual variables might have an impact on the relationship between negative
emotions and persuasion such as risk aversion, authoritarianism or
introversion. Finally, we recommend further developments concerning the use and impact of guilt and shame appeals in public
sector communications and particularly in ads directed at prevention of substance abuse or promotion of health-related behaviors.
REFERENCES
Aaker, David A. and Douglas M. Stayman (1989), “What
Mediates the Emotional Response to Advertising? The Case
of Warmth,” In Cognitive and Affective Reactions to
Advertising, ed. Tybout P.A. Cafferata, Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 287-304.
Arthur, Damien and Pascale Quester (2004), “Who’s Afraid of
that Ad? Applying Segmentation to the Protection Motivation Mode,” Psychology and Marketing, 21 (September),
671-96.
Bennett, Roger (1996), “Effects of Horrific Fear Appeals on
Public Attitudes Towards AIDS,” International Journal of
Advertising, 153 (3), 183-202.
(1998), “Shame, Guilt & Responses to Non-Profit &
Public Sector Ads,” International Journal of Advertising, 17
(4), 483-99.
Block, Lauren G. and Punam Anand Keller (1995), “When to
Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy
and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a HealthRelated Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32
(May), 192-203.
(1997), “Effects of Self-Efficacy and Vividness on the
Persuasiveness of Health Communications,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 6 (1), 31-54.
Cotte, June, Robin A. Coulter, and Melissa Moore (2005),
“Enhancing or Disrupting Guilt: The Role of Ad Credibility
and Perceived Manipulative Intent,” Journal of Business
Research, 58 (Mars), 361-68.
Derbaix, Christian and Ingrid Poncin (2005), “La Mesure des
Réactions Affectives en Marketing : Evaluation des Principaux Outils,” Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 20
(June), 55-76.
Donohew, Lewis, David M. Helm, Patricia Lawrence, and
Milton J. Shatzer (1990), “Sensation Seeking, Marijuana Use
and Responses to Prevention Messages: Implications for
Public Health Campaigns,” In Drug and Alcohol Abuse
Review, ed. Ronald R. Watson. Cliftonm, NJ: Humana Press,
73-93.
Gallopel, Karine (2006), “Peur et Persuasion Sociale : Etat de
l’Art, Limites et Voies de Recherche, ” Actes du XXIIème
Congrès de l’AFM, Nantes.
Gerrard, Meg, Frederick X. Gibbons, Monica Reis-Bergan, and
Daniel W. Russell (2000), “Self-Esteem, Self-Serving
Cognitions, and Health Risk Behavior,” Journal of Personality, 68 (6), 1177-1201.
Geuens, Maggie and Patrick De Pelsmacker (2002), “The Role
of Humor in the Persuasion of Individuals Varying in Need
for Cognition,” Advances in Consumer Research, 29 (1), 50 56.
106 / Emotions of Fear, Guilt or Shame in Anti-Alcohol Messages
Ghingold, Morry (1981), “Guilt Arousing Communications: An
Unexplored Variable,” Advances in Consumer Research, 8
(1), 442-48.
Hale, Jerold L. and James Price Dillard (1995), “Fear appeals in
health promotion campaigns: Too much, too little, or just
right?,” In Designing health messages: Approaches from
communication theory and public health practice, ed.
Edward Maibach, Roxanne Louiselle Parrott, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 65-80.
Izard, Carroll E. (1977), Human Emotions, New York, Plenum
Press.
Janis, Irving L. and Seymour Feshbach (1953), “Effects of FearArousing Communications,” The Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology, 48 (January), 78-92.
Krisher, Howard Penn, Susan A. Darley, and John M. Darley
(1973), “Fear Provoking Recommendations, Intentions to
Take Preventive Actions and Actual Preventive Actions,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26 (2), 30108.
Laroche, Michel, Roy Toffoli, Quihong Zhang, and Frank Pons
(2001), “A Cross-Cultural Study of the Persuasive Effect of
Fear Appeal Messages in Cigarette Advertising: China and
Canada,” International Journal of Advertising, 20 (3), 297317.
Larsen, Randy J. (1984), “Theory and Measurement of Affect
Intensity as an Individual Difference Characteristic,”
Dissertation Abstracts International, 85, 2297B.
LaTour, Michael S. and Robert E. Pitts (1989), “Using Fear
Appeals in Advertising for AIDS Prevention in the CollegeAge Population,” Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9 (3),
5-14.
Lazarus, Richard S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, New York,
Oxford University Press.
Lewis, Michael (1993), “Self-Conscious Emotions : Embarrassment, Pride, Shame, and Guilt,” In Handbook of Emotions,
ed. Lewis Michael, Haviland Jeannette, New York, The
Guilford Press, 563-573.
Moore, David J., William D. Harris, and Hong C. Chen (1994),
“Exploring the Role of Individual Differences in Affect
Intensity on the Consumer Response to Advertising Appeals,” Advances in Consumer Research, 21 (1), 181-87.
(1995), “Affect Intensity: An Individual Difference
Response to Advertising Appeals,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 22 (September), 154-64.
Palmgreen, Philip, Lewis Donohew, Elizabeth Pugzles Lorch,
and Rick H. Hoyle (2003), “A Sensation Seeking Approach
to Social Marketing Campaigns to Prevent Risky Behaviors,”
The 131st Annual Meeting of the American Public Health
Association, San Francisco.
Rogers, Ronald W. (1983), “Cognitive and Physiological
Processes in Fear Appeal and Attitude Change: A Revisited
Theory of Protection Motivation,” In Social Psychophysiology, ed. John T. Cacioppo, Richard E. Petty, New York,
Guilford Press, 153-76.
Rolland, Jean-Pierre and Filip De Fruyt (2003), “The Validity of
FFM Personality Dimensions and Maladaptative Traits to
Predict Negative Affects at Work: A six months predictive
study in a military sample,” European Journal of Personality, 17, 1-21.
Rosenberg, Morris (1965), Society and the Adolescent SelfImage, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rossiter, John R. and Jennifer Thornton (2004), “Fear-pattern
Analysis Supports the Fear-drive Model for Antispeeding
Road-safety TV ads,” Psychology and Marketing, 21
(November), 945-60.
Schaninger, Charles M. and Donald Sciglimpaglia (1981), “The
Influence of Cognitive Personality Traits and Demographics
on Consumer Information Acquisition,” Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 208-16.
Scheff, Thomas J. (1988), “Shame and Conformity: the
Deference-Emotion System,” American Sociological Review,
53 (June), 395-406.
Schoenbachler, Denise D. and Tommy E. Whittler (1996),
“Adolescent Processing of Social and Physical Threat
Communications,” Journal of Advertising, 25 (Winter), 3754.
Snipes, Robin L., Michael S. LaTour, and Sara J. Bliss (1999),
“A Model of the Effects of Self-Efficacy on the Perceived
Ethicality and Performance of Fear Appeals in Advertising,”
Journal of Business Ethics, 19 (April), 273-85.
Tangney, June P. (1995), “Recent Advances in Empirical Study
of Shame and Guilt,” American Behavioral Scientist, 38 (8),
1132-1146.
(1999), “The Self-Conscious Emotions: Shame, guilt,
Embarrassment, and Pride”, In Handbook of Cognition and
Emotion, ed. Tim Dalgleish, Mick Power, New York, John
Wiley, 541-68.
Witte, Kim (1992), “Putting the Fear Back into Fear Appeals:
the Extended Parallel Process Model,” Communication
Monographs, 59 (December), 329-49.
Wong, Nancy, Aric Rindfleisch, and James E. Burroughs (2003),
“Do Reverse-Worded Items Confound Measures in Cross
Cultural Consumer Research? The Case of the Material
Values Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June),
72-91.
Zuckerman, Marvin, Elizabeth A. Kolin, Leah Price, and Zoob
Ina (1964), “Development of a Sensation Seeking Scale,”
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 477-82.
(1994), Biological Expressions of Biosocial Basis of
Sensation Seeking, New York: Cambridge Press.