Using Fear Appeal in Green-PC AdvertisingFenghueih Huarng Jan-hui Liao Bao-lin LinDepartment of Business Administration,Southern Taiwan University of Technology
MotivationFear appeal are mostly used in public healthFear appeal + action frame (Rothman and Salovey 1997; Rothman et al 1999) It seems unethicalfear appeal followed by product frame => scare audience before promoting a commercial productframing product followed by scary information => to investigate presentation order effect
Literature and HypothesesInvolvement=>H1Message framing & involvement=>H2Presentation order & involvement=>H3Self vs. environment references=>H4
InvolvementRobertson et al (1984)showedAD and information content attract more in high involvement.High involvement actively collect more product and brand information.High involvement reject contradicted information, low involvement passively accept contradicted information.
H1High involving consumers has better AD attitude and PI than low involving consumers.
Message framing and involvementloss frame good for detection of health problem gain frame good for prevention behaviors (Rothman & Salovey 1997; Rothman et al 1999)Based on persuasion literature(Chaiken 1980Petty & Cacioppo 1983), Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy(1990):LI=>simple inference=>positive frameHI=>detailed processing=>negative frame
H2Under high involvement, negative frame is more persuasive under low involvement, positive frame is more persuasive.
Presentation Order and involvementTwo contradictory messages Haugtvedt and Wegener(1994)attitude strength & ELMHigh relevant => high elaboration=> primacy effectLow relevant => low elaboration=> recency effectDifferent presentation order for same message Unnava et al (1994)under memory-based judgments order is unimportant with print message =>no or low processing info has no presentation order effect Buda and Zhang(2000)low personal relevant product primacy effect for non-expert recency effect for expert
H3high involvement show primacy effect on final attitude low involvement show recency or no order effect on final attitude.
Referencesself vs. environmentBower & Gilligan(1979),Burnkrant & Unnava(1995),Greenwald & Pratkanis(1984),kuiper & Rogers(1979),Roger et al (1977):self-reference has more elaboration than other-referenceKeller and Block(1996)show interaction between reference and fear for smoking AD Under imagery processing, high-fear is more persuasive for other-reference (too much fear arousal inhibit elaborating) Under objective processing, high-fear is more persuasive than low-fear, other-reference is more persuasive than self-referenceSelf-reference emphasize cancers caused by radiation =>high-fear (but not too high) & higher and direct efficacyEnvironment-reference emphasize environmental destroys caused by ozonosphere damage =>low-fear & lower and indirect efficacy
H4Self-reference has greater persuasion than environment-reference has greater persuasion than environment-reference
Extraneous variablesBoster & Mongeau(1984) fear appeal are more effective for elder audiencePalam(2001) review ninety academic reseavch papers about gender identity in consumer behaviorGeller(2003) other affecting factors- threat component, action component, framing, recipient volunteers, audiences anxiety, perceived response cost, etcThis study only include gender and age as control variables
Method (1)Green-PC is a familiar product and not low involvingDep. Vars (Likert scale)AD cognition (6 items), AD affect (6 items), PI (7 items)Independent variables (controlled) Orderfear appeal first vs. product first Framingpositive product frame vs. negative frame referenceself vs. environment *selfradiation lead to fatal diseases *environmentozonosphere damage lead to harmness on human, animal, plants & the earthModerate vars (Likert scale)product involvement (CIP:16 items) & environment cognition (NEP:12 items)
Method (2)Controlgender (nominal), age (ratio)746 undergraduate students(1)look over a PPT AD (2) fill up questionnaire (3) receive a small gift (4) debriefed with our thanks.
Sample sizes for 8 combinations (2X2X2)
Order *Frame*Reference Crosstabulation
PF
NF
Total
Slef-reference
FF
102
99
201
82
100
182
Total
184
199
383
Environment-reference
FF
85
86
171
87
105
192
Total
172
191
363
Results(1)measurement reliabilities are all greater than 0.7 (Table1)Samples are clustered into two groups: low vs. high involving (Using CIP & NEP)=>two groups are significant different (Table2)Main effect(Table3-1)
variable
AD cognition
AD affect
Purchase intention
Table 4
Order
***
***
-
PDF > FF
Frame
+
-
***
NF > PF
Involvement
***
***
***
HI > LI
Reference
*
*
*
SR > ER
Table 1
AD cognition-6 items
0.794
AD affect-6 items
0.831
Purchase Intention-7 items
0.907
Product Involvement-16 items(CIP)
0.840
Environment cognition-12 items(NEP)
0.738
Reliability of Measurements-Cronbach Coefficient alpha(n:728)
Table 2
T-test for Low & High Involvement
Low-involvement
(n:436)
High-involvement
(n:268)
Measurement
Mean(stand error)
Mean(stand error)
T-value
P-value
Environment Cognition(NEP)
3.726(0.017)
4.361(0.022)
22.430
0.000
Importance
3.311(0.026)
4.053(0.033)
17.668
0.000
Risk Probability
3.029(0.026)
3.589(0.033)
13.508
0.000
Pleasure
3.336(0.028)
4.060(0.036)
16.029
0.000
Sign-value
2.939(0.029)
3.393(0.037)
9.638
0.000
Risk importance
2.922(0.030)
3.465(0.038)
11.260
0.000
Table 3-1 main effect & control vars
Main effects & control variables
Source
Dependent Variable
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean Square
F
P-value
Error
ADcongnition
216.140
627
0.345
ADaffect
289.337
627
0.461
PI
227.243
627
0.362
gender
ADcongnition
1.025
1
1.025
2.973
.085
ADaffect
.632
1
0.632
1.369
.242
PI
1.365
1
1.365
3.766
.053
Age
ADcongnition
2.631E-03
1
2.631E-03
0.008
.930
ADaffect
1.600
1
1.600
3.468
.063
PI
0.453
1
0.453
1.250
.264
Order(O)
ADcongnition
10.391
1
10.391
30.142
.000
ADaffect
5.009
1
5.009
10.855
.001
PI
0.760
1
0.760
2.096
.148
Framing(F)
ADcongnition
1.153
1
1.153
3.344
.068
ADaffect
0.410
1
0.410
0.889
.346
PI
3.734
1
3.734
10.302
.001
Involvement(I)
ADcongnition
20.151
1
20.151
58.455
.000
ADaffect
11.495
1
11.495
24.911
.000
PI
59.727
1
59.727
164.797
.000
References(R)
ADcongnition
1.836
1
1.836
5.326
.021
ADaffect
1.973
1
1.973
4.275
.039
PI
2.139
1
2.139
5.902
.015
Table 4 Group means (stand error)
dependent measure
LI
HI
FF
PF
NF
SR
ER
AD Cognition
3.398
(0.030)
3.766***
(0.038)
3.448
(0.034)
3.716***
(0.035)
3.538
(0.036)
3.626+
(0.033)
3.638
(0.035)
3.526*
(0.034)
AD affect
2.919
(0.035)
3.197***
(0.044)
2.965
(0.039)
3.151***
(0.041)
3.032
(0.042)
3.084
(0.038)
3.116
(0.040)
3.000*
(0.040)
PI
3.458
(0.031)
4.093***
(0.039)
3.739
(0.035)
3.812
(0.036)
3.696
(0.037)
3.855***
(0.034)
3.836
(0.036)
3.715*
(0.035)
LI: low-involvement, HI: high-involvement, PF: positive frame, NF: negative frame, FF: fear-first, PDF: product-first, SR: self-reference, ER: environment-reference
+: P
0.1, *: P
0.05, **: P
0.01, ***: P
0.001
_1213692889.unknown
_1213692947.unknown
Results(2)Interaction effect (Table3-2)
Control variables gender is significant on AD cognition(+) & PI (+)
age is negatively related to AD cognition (r= -0.102, p = 0.007) =>younger has better AD cognitionFemale > Male
Interaction
AD cognition
AD affect
Purchase intention
Order*Involvement
+
-
+
Order*Frame
+
**
**
AD cognition
AD affect
Purchase intention
Female
3.628 (.033)
3.094 (.039)
3.828 (.034)
Male
3.537 (.039)
3.022 (.045)
3.723 (.040)
Table 3-2 Interaction effects
Source
Dependent Variable
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
P-value
O* I
ADcongnition
1.067
1
1.067
3.096
.079
ADaffect
0.227
1
0.227
0.492
.483
PI
1.312
1
1.312
3.620
.058
F* I
ADcongnition
4.992E-02
1
4.992E-02
0.145
.704
ADaffect
8.957E-03
1
8.957E-03
0.019
.889
PI
0.377
1
0.377
1.041
.308
R*I
ADcongnition
0.102
1
0.102
0.295
.587
ADaffect
0.141
1
0.141
0.307
.580
PI
0.675
1
0.675
1.861
.173
O* F
ADcongnition
1.131
1
1.131
3.281
.071
ADaffect
3.564
1
3.564
7.723
.006
PI
2.867
1
2.867
7.910
.005
O* R
ADcongnition
0.364
1
0.364
1.055
.305
ADaffect
0.327
1
0.327
0.709
.400
PI
0.530
1
0.530
1.462
.227
F* R
ADcongnition
1.703E-02
1
1.703E-02
0.049
.824
ADaffect
0.232
1
0.232
0.502
.479
PI
2.862E-03
1
2.862E-03
0.008
.929
Interaction effects
Results(3) Order*Involvement Interaction=> support H3ANOVA P=0.079P=0.483P=0.058p=.001p=.000p=.031p=.018p=.363p=.000
Results(4) order * frame interactionANOVA P=0.071P=0.006P=0.005p=0.245p=0.003p=0.200p=0.000p=0.015p=0.000
Discussions & Conclusions(1)Our experiment support H1 & H4 as expected** high-inv has greater AD attitude & PI than low-inv** self-reference has greater persuasion than environment-referenceH3 is supported.high-involving, primacy effect (PDF) for all dep. varslow-involving, primacy effect (PDF) on AD attitude no order effect on PI** low-inv consumer has low elaboration => primacy effect on AD attitude, but hard to change PI** Product-first seems more persuasive than Fear-first
Discussions & Conclusions(3)ANOVA show order*frame interactionBuda & Zhang (2000) & Buda (2003) show no 2-way interaction (order*frame)Stereo fear appeal (FF) literaturegain-frame is better for health prevention; loss-frame is better for early detection (Rothman et al, 1999). no frame effect for prevention; negative frame is better for detection (Block & Keller 1995) Buying green-PC is preventive, no frame effect on AD cognition & PI; positive frame for AD affect => consistent to FF health literature
Discussions & Conclusions(4)Product first (PDF) take fear appeal as a facilitator to explain the risk.PDF has all six means (CIP & NEP) > 3FF has five means > 3 (sign mean = 3)FF > PDF in NEP (p=0.013), PDF > FF in sign (p=0.013)For PDF, negative frame good for high-inv => consistent to product AD literatureFF cause more fear arousal => inhibit elaborationPDF cause less fear => more elaboration
Thank you for your attention