All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Four Perspectives on the Role of Fear in Persuasion
Unformatted Document Text:  Four Perspectives on . . . 16 comparison were t (359) = 7.25, p < .0001, r = .36 (M hi = 1.70, SD = 1.14 vs. M lo = .91, SD = .93). These findings show an effect of threat on fear almost identical to the average effect of r = .35 reported in Mongeau’s (2000) meta-analysis. The corresponding values for post- recommendation were t (359) = 1.69, p = .09, r = .09 (M hi = .61, SD = .85 vs. M lo = .47, SD = .74). This finding indicates that persons who read the high threat message remained slightly more fearful than members of the low threat group even after both had read the recommendation component of the message. In total, these results suggest that the messages aroused and reduced fear, and that the high threat message did both to a greater degree than the low threat message. Hence, the manipulation successfully produced the variation in fear responses that was necessary for testing the hypotheses. ...FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE... H1-H3: The Reactivity Perspective H1 predicted that the BIS is positively associated with premessage fear. The first entry in the leftmost column of Table 2 shows a correlation coefficient of .25, p < .01. This result offers support for the first hypothesis. ...TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE... H2 anticipated a series of associations between BIS and the three dynamics aspects of fear arousal. The correlations of .12, p < .05, for acceleration and .26, p < .05, for velocity are both in line with expectations. However, the sign of the association between BIS and deceleration ran counter to prediction: r = .18, p < .05. Thus, support for H2 was mixed. H3 posited a lack of association between BAS and the fear indices. The pertinent results appear in second column two of Table 2. The coefficients are -.04, .09, .07, and .08 for

Authors: Dillard, James. and Anderson, Jason.
first   previous   Page 16 of 36   next   last



background image
Four Perspectives on . . .
16
comparison were t (359) = 7.25, p < .0001, r = .36 (M
hi
= 1.70, SD = 1.14 vs. M
lo
= .91, SD =
.93). These findings show an effect of threat on fear almost identical to the average effect of r =
.35 reported in Mongeau’s (2000) meta-analysis. The corresponding values for post-
recommendation were t (359) = 1.69, p = .09, r = .09 (M
hi
= .61, SD = .85 vs. M
lo
= .47, SD =
.74). This finding indicates that persons who read the high threat message remained slightly more
fearful than members of the low threat group even after both had read the recommendation
component of the message. In total, these results suggest that the messages aroused and reduced
fear, and that the high threat message did both to a greater degree than the low threat message.
Hence, the manipulation successfully produced the variation in fear responses that was necessary
for testing the hypotheses.
...FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE...
H1-H3: The Reactivity Perspective
H1 predicted that the BIS is positively associated with premessage fear. The first entry in
the leftmost column of Table 2 shows a correlation coefficient of .25, p < .01. This result offers
support for the first hypothesis.
...TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE...
H2 anticipated a series of associations between BIS and the three dynamics aspects of
fear arousal. The correlations of .12, p < .05, for acceleration and .26, p < .05, for velocity are
both in line with expectations. However, the sign of the association between BIS and
deceleration ran counter to prediction: r = .18, p < .05. Thus, support for H2 was mixed.
H3 posited a lack of association between BAS and the fear indices. The pertinent results
appear in second column two of Table 2. The coefficients are -.04, .09, .07, and .08 for


Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 16 of 36   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.