Emotions of Fear, Guilt Or Shame in Anti-Alcohol Messages: Measuring

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 Several studies have shown that, in the context fear appeals, of anti-alcohol messages among young people. We experimentally the stronger the perception of threat, the higher the activation of fear test three distinct messages, each one focusing on one of the three (Block and Keller 1995; LaTour and Pitts 1989). Therefore: negative emotions using a total sample of more than a thousand students. Results show that all three messages have a positive H1a: In the case of fear appeals, the perception of the severity impact on persuasion and that the stimulation of shame is very of the threat has a positive impact on the level of activation of effective in the case of anti-alcohol abuse advertising directed at fear emotion. young people. We demonstrate that sensation seeking moderates the impact of negative emotions on persuasion in the case of fear H2a: In the case of fear appeals, the perception of the suscep- and shame appeals. tibility to the threat has a positive impact on the level of activation of fear emotion. INTRODUCTION Messages using fear appeals has been used in a variety of It is established that the cognitive processes at work for the domains as road safety, prevention of drug, tobacco and alcohol evaluation of the threat are at the origin of negative emotions abuse or prevention of AIDS. Since the pioneering study of Janis (Lazarus 1991). Although guilt is a public emotion linked to and Feshbach (1953) concerning dental hygiene, research on per- individual conscience and shame is a public emotion linked to suasion through fear appeals have lead to contrasting results, exposure to others (Tangney 1995), research shows that it is revealing either strong positive effects (Arthur and Quester 2004; difficult to distinguish between shame and guilt. Both are consid- Bennett 1996) or little or no effects (Krisher, Darley, and Darley ered being self-conscious emotions (Lewis 1993) and they both 1973; Schoenbachler and Whittler 1996) on persuasion. However, imply a self-evaluative process. As guilt, shame is a useful emotion fear is not the only emotion generating stress. Other negative which reminds of social norms. It implies adaptive behaviors since emotions as guilt or shame are used in marketing communications it motivates the individual to respect internal ideals (Lazarus 1991) in different domains as politics, consumption or public health. and to conform to social ideals (Scheff 1988). Therefore, we Interestingly, research concerning the effects of these emotions propose that the relationships between constructs formulated in remains scarce and results are mixed. For example, Lazarus (1991) hypotheses H1a and H1b in the case of fear appeals, also apply to proposes that shame favors pro-social behavior and leads to confor- guilt and shame appeals. Hence: mity to social standards, as Bennett (1998) believes in an adaptive role of guilt and shows that guilt-oriented messages may lead to H1b, c: In the case of guilt (shame) appeals, the perception of persuasion if shame is not activated. Also, recent research has the severity of the threat has a positive impact on the level of focused on the social dimension of threat, whereby a social threat activation of guilt (shame) emotion. ties the dangerosity of the individual behavior to a rejection by the social group (Gallopel 2006, Laroche et al. 2001). H2b, c: In the case of guilt (shame) appeals, the perceptions of The objective of this research is to demonstrate that a variety the susceptibility to the threat have a positive impact on the of negative emotions (i.e. fear but also shame and guilt) may have level of activation of guilt (shame) emotion. a positive impact on persuasion and to compare the effects of each of these emotions. For that purpose, we propose a conceptual In order to avoid defensive reactions after exposition to framework including three personal constructs, i.e. self-esteem, threatening messages possibly leading to minimization or igno- affect intensity and sensation-seeking. We expect not only fear, but rance of the problem, a solution must be offered to the viewer. The also guilt and shame to have a positive impact on persuasion. We presentation of this solution enables dealing with the threat pre- also expect sensation-seeking to moderate this relationship. sented in the message (Witte 1992). Also, self-efficacy or the belief We focus on the use of negative emotions appeals (fear, guilt that the individual is in a position to implement the recommended and shame) in the case of advertising targeting an audience of young solution influences the adoption of the solution (Block and Keller adults and directed towards prevention of physical and psychoso- 1997; Snipes, LaTour, and Bliss 1999). Therefore: cial risks linked to alcohol abuse. In spite of limited beneficial effects when consumed very moderately, alcohol consumption is a H3: For highly threatening messages, perceived efficacy of the major public health issue in many countries. Developing behaviors recommended solution has a positive impact on persuasion. such as “binge drinking” or the mixing of alcohol to other psycho- tropic substances constitute aggravating risks especially for young H4: For highly threatening messages, perceived ability to populations. 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 (Zuckerman 1994). When a difference exists between present and attention and develops memorization of the message (Rogers ideal levels of stimulation, the individual feels a need for or an 1983). Hence: excess of stimulation which leads to the search of activities enabling the stimulation level to approach the optimum. Palmgreen et al. H5a: In the case of fear appeals, the intensity of fear activated (2003) recommend the use of preventive messages with high by the message has a positive impact on persuasion. sensation value for targets in need of sensations because these individuals search for new, complex, ambiguous and emotionally By contrast, research devoted to the study of effects of mes- intense stimuli. Also, Donohew et al. (1990) demonstrate that sages containing guilt or shame appeals are scarce. Bennett (1998) individuals looking for strong sensations (High Sensation Seekers) stipulates a positive effect of guilt and a negative effect of shame on show higher levels of attitudinal and behavioral persuasion against persuasion. However, Tangney (1999) suggests that both emotions drug abuse if exposed to messages communicating strong sensa- impact behaviors of reparation and cooperation and favor empathy. tions (e.g. highly emotional messages). We therefore propose that We therefore propose: 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 H11a, b, c: In the case of fear (guilt, shame) appeals, intensity on persuasion. of sensation-seeking positively impacts the relationship between the level of fear (guilt, shame) activated by the message Individual variables have been included in models linking and the level of persuasion. negative emotions to persuasion and explain some contrasting results. For example, high self-esteem individuals, when con- The conceptual model we propose is given in figure 1 and fronted to threatening information concerning alcohol abuse, will shows all relationships among constructs developed in the set of try to minimize their perceptions of the severity and the susceptibil- hypotheses. ity to the threat (Gerrard et al. 2000). Following this finding, we propose: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In a large number of countries, important problems linked to H6: In the context of a threatening message, the intensity of alcohol abuse are linked to social consumption of non-dependent self-esteem has a negative impact on the level of perceived drinkers, mainly young adults. Since we study the effects of fear, threat. guilt and shame appeals within the context of alcohol abuse, our sample is composed of young adults aged between 18 and 25. H7: In the context of a threatening message, the intensity of Stimuli: Four advertising messages were created (see figure self-esteem has a negative impact on the level of perceived 2), one for the fear and one for the guilt scenarios and two for the susceptibility to the threat. shame scenario (one for each gender). The ads created aimed at generating perceptions of severe threat, high susceptibility to Schaninger and Sciglimpaglia (1981) suggest that an threat, efficacy of the solution and high self efficacy (Witte 1992). individual’s self-esteem has a significant impact on responses to Measurements: we measured responses for all items on a emotional messages because self-esteem influences his or her seven-point Likert type scale. Measurements of threat perceived confidence in decision making. Hence: severity, threat perceived susceptibility, perceived response efficacy, and perceived self-efficacy are adapted from Witte (1992). H8: In the context of a threatening message, the intensity of The emotion of fear is measured through five items adapted from self-esteem has a positive impact on the level of perceived self- Block and Keller (1995) and Laroche et al. (2001). Guilt is mea- efficacy. sured through three items adapted from Cotte, Coulter, and Moore (2005) and Izard (1977) and shame is measured through four items Aaker and Stayman (1989) show that some individuals ex- adapted from Rolland and De Fruyt (2003). Other measurements posed to emotionally intense messages have a tendency to react to were drawn from existing scales: persuasion (Block and Keller their emotions with a high intensity level. This individual charac- 1997), self-esteem (Rosenberg (1965) from which we eliminated teristic is named affect intensity (Larsen 1984). Moore, Harris, and reverse items1), affect intensity (second dimension of the Geuens Chen (1995) demonstrate that individuals with high affect intensity, and De Pelsmacker’s (2002) scale2 which corresponds to negative compared to individuals with low scores of affect intensity, exhibit emotions), and sensation seeking (Zuckerman et al. 1964). intense emotional responses to emotional ads. Since negative Sample and preliminary tests: An on-line questionnaire was emotions develop with perceptions of threat intensity and suscep- answered by students belonging to different French universities. tibility to the threat, we propose: We collected 1082 usable questionnaires (391, 401 and 290 respec- tively for the fear, the guilt and the shame scenarios). We verified H9: In the context of a threatening message, the magnitude of scale unidimensionality through exploratory and confirmatory fac- affect intensity has a positive impact on perceived severity of tor analysis. We verified convergent and discriminant validities of the threat. the scales as well as reliability (see Table 1)3. Concerning sensation-seeking, results of the analysis indicate a two-dimensional H10: In the context of a threatening message, the magnitude of affect intensity has a positive impact on perceived susceptibility to the threat. 1Following 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 (1984). pursuit of novel, intense and complex sensations and experiences, 3Results of the CFA shown in appendix B have been obtained after and the willingness to take risks for the sake of such experience a bootstrap (1000 iterations) to deal with problems of normality. European Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 8) / 101 FIGURE 1 Conceptual model and hypotheses

TABLE 1 Reliability and validity of measurement scales

α Cronbach 0,883 0,776 0,908 0,898 0,870 0,711 0,924 0,810 0,681 0.795 0.726 ρ Jöreskog 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

Response Self Self Affect Fear Shame Guilt Severity Susceptibility Persuasion Thrill Experience efficacy efficacy esteem intensity

Fear ***

S7hame 0.20

G6uilt 01.07 0.32

S6everity 0*.21 03,002 0.05

S7usceptibility 0*.15 00,000 09.06 0.22

Response 0*.050 09,001 02.01 01.11 0.11 efficacy

Self 02,003* 07.01 09.00 0*.01 07,004 0.01 efficacy

P0ersuasion 03.28 08.04 06.10 04.32 01.22 00.14 0.03

Self 0*.006 0*,002 0*,001 0*,001 0*,000 01,004 0*.00 0,000 esteem

Affect 07.064 08.03 02.06 06.09 03.05 00.04 03.01 01.10 0.02 intensity

T6hrill 0*.00 0*,004 0*,000 0*,000 0*,001 08,000 0*.00 02,002 0*.02 0,000

E*xperience 0*,000 0*,001 0*,003 0*,000 0*,003 0*,000 0*,002 03,002 0*.01 03,004 0.26

* Non significant correlations ** One-item Measure *** Values below diagonal represent the shared variance between variables 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 within each scenario, we found that (1) the fear scenario leads to experience seeking). more fear than guilt or shame, (2) the guilt scenario leads to more Manipulation of emotions was satisfactory since levels of fear, guilt than either fear or shame and (3) the shame scenario implies guilt and shame are higher for each corresponding scenario. Also, more shame than fear or guilt. European Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 8) / 103 RESEARCH RESULTS compensate the lack of impact of susceptibility on fear. This indicates that the guilt scenario might imply fear as well as guilt. Estimation of Direct effects Individuals might have been frightened to feel guilty (Ghingold To uncover differences between the three emotional situations 1981) and emotions of fear and guilt might overlap. As hypoth- (fear, guilt, and shame), we used a structural multi-group ap- esized, guilt has a significant impact on persuasion (H5b sup- proach.4 We compared a model with free structural parameters to ported). Since perceptions of threat do not imply shame in this a model in which structural parameters were constrained to 1. We scenario, shame does not impact persuasion. found a significant difference (∆χ2(32)=119.59, p<.001) and must In the case of the shame scenario, perceptions of severity and therefore identify the structural parameters that differ across condi- susceptibility to the threat have an impact on shame (H1c and H2c tions. We compared the χ2 of the free models,5 constrained models6 supported) which, in turn, has an impact on persuasion (in support and pair-wise constrained models.7 These comparisons were done of H5c). Perceptions of the severity of the threat imply fear and for each structural relation in the model. The rule followed is that perceived susceptibility imply guilt. Both of these effects explain the best model is the most constrained one in case of non-significant the impacts of fear and guilt on persuasion (all results are summa- difference and the least constrained model otherwise. The models rized in Figure 3). retained furnish estimates for each structural parameter and for each scenario (see figure 3). Estimation of the moderating effect of sensation-seeking Results show, for all scenarios, that affect intensity has a In order to test this moderating effect, we partition each group positive impact on perceived severity of the threat (in support of (exposed to either fear, shame or guilt ads) into three sub-groups of H9) and perceived susceptibility to the threat (in support of H10). approximately equal sizes (with high, medium and low levels of The higher the perceived efficacy of the solution, the higher the “thrill-seeking” or “experience-seeking”). We then contrast results persuasion level (H3 is supported). Similarly, perceived self- for the high vs. low sensation-seeking groups and test the moderat- efficacy has a positive impact on persuasion (in support of H4). ing impact of both thrill-seeking and experience-seeking through Concerning self-esteem, we did not find any significant effect multi-group analysis. Considering the exploratory nature of the of the construct on perceived susceptibility to the threat (H7 is moderation hypotheses and the limited size of the samples (for each rejected), nor on perceived self-efficacy (H8 rejected). Self-esteem sub-group), we focus on the analysis of the potential differences does not impact perceived severity of the threat within the shame across sub-groups. Results (see Figure 4) demonstrate that that scenario. For the fear and the guilt scenarios, self-esteem has a sensation-seeking moderates the impact of negative emotions on positive influence on perceived severity which contradicts hypoth- persuasion when fear appeals are used. Therefore, hypothesis H11a esis 6 (H6 is rejected). is supported. In the case of the use of shame appeal, there is a partial In the case of the fear scenario, perceived severity of and moderating effect of sensation-seeking, since moderation is not susceptibility to the threat has an impact on the level of fear found for one of the six tested relationships (no effect of experience- activated. (H1a and H2a supported) and fear has a positive impact seeking on the impact of shame on persuasion) and hypothesis H11c on persuasion (in support of H5a). Consequently, fear is a mediator is therefore partially supported. In the case of guilt appeals, H11b between perceptions of the threat and persuasion. By contrast, for is rejected since a moderating effect of sensation-seeking is found this scenario, relationships concerning guilt and shame are non- for only one out of six relationships. significant. It may be that the perceptions of threat (severity and susceptibility) do not translate into sufficient shame or guilt to DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION influence persuasion. Overall, our findings confirm the role of fear in messages for In the case of the guilt scenario, perceived threat susceptibility prevention against alcohol abuse and also demonstrate the impact has a positive impact on fear and guilt only (H1b supported). of other emotions (fear and guilt) on persuasion, which might help However, perceived susceptibility to the threat does not influence advertisers in their search of persuasive strategies. fear, shame or guilt (H2b is rejected), but guilt does have a positive We demonstrate, for all scenarios, the influence of affect impact on persuasion (in support of H5b). This might be explained intensity on both perceived severity of and perceived suscepti- by the significant impact of perceived severity on guilt (H1b). bility to the threat. This confirms results from Moore, Harris, Moreover, the significant impact of fear on persuasion can be linked and Chen (1994) showing that cognitive responses (perceptions to a significant effect of perceived severity on fear which may 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 4A test of the invariance of the measures has been conducted. It between perceptions of the threat and persuasion. This confirms reveals the existence of variance in the measurement scales across the importance of negative emotions and the fact that a threat scenarios. To avoid error due to measurement variance, we con- leads to negative emotions (fear, guilt, shame) which them- strained all measurement parameter to be equal across groups. The selves determine behavior (Arthur and Quester 2004). goal is to guarantee an equal structure for measurement instru- Results also confirm the importance of perceptions of ments across groups. efficacy which lead to the acceptance of the message and to 5Structural parameters are different (free) across the 3 groups. persuasion. Many authors having dealt with fear have already 6Structural parameters are constrained to be equal for the three demonstrated that importance of perceived efficacy (Block and groups. Keller 1997; Hale and Dillard 1995; Witte 1992). 7Fear free: structural parameters are constrained to be equal for the In the case of the shame scenario, persuasion occurs be- two scenarios shame and guilt and free for the fear scenario. cause the three emotions studied here are activated. This con- Guilt free: structural parameters are constrained to be equal for the firms the proposition of Lazarus (1991) concerning the role of two scenarios fear and shame and free for the guilt scenario. shame. Shame motives a social behavior and leads to conformity to Shame free: structural parameters are constrained to be equal for social norm. Contrarily to Bennett (1998) who proposes that guilt the two scenarios fear and guilt and free for the shame scenario. 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 Arthur, Damien and Pascale Quester (2004), “Who’s Afraid of together might well be the most persuasive. that Ad? Applying Segmentation to the Protection Motiva- Overall, sensation-seeking moderates the impact of nega- tion Mode,” Psychology and Marketing, 21 (September), tive emotions on persuasion. This is an empirical validation of 671-96. research hypotheses stipulating that individuals looking for Bennett, Roger (1996), “Effects of Horrific Fear Appeals on strong sensations are more influenced by messages with a high Public Attitudes Towards AIDS,” International Journal of emotional content (Palmgreen et al. 2003). However, our results Advertising, 153 (3), 183-202. contradict those obtained by Schoenbachler and Whittler (1996). (1998), “Shame, Guilt & Responses to Non-Profit & It is therefore important that further research refines methodologies Public Sector Ads,” International Journal of Advertising, 17 and furnishes additional support for our hypotheses. (4), 483-99. This research contributes to the persuasion literature with the Block, Lauren G. and Punam Anand Keller (1995), “When to proposition and test of a model including constructs often tested Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy separately. It enables better understanding the mechanisms through and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a Health- which the stimulation of negative emotions may convince individu- Related Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 32 als to abandon risky behaviors. Also, this work leads to the valida- (May), 192-203. tion of the cognitive evaluation model for emotions (Lazarus 1991) (1997), “Effects of Self-Efficacy and Vividness on the which stipulates that a cognitive evaluation of the threat is at the Persuasiveness of Health Communications,” Journal of origin of negative emotions. From a practical standpoint, it seems Consumer Psychology, 6 (1), 31-54. that the shame scenario was the most persuasive and that it enabled Cotte, June, Robin A. Coulter, and Melissa Moore (2005), generation of all studied emotions. It is probably in that direction “Enhancing or Disrupting Guilt: The Role of Ad Credibility that advertising and creative strategies need to be developed to fight and Perceived Manipulative Intent,” Journal of Business against substance abuse for young people. Research, 58 (Mars), 361-68. Of course, this research suffers from limitations, one of which Derbaix, Christian and Ingrid Poncin (2005), “La Mesure des being that emotions have been measured through questionnaires Réactions Affectives en Marketing : Evaluation des Princi- which may lead to an overestimation of the emotional states and to paux Outils,” Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 20 a difficulty for respondents to express their affective state (Derbaix (June), 55-76. and Poncin 2005). The expansion of this research to other popula- Donohew, Lewis, David M. Helm, Patricia Lawrence, and tions and the use of other measurement instruments are highly Milton J. Shatzer (1990), “Sensation Seeking, Marijuana Use recommended. Beyond sensation-seeking, other individual vari- and Responses to Prevention Messages: Implications for ables might have an impact on the relationship between negative Public Health Campaigns,” In Drug and Alcohol Abuse emotions and persuasion such as risk aversion, authoritarianism or Review, ed. Ronald R. Watson. Cliftonm, NJ: Humana Press, introversion. Finally, we recommend further developments con- 73-93. cerning the use and impact of guilt and shame appeals in public Gallopel, Karine (2006), “Peur et Persuasion Sociale : Etat de sector communications and particularly in ads directed at preven- l’Art, Limites et Voies de Recherche, ” Actes du XXIIème tion of substance abuse or promotion of health-related behaviors. Congrès de l’AFM, Nantes. Gerrard, Meg, Frederick X. Gibbons, Monica Reis-Bergan, and REFERENCES Daniel W. Russell (2000), “Self-Esteem, Self-Serving Aaker, David A. and Douglas M. Stayman (1989), “What Cognitions, and Health Risk Behavior,” Journal of Personal- Mediates the Emotional Response to Advertising? The Case ity, 68 (6), 1177-1201. of Warmth,” In Cognitive and Affective Reactions to Geuens, Maggie and Patrick De Pelsmacker (2002), “The Role Advertising, ed. Tybout P.A. Cafferata, Lexington, Massa- of Humor in the Persuasion of Individuals Varying in Need chusetts: Lexington Books, 287-304. 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 Rossiter, John R. and Jennifer Thornton (2004), “Fear-pattern Unexplored Variable,” Advances in Consumer Research, 8 Analysis Supports the Fear-drive Model for Antispeeding (1), 442-48. Road-safety TV ads,” Psychology and Marketing, 21 Hale, Jerold L. and James Price Dillard (1995), “Fear appeals in (November), 945-60. health promotion campaigns: Too much, too little, or just Schaninger, Charles M. and Donald Sciglimpaglia (1981), “The right?,” In Designing health messages: Approaches from Influence of Cognitive Personality Traits and Demographics communication theory and public health practice, ed. on Consumer Information Acquisition,” Journal of Con- Edward Maibach, Roxanne Louiselle Parrott, Thousand sumer Research, 8 (September), 208-16. Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. 65-80. Scheff, Thomas J. (1988), “Shame and Conformity: the Izard, Carroll E. (1977), Human Emotions, New York, Plenum Deference-Emotion System,” American Sociological Review, Press. 53 (June), 395-406. Janis, Irving L. and Seymour Feshbach (1953), “Effects of Fear- Schoenbachler, Denise D. and Tommy E. Whittler (1996), Arousing Communications,” The Journal of Abnormal and “Adolescent Processing of Social and Physical Threat Social Psychology, 48 (January), 78-92. Communications,” Journal of Advertising, 25 (Winter), 37- Krisher, Howard Penn, Susan A. Darley, and John M. Darley 54. (1973), “Fear Provoking Recommendations, Intentions to Snipes, Robin L., Michael S. LaTour, and Sara J. Bliss (1999), Take Preventive Actions and Actual Preventive Actions,” “A Model of the Effects of Self-Efficacy on the Perceived Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26 (2), 301- Ethicality and Performance of Fear Appeals in Advertising,” 08. Journal of Business Ethics, 19 (April), 273-85. Laroche, Michel, Roy Toffoli, Quihong Zhang, and Frank Pons Tangney, June P. (1995), “Recent Advances in Empirical Study (2001), “A Cross-Cultural Study of the Persuasive Effect of of Shame and Guilt,” American Behavioral Scientist, 38 (8), Fear Appeal Messages in Cigarette Advertising: China and 1132-1146. Canada,” International Journal of Advertising, 20 (3), 297- (1999), “The Self-Conscious Emotions: Shame, guilt, 317. Embarrassment, and Pride”, In Handbook of Cognition and Larsen, Randy J. (1984), “Theory and Measurement of Affect Emotion, ed. Tim Dalgleish, Mick Power, New York, John Intensity as an Individual Difference Characteristic,” Wiley, 541-68. Dissertation Abstracts International, 85, 2297B. Witte, Kim (1992), “Putting the Fear Back into Fear Appeals: LaTour, Michael S. and Robert E. Pitts (1989), “Using Fear the Extended Parallel Process Model,” Communication Appeals in Advertising for AIDS Prevention in the College- Monographs, 59 (December), 329-49. Age Population,” Journal of Health Care Marketing, 9 (3), Wong, Nancy, Aric Rindfleisch, and James E. Burroughs (2003), 5-14. “Do Reverse-Worded Items Confound Measures in Cross Lazarus, Richard S. (1991), Emotion and Adaptation, New York, Cultural Consumer Research? The Case of the Material Oxford University Press. Values Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (June), Lewis, Michael (1993), “Self-Conscious Emotions : Embarrass- 72-91. ment, Pride, Shame, and Guilt,” In Handbook of Emotions, Zuckerman, Marvin, Elizabeth A. Kolin, Leah Price, and Zoob ed. Lewis Michael, Haviland Jeannette, New York, The Ina (1964), “Development of a Sensation Seeking Scale,” Guilford Press, 563-573. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 477-82. Moore, David J., William D. Harris, and Hong C. Chen (1994), (1994), Biological Expressions of Biosocial Basis of “Exploring the Role of Individual Differences in Affect Sensation Seeking, New York: Cambridge Press. Intensity on the Consumer Response to Advertising Ap- peals,” 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 Psychophysiol- ogy, 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 Personal- ity, 17, 1-21. Rosenberg, Morris (1965), Society and the Adolescent Self- Image, NJ: Princeton University Press.