Is fear-based messaging effective?

I’m still stuck on why the GOP is going so hard on rampant misogyny in its policy and messaging. Since my last missive on the topic, I’ve learned of a $20 million effort to sway young men to Trump. Also, according to one Fox News host who is absolutely not beating the fragile masculinity allegations: “When a man votes for a woman, he actually transitions into a woman.”

Perhaps, as we recently discussed, it’s an attempt to appeal to (young and low-status) men by playing on their status anxiety. 

I’m working on a post about how status and misogyny connect. It’s coming soon. I promise. But first, I wanted to look further into whether fear itself is a winning strategy for the GOP. Or anyone. 

Having spent many a year in both marketing and politics, I’ve thought a lot about effective messaging. Somehow, I got the idea that fear-based messaging works better than other kinds. 

People are most likely to share posts on social media that stoke outrage at an outgroup. 

But today I’m more interested in a larger question: What is the evidence for and against the idea that stoking fear will be a more effective strategy for the GOP versus messaging that evokes other emotions?

TL;DR: I need a lot more data before I feel like I have any real insight into whether these fears are likely to be particularly effective for the GOP right now.

However, I was able to find a lot of research into fear-based messaging in general, and a little about fear-based messaging in politics.

In general, the most effective messaging:

1. Evokes credible fear 

2. Offers actionable advice 

3. Inspires confidence and hope

Let’s get into it!

The heart beats the head every time

First things first. The GOP is being smart by evoking emotion in their messaging. 

Fact-based messaging doesn’t work. 

Whether we’re trying to sell shoes or get people to stop sharing needles or vote Republican, the research is pretty clear. Messaging that merely offers information without effectively appealing to an emotion of some kind rarely changes hearts, minds, or behavior. 

Maybe you’ve heard of “confirmation bias” and “motivated reasoning.” 

Most people, most of the time, feel some type of way about the topic at hand. They choose what they think based on that feeling. People choose which facts to remember, which facts to believe, which sources to trust, and how to weigh those facts based on how well they justify the person’s existing beliefs.

This is very much not exclusive to dumb people. A smarty pants is actually better at being wrong than a dumbass, on average. 

Studies show that it’s actually even harder to dislodge incorrect beliefs from the heads of smart people. Their arguments for their bullshit are usually higher quality and more convincing than the arguments the average correct person who’s trying to argue with them can muster.

In sum, you’ll find everything you need to know about messaging in one quote from a renowned fellow sex worker and writer. (A powerful combo if there ever were one, and two professions that disproportionately reward effective messaging). 

“I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” -Maya Angelou

Plus, the GOP should appeal to emotion since the facts do them few favors.

That settled, to which kinds of emotion should a savvy messenger attempt to appeal? 

The heart of the question

Motivation really comes down to carrots and sticks. 

A message derives its primary motivational power from either promising some reward or threatening some calamity. 

Do carrots or sticks tend to most effectively motivate most people, most of the time?

There are at least two huge drawbacks to the literature I found in terms of their ability to shed light on this question. 

First, most of the studies I found compared fear-based messaging to messaging that either didn’t evoke emotion (according to the researchers, I’m skeptical) or no messaging at all. 

Second, most of the studies I found looked at public health messaging. 

However, this isn’t true of every study. 

Despite these limitations, I did find three insights pertaining to fear-based messaging. 

1. Fear doesn’t beat love

First, the evidence doesn’t support the idea that sticks work better than carrots, on average. 

A 2013 study indicated that fear-based messaging might be more memorable, on average, than “warm or upbeat advertisements.” However, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re more effective, as messaging can influence behavior subconsciously. Also, the authors curiously described the “warm or upbeat advertisements” that did worse than fear-stoking ads as having “no emotional content.” And we know that messages that evoke emotion are more effective, all else equal, than messages that don’t. 

One researcher made a pretty bold claim in favor of fear-based messaging. “There are very few circumstances under which they are not effective and there are no identifiable circumstances under which they backfire and lead to undesirable outcomes,” said Dr. Dolores Albarracin. The professor of psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign is an author of a 2015 study on the topic. 

This is absolutely not true. 

Many, many studies suggest that fear-based messaging consistently fails to motivate people to say no to drugs and drive more safely. Fear-based messaging has, in fact, actually increased rates of drug use and speeding in some cases. 

One 2022 Harvard study examined whether sticks or carrots more effectively prompted people to take action to avoid getting and spreading COVID. 

Potential gain messaging example: “There is so much to gain: if you practice these four steps, you can protect yourself and others.” 

Potential loss messaging example: “You have so much to lose: if you do not practice these four steps, you can endanger yourself and others.” 

If I’m reading the study correctly, none of the messaging was particularly effective at changing people’s judgments, intentions, or feelings about COVID prevention. However, the stick-based messaging raised people’s anxiety levels. 

So, from my reading at least, we can’t really give this one to sticks. Irritatingly, we also can’t state conclusively that carrots work better, on average.

Like too many things in life, for my tastes, the answer to which works better is: It depends. Here are a few things that can influence when and whether fear-based messaging works best. 

2. Know your audience

If marketing has one rule, it’s “Know your audience.” This is a good rule in many areas of life, actually.

A good marketer always starts by defining their target audience. “If you’re talking to everyone, you’re talking to no one.” 

We usually begin with demographics because we’re lazy and traits like age and income tend to be easier to define, target, and measure than differentiators like thoughts and feelings.

Demographically, research indicates that fear-based public safety campaigns work particularly poorly on young people and men and slightly better on women. A 2013 study pointed to research indicating fear appeals don’t work on young men, perhaps because this demographic is most convinced of their own invincibility. For this audience, positively framed messages may work better. However, the authors themselves found no gender difference in their study.  

The 2013 study authors also referenced research on how two non-demographic factors correlate with responses to fear-based messaging. One study showed that habitual speeders actually sped more often after seeing ads meant to make them afraid to speed. Another paper showed that fear arousing messages work best on people who are high in self-efficacy.

A 2023 study looked at how financial difficulties impacted people’s responses to carrots versus sticks. People whose mental energy was lower due to financial strain tended to respond better to messages that contained promises of rewards. They were more likely to ignore messages that threatened calamities if they didn’t take action. 

This 2018 study was kinda gold for at least three reasons. First, it actually looked at messaging that wasn’t aimed at public health. Second, it compared negative messaging to positive messaging instead of to no messaging or messaging with no emotional appeal.

Of course, you can’t have everything you want in life. The answer it offered to whether fear of loss or promise of gain works better to motivate people is “it depends.” The third thing that made this study kinda baller is that I found what it depends on very interesting.

Essentially, there are two kinds of people in this world. 

The first group has a “promotion focus.” Aspirations and achievements motivate them. They pursue positive outcomes. They tend to respond well to advertising that tells them good things will happen if they buy.

The second group has a “prevention focus.” They’re scaredy cats. They’re motivated by safety and security. Advertising that tells them bad things will happen if they don’t buy tends to work on them. 

Perhaps not shockingly, positive messaging worked best on promotion-focused people. Prevention-focused people responded better to fear-based messaging in this study. 

3. Do more than scare

Fear-based messaging is very popular in public health, despite the paucity of compelling evidence that it works (like many aspects of US healthcare). While this isn’t great for public health, it does mean that we have reams of data on it. 

One major drawback to this data is that the vast majority of these fear-based messages are poorly done. So it’s hard to know whether fear-based messaging is actually ineffective or whether it would work just fine if the marketers were better at it. 

For example, we know that any gaps between the message’s threat and reality can lead to people underestimating the real risks of doing drugs. Unfortunately, according to one 2023 study, most anti-drug campaigns exaggerate the likely harms of drug use. 

We also know that only threatening people can actually demotivate action. 

“You’re going to die if you don’t do X” is a more effective message than “You’re going to die.”

Yet multiple studies suggest that “the vast majority of fear-based public communication campaigns” only talk up the risks without offering any advice on how to avoid them. 

I know you babies hate it, but I’m going to say it again anyway. No bitch without a pitch! (At least when crafting fear-based messaging aimed at improving public health.)

According to this 2022 study, the most effective messaging combines fear with hope. Smart marketers should begin by telling people what to be afraid of. They should follow that up by telling people what they should do and what good things will happen if they comply. 

The 2013 study authors say fear-based messages also work better when the recipient feels confident about their ability to actually implement the message’s recommendation. For example, a 2023 study found that one reason anti-drug campaign messaging hasn’t worked is likely that it’s historically recommended total abstinence, rather than harm-reduction. And the 2015 meta-analysis found that fear-based messages worked better when the requested action was a one-time thing rather than something the audience would have to do over and over. All else equal, doing less is more feasible than totally abstaining and a one-time ask is smaller and more feasible than asking for repeated behavior change.  

In sum:

• Fear-based messaging is not clearly/consistently more effective than messaging that evokes other emotions. 

• Fear-based messaging works best when it’s credible and combined with actionable, hope-inspiring advice. 

• Fear-based messaging works best on people who tend to focus more on avoiding bad stuff than obtaining good stuff. 

In my next post I’ll summarize what I could find on fear-based messaging and politics. Stay tuned, my babies!