Health promotion psychology-fear arousal (Study by ruiter)

Approach:

Cognitive

Aim:

To examine the effect of fear arousal on attitude toward participating in early detection activities(breast self examination for cancer)

Method:

Lab experiment/independent measures

Sample:

Volunteer sample of 88 female participants, all first year undergraduates who attended he university of Maastricht in the Netherlands. Mean age of 20.

Procedure:

Participants were randomly assigned to a 2 x 2 condition

Conditions were 

1. Low versus mild fear 

2. Weak versus strong argument 

Participants completed a questionnaire measuring there pre experimental attitude towards self examination. They were the. Told that they would evaluate the effectiveness of several educational messages about breast cancer.

The experiment was computer controlled. Participants first read a message about the threat of breast cancer (containing manipulation of fear). This was followed by a self report measure of fear arousal. The participants then read a message about performing a monthly breast examination these were supported by 8 weak or 8 strong arguments. A questionnaire was then administered with the post-experimental attitude as the dependant variable. The fear manipulation consisted of different levels of implied severity of breast cancer and susceptibility of participant. Argument strength varied.

Measures - Level of fear arousal was measured by reaction to 10 mood adjectives e.g nervous, frightened. These were then put on a 4 point scale and then averages into a fear arousal index

Attitude towards performing a monthly breast self-examination was assessed by four 7-point word pairs e.g. Unimportant-important. These were then averaged into a single attitude index. 2 items asked participants if they knew someone who had suffered breast cancer or another kind of cancer. Participants were then fully debriefed an offered information on breast cancer and how to perform the self examinations

Results:

The main effect of manipulated fear was not statistically significant. Nor was the predicted interaction between fear and argument strength.

However there was a significant main  effect of argument strength suggesting argument based message processing, irrespective of the level of evoked fear. There was also significant interaction between reported fear and argument strength. Participants with low fear did not differ in attitude towards breast self examination after reading either the weak or strong persuasive message. Whereas those who reported mild fear indicated that they had evoke more positive towards breast self examination after reason the strong persuasive message rather than the weak message.

Discussion:

Unlike earlier studies this study found only effect of reported fear. The authors conceded that it would have been more reliable to use physiological measures of reported fear rather than relying on self report measures. They concluded that their study supported the hypothesis that evoked fear motivates people into more argument based processing l.

However they accepted that their findings may only be generalizable to breast self examination or similar detection methods and should not be generalised to primary prevention behaviours such as using condoms to prevent HIV

Evaluation
 

Sample:

Advantage(A): 88 is an ok sample size. Volunteer sampling is a quick and easy method.

Disadvantage(D): It only reprints first year students. The age of students could be influential in their responses. Only conducted in the Netherlands. Volunteers may be A typical as they may have petticoat beliefs about the topic area before it began.

Validity:

A: high level of control for ensuring they could establish cause and effect through direct manipulation of the fear arousal IV 

No order effects as it was an IMD.

Mood adjectives should have been fairly clear:

D:IMD means that these is possibility of participant variables.

Possibly issues of interpretation of scales.

Reliability:

A: quantitate data was gathered which can be reliability measured.

D: Self report measures of reported fear may not be as effective as physiological ones.

Ethics:

A: P's volunteered so consent would have been gained. P's were fully debriefed and offered information on breast cancer and how to perform self-examination 

D: Is the use of fear ethical? Sensitive topic so protection would be a consideration

Effectiveness:

A: significant effect of strength of message on p's who reported mild fear rather than low fear.

D: No significant effect of the manipulation of fear. Fear manipulation did not have a direct effect.

Usefulness:

A: the finding are important as they show that an audience may be receptive to health promotion where fear of a condition is already high or where such fear can be evoked by emotive imagery

D:  findings may only be generalizable to breast self examination or similar detection methods and should not be generalised to primary prevention behaviours such as using condoms to prevent HIV