Summary Critical Review - Health Communication - grade: 9
29 views 0 purchase
Course
Health Communication (77643SP05Y)
Institution
Universiteit Van Amsterdam (UvA)
This is the critical review I wrote during this course. My grade was a 9 for this paper. The review is about the Tannenbaum et al. (2015) paper with Kok's (2016) paper. Good luck!
Problem analysis: description
i) The paper of Tannenbaum et al. (2015) performed a meta-analysis to test the effects that
fear appeals have on attitudes, intentions and behaviours. Fear appeals are persuasive
messages that attempt to arouse fear by emphasizing the potential danger and harm that
people will have if they do not follow the recommended behaviour. One of the hypotheses
they tested is if the lack of efficacy statements in fear appeals will produce weaker effects. An
efficacy statement assures message recipients that they are capable of performing the fear
appeal’s recommended actions (self-efficacy) and/or that performing the recommended
actions will result in desirable consequences (response-efficacy). There are two forms of
efficacy statement hypothesis. The strong hypothesis states that fear appeals without efficacy
statements will produce negative effects and will backfire. The weak hypothesis states that
fear appeals without efficacy statements will produce weaker effects relative to fear appeals
with efficacy statements. The paper from Tannenbaum et al. (2015) finds support for the weak
hypothesis.
ii) Tannenbaum et al. (2015) had 5 criteria that they were using to decide which articles they
were going to use in their meta-analysis and which articles would be excluded from the study.
The focus of this critical review will be on the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis which
led to a support of the weak hypothesis.
iii) Another paper that looked at the effects of efficacy statements in fear appeals is the paper
from Kok (2016). In his paper he performs a meta-analysis on studies that contain scary
images on cigarette packages and if they have an effect on changing the behaviour of smokers
to quit smoking. To decide which papers he included in his analysis he introduced 3 concrete
criteria for a true experimental design. The results from his study found support for the strong
hypothesis instead of the weak hypothesis that Tannenbaum found.
Problem analysis: gap Part A
i) Kok (2016) has introduced in his paper 3 criteria that decide which study has a true
experimental design. He uses these criteria to decide which studies he is going to include in
his meta-analysis and which studies he is going to exclude. The first criterion is that a study
must contain different interventions or conditions. Most studies do not use an appropriate
comparison condition. The second criterion is that a study must have a random assignment of
1
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ainoagpieters. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.28. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
