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
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper ainoagpieters. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €10,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
