Angstaanjagende voorlichting: niet effectief, maar desondanks wordt het nog gebruikt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleProfessional

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Threatening communication: not effective, but nonetheless still being used threatening communication is a controversial topic. Our recent metaanalysis started this discussion again. In this contribution we briefly explain the theory about threatening communication, we discuss the state of the evidence for effectiveness, and we provide answers to answer a selection of common questions and misundersandings that are pertinent to this issue. Specifically, we will explain why the following claims are erronous: 1) other studies have shown that fear appeals are effective; 2) the goal of threatening communication is not to change behavior, but to increase knowledge/awareness; 3) the goal is not to let people stop unhealthy behavior, but to prevent (young) people from starting; and 4) your meta-analysis was not about smoking (or drugs, sex, etc). We will then briefly explain the evidence as to why this popularity persist, and end with our suggestions for improvement.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)15-18
JournalTijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen
Volume91
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2013

Cite this

@article{1ab6c7d4f6b24e22887d5502ab689d06,
title = "Angstaanjagende voorlichting: niet effectief, maar desondanks wordt het nog gebruikt",
abstract = "Threatening communication: not effective, but nonetheless still being used threatening communication is a controversial topic. Our recent metaanalysis started this discussion again. In this contribution we briefly explain the theory about threatening communication, we discuss the state of the evidence for effectiveness, and we provide answers to answer a selection of common questions and misundersandings that are pertinent to this issue. Specifically, we will explain why the following claims are erronous: 1) other studies have shown that fear appeals are effective; 2) the goal of threatening communication is not to change behavior, but to increase knowledge/awareness; 3) the goal is not to let people stop unhealthy behavior, but to prevent (young) people from starting; and 4) your meta-analysis was not about smoking (or drugs, sex, etc). We will then briefly explain the evidence as to why this popularity persist, and end with our suggestions for improvement.",
author = "G.J. Peters and R.A.C. Ruiter and L.T.E. Kessels and G.J. Kok",
year = "2013",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s12508-013-0009-4",
language = "English",
volume = "91",
pages = "15--18",
journal = "Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen",
issn = "1388-7491",
publisher = "Bohn Stafleu van Loghum B.V.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Angstaanjagende voorlichting: niet effectief, maar desondanks wordt het nog gebruikt

AU - Peters, G.J.

AU - Ruiter, R.A.C.

AU - Kessels, L.T.E.

AU - Kok, G.J.

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - Threatening communication: not effective, but nonetheless still being used threatening communication is a controversial topic. Our recent metaanalysis started this discussion again. In this contribution we briefly explain the theory about threatening communication, we discuss the state of the evidence for effectiveness, and we provide answers to answer a selection of common questions and misundersandings that are pertinent to this issue. Specifically, we will explain why the following claims are erronous: 1) other studies have shown that fear appeals are effective; 2) the goal of threatening communication is not to change behavior, but to increase knowledge/awareness; 3) the goal is not to let people stop unhealthy behavior, but to prevent (young) people from starting; and 4) your meta-analysis was not about smoking (or drugs, sex, etc). We will then briefly explain the evidence as to why this popularity persist, and end with our suggestions for improvement.

AB - Threatening communication: not effective, but nonetheless still being used threatening communication is a controversial topic. Our recent metaanalysis started this discussion again. In this contribution we briefly explain the theory about threatening communication, we discuss the state of the evidence for effectiveness, and we provide answers to answer a selection of common questions and misundersandings that are pertinent to this issue. Specifically, we will explain why the following claims are erronous: 1) other studies have shown that fear appeals are effective; 2) the goal of threatening communication is not to change behavior, but to increase knowledge/awareness; 3) the goal is not to let people stop unhealthy behavior, but to prevent (young) people from starting; and 4) your meta-analysis was not about smoking (or drugs, sex, etc). We will then briefly explain the evidence as to why this popularity persist, and end with our suggestions for improvement.

U2 - 10.1007/s12508-013-0009-4

DO - 10.1007/s12508-013-0009-4

M3 - Article

VL - 91

SP - 15

EP - 18

JO - Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen

JF - Tijdschrift voor Gezondheidswetenschappen

SN - 1388-7491

IS - 1

ER -