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

G.J. Peters*, R.A.C. Ruiter, L.T.E. Kessels, G.J. Kok

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleProfessional


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
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2013


Dive into the research topics of 'Angstaanjagende voorlichting: niet effectief, maar desondanks wordt het nog gebruikt'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this