IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/zbw/tuisbw/22008.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

Werbewirkung von Furchtappellen: Stand der Forschung

Author

Listed:
  • Gelbrich, Katja
  • Schröder, Eva-Maria

Abstract

Furchtappelle sind persuasive Botschaften, die eine Bedrohung schildern und so das Gefühl der Furcht auslösen möchten. Anschließend wird eine Handlungsempfehlung zur Abwendung dieser Bedrohung gegeben. Man erhofft sich, dass der Rezipient, motiviert durch die Furcht, nun seine Einstellung und sein Verhalten entsprechend ändert. In der vorliegenden Arbeit werden Furchappell-Botschaften mit deren persuasiven und emotionalen Elementen charakterisiert. Anwendungsfelder von Furchtappellen werden identifiziert und voneinander abgegrenzt. Darauf folgend werden klassische Wirkungsmodelle der Furchappellforschung vorgestellt. Hierzu zählen nach den anfänglichen Triebmodellen auch Leventhals Modell der Parallelen Reaktionen, Rogers Theorie der Schutzmotivation und schließlich Wittes Erweitertes Modell der Parallelen Prozesse. Dazugehörige Studien unterlegen die Wirkungsweise der Modelle, die hinsichtlich derer Komponenten und deren Fokus auf Kognition und Emotion vergleichend und kritisch betrachtet werden. Auch der Bezug zu verwandten Theorien wie Thayers Multidimensionalen Ansatz und das Konzept des Message Framing wird aufgezeigt. Abschließend verdeutlicht eine Zusammenfassung die Mängel bisheriger Theorien und weißt auf deren Unzulänglichkeit hin. So entsteht ein umfassender Überblick über den aktuellen Stand der Furchtappellforschung.

Suggested Citation

  • Gelbrich, Katja & Schröder, Eva-Maria, 2008. "Werbewirkung von Furchtappellen: Stand der Forschung," Ilmenauer Schriften zur Betriebswirtschaftslehre, Technische Universität Ilmenau, Institut für Betriebswirtschaftslehre, volume 2, number 22008.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:tuisbw:22008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/55709/1/664322611.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Frisch, Deborah, 1993. "Reasons for Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 399-429, April.
    3. Berger, Paul D & Smith, Gerald E, 1998. "The Impact of Prospect Theory Based Framing Tactics on Advertising Effectiveness," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 593-609, October.
    4. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    5. Levin, Irwin P. & Gaeth, Gary J. & Schreiber, Judy & Lauriola, Marco, 2002. "A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 411-429, May.
    6. Aaker, Jennifer L & Maheswaran, Durairaj, 1997. "The Effect of Cultural Orientation on Persuasion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(3), pages 315-328, December.
    7. Ganzach, Yoav & Karsahi, Nili, 1995. "Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 11-17, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hasseldine, John & Hite, Peggy A., 2003. "Framing, gender and tax compliance," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 517-533, August.
    2. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    3. Mathur, Pragya & Jain, Shailendra Pratap & Hsieh, Meng-Hua & Lindsey, Charles D. & Maheswaran, Durairaj, 2013. "The influence of implicit theories and message frame on the persuasiveness of disease prevention and detection advocacies," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 141-151.
    4. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    5. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    6. Yang Li & Dandan Yang & Yingying Liu, 2021. "The Effect of Message Framing on Consumers’ Intentions to Purchase Recycling-Aiding Products in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    7. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    8. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.
    9. Krishnamoorthy, Ganesh & Maroney, James J. & Ó hÓgartaigh, Ciarán, 2008. "20-F reconciliations and investment recommendations by financial professionals," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(4), pages 355-362, April.
    10. Kuvaas, Bard & Selart, Marcus, 2004. "Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 198-207, November.
    11. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno, 2018. "All’s fair in taxation: A framing experiment with local politicians," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 26-40.
    12. Klaus Abbink & Heike Hennig-Schmidt, 2006. "Neutral versus loaded instructions in a bribery experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 103-121, June.
    13. Kuhberger, Anton & Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael & Perner, Josef, 1999. "The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 204-231, June.
    14. Yi-Fen Chen & Shi-Han Chang, 2016. "The online framing effect: the moderating role of warning, brand familiarity, and product type," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 355-374, September.
    15. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    16. Levin, Irwin P. & Gaeth, Gary J. & Schreiber, Judy & Lauriola, Marco, 2002. "A New Look at Framing Effects: Distribution of Effect Sizes, Individual Differences, and Independence of Types of Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 411-429, May.
    17. Alexander, Phyllis & Balavac-Orlic, Merima, 2022. "Tax morale: Framing and fairness," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 46(1).
    18. Cullis, John & Jones, Philip & Lewis, Alan, 2006. "Tax framing, Instrumentality and individual differences: Are there two different cultures?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 304-320, April.
    19. Kim, Jungkeun & Kim, Jae-Eun & Marshall, Roger, 2014. "Search for the underlying mechanism of framing effects in multi-alternative and multi-attribute decision situations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 378-385.
    20. Kuehnhanss, Colin R. & Heyndels, Bruno & Hilken, Katharina, 2015. "Choice in politics: Equivalency framing in economic policy decisions and the influence of expertise," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 360-374.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:zbw:tuisbw:22008. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwtuide.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.