Fear Appeal Definition in Business

Introduction

After a 2 ½ year referendum campaign, Scotland voted 55% to 45% to remain within the United Kingdom in 2014 (Watts 2014). Yes Scotland announced an intention to run a positive, hope based grassroots campaign highlighting the hopes and opportunities of independence. The opposing side, Better Together developed "Project Fear" (Gordon 2014) and ran a successful media based operation to generate fear of Independence. Grounded in the campaigns run in this referendum, this article uniquely examines the dynamic interaction between hope and fear appeals used by competing organizations in order to develop a prescription on how political parties might use hope/fear appeals and what emotional effects these might induce in the target audience.

Emotional appeals are commonly used to stimulate voter engagement in UK political advertising (Scammell and Langer 2006). Whilst much is known of how fear appeals work (Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner 2007; Witte and Allen 2000; Passyn and Sujan 2006; Bar‐Tal 2001; Fredrickson and Branigan 2005), less is known about hope appeals (Fredrickson and Branigan 2005; MacInnis and De Mello 2005; Winterich and Haws 2011). Further, little work examines how fear and hope can be used together (de Vos 2015; Spears, Blankson, and Guzmán 2012), or how these archetypes operate against the other (Poels and Dewitte 2008; Fredrickson and Branigan 2005), and how they might operate together in either a comparative advertising setting or in a political campaign setting. This is surprising given this dynamic is ever-present in political campaigns. Consider, for example, the hopeful approach adopted by New Labor in the 1997 General Election campaign juxtaposed with the Conservatives ultimately unsuccessful fear appeal approach in the same election (as evidenced by the "Demon eyes" campaign).¹

As hope and fear appeals are often deployed against the other in the dialogue between opposing parties in political campaigns, research is needed to understand how party communication strategists might create desired outcomes despite being undermined by the opposing appeal. In particular, questions remain regarding how one appeal type might be used to mitigate or undermine the effects of the other and for a campaign predominantly using one type of appeal, how can it best employ the opposing appeal (i.e. using hope and fear against fear).

To provide some answers, a single context (Scottish Referendum), dual unit (Yes versus No) case study is undertaken with a qualitative content analysis to examine the dynamic interplay between hope and fear and to articulate how these emotional appeals are constructed during a vigorously contested (political) campaign, with what emotional effects in the target audience. This contribution is important as referenda are used increasingly more frequently (e.g. UK's 2016 referendum on EU membership, the Dutch 2016 referendum on EU-Ukraine deal), but also because hope/fear appeals are not only prevalent in referendum campaigning (Laycock 2013), but also in social campaigns (e.g. eating healthily or anti-smoking), highlighting how the findings from this paper can contribute to social communications contexts.

The paper is structured as follows: firstly, the literature on fear and hope appeals is reviewed, before the methodological approach is outlined. The findings section presents an analysis of why and how these appeals were adopted. Finally, the discussion section examines how hope and fear appeals were used, the insights this offers on how to employ them prescriptively in future marketing contexts and the remaining gaps in knowledge, allowing the mapping of a future research agenda.

Literature review: emotional appeals in political communications

Fear appeals

Fear is an unconscious, instinctive response to a perceived threat existing in the present though often grounded in past memories. It is perceived to be easier to evoke, particularly when using images of visceral, evolved threats, e.g. physical harm and harm to one's family (Bar‐Tal 2001). Fear appeals are based on uncertainty toward the consequences of a given action (i.e. voting) and, along with hope, represent two of the most commonly used approaches in political marketing (O'Shaughnessy and Henneberg 2007; Simons 2016).

According to Witte and Allen (2000) to create fear, the threat must make the person feel at risk from experiencing it (perceived susceptibility) and that it is sufficiently severe (perceived severity) to cause harm. This highlights the importance of personal relevance (Keller 1999), a threshold effect (Gore et al. 1998), that it is expected to happen, and that a solution is provided to reduce the possible negative consequence (Williams 2012).

Witte and Allen (2000) also highlight how, after the subjective point where fear is felt (the lower threshold), the higher the level of fear induced, the more persuasive the advert. Though debate remains as to the shape of this relationship with both direct linear and U-shaped relationships posited (Bagozzi and Moore 1994; Keller 1999).

If the threat portrayed in fear appeals is perceived as personally relevant, sufficiently severe, and likely to occur then Dalley and Buunk (2011) claim these appeals are more powerful than hope as the vivid nature of fear brings the feared-self closer than the hoped-for-self. Based on this review, dimensions of relevance, significance and expectation of occurring are used to structure the analysis of how the opposing campaigns attempted to create (or reduce) fear.

This and the dimensions of hope explored in the next section allow a more precise understanding of why efforts to create these emotions may have failed or were undermined by opposing appeals.

Fear appeals in political marketing

Whilst fear appeals are used regularly in both elections and referenda (Boukala and Dimitrakopoulou 2017; Dean 2005; O'Shaughnessy and Henneberg 2007; Simons 2016), and politics provide a context that facilitates their use, there is limited evidence of the effect of using these persuasive mechanisms. This might explain why debate exists regarding the effectiveness of negative campaigning (of which fear is one type) in achieving short-term aims or on the political system (Lau, Sigelman, and Rovner 2007). For example, negative campaigns have been shown to increase voter turnout (Goldstein and Freedman 2002), decrease it, (Ansolabehere et al. 1994) and have no effect (Krasno and Green 2008), with Krupnikov (2014) suggesting this might depend on message timing. Consequently, negative campaigning, usually based on partisan values and playing on voters' fears (Axford et al. 1992), should be used carefully, as it can lead to unintended effects (Redlawsk, Civettini, and Emmerson 2010).

This is not to say evidence of how to increase fear appeal effectiveness in political marketing contexts does not exist to guide practitioners. For example, increasing the speed with which advertisement and news reports are shown as parts of negative campaigning amplifies their ability to generate anxieties, doubts and fears because less time is allowed for viewers to process for qualification or defence (Butler and Harris 2009). From a targeting perspective, men appear to be more tolerant of it and more likely to vote for a party using it than women (Brooks 2010). Partisanship also affects how messages are assessed. Worcester et al. (2017) found evidence of motivated reasoning (Kunda 1990) with party supporters particularly likely to believe messages from their own parties due to partisan voters demonstrating the same characteristics as those identified in being in a dedicated partnership (or loyalty) to a brand (Smith and French 2009).

Hope appeals

In contrast, hope is a "positively-valenced emotion evoked in response to an uncertain but possible goal-congruent outcome" (MacInnis and De Mello 2005, 2), requiring cognition (Bar‐Tal 2001) and risk assessment (MacInnis and De Mello 2005). Work by Lazarus (1991) highlights that hope is predicated on an assessment that one's current life is unsatisfactory (Lazarus 1999). Roth and Hammelstein (2007) suggest there is an expectation that a possible, positively rated event will occur and these are treated as separate dimensions. MacInnis and Chun (2007) suggest that there are different conceptualizations of hope; first, it consists of the expectation that something desired will occur and second, that it arises in response to a threat with both versions highlighting its relation to optimism.

Poels and Dewitte (2008) differentiate between promotion hope – to achieve a positive outcome – and prevention hope – to avoid a negative consequence (and so hope is predicated on fear and loss). Prevention hope leads to more goal-directed behavior, e.g. voting (Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer 1999; Nelissen 2017; Poels and Dewitte 2008), although neither study examined these effects against fear or another negative appeal.

In contrast to fear, positive emotions expand the scope and array of attention capabilities, cognitions, behavioral intentions, and actions (Fredrickson and Branigan 2005) and build confidence and assurance in exchange relationships (Morrison and Firmstone 2000). The desired expectation of positivity materializing (Kaufman 2011), even when unlikely, allows hope to endure and persuade (Lazarus 1999). It may, however, lead to confirmation bias (Nickerson 1998) and to distorted, over-confident assessments of future outcomes (O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy 2002) and therefore become false hope (Polivy and Herman 2000).

Hope appeals tend to be less vivid than fear appeals and harder to dramatize. This is because hope is a fantasy constructed on intangibles not currently in existence except in the imagination, whereas fear appeals can reference something the targets currently possess and could lose (e.g. jobs, health). To deploy hope, one should provide information and symbols that turn the impossible into the possible (Bar‐Tal 2001; MacInnis and De Mello 2005).

Chadwick (2015) provides addition guidance on how to develop hope appeals. She operationalized four components and found that where the hopeful alternatives are perceived as important, goal congruent, and possible, they affect subjective feelings of hope. This supports MacInnis and De Mello (2005) conceptualization and so they are used as the basis upon which the analysis of how the opposing campaigns attempted to create (or reduce) hope.

Hope appeals in political marketing

Hope appeals are another traditional political marketing reflex, often focused on increased prosperity (Lees-Marshment 2014) and by invoking them, they can claim the moral high-ground and position themselves as a positive force (Ormrod, Henneberg, and O'Shaughnessy 2013). Witness Obama's "Yes We Can" mantra in the 2008 US Presidential election. Parties challenging the status quo often elicit hope for change, though fear is also used as an alternative (Lau and Pomper (2004). Though whilst commonly used, research on hope appeals within marketing and political marketing is even more scarce than those examining fear (Lazarus 1999; Poels and Dewitte 2008).

Hope vs fear appeals

There is a belief that hope can overcome fear, for example, in the presence of disease (Hillbrand and Young 2008), conflict (Bar‐Tal 2001) and climate change (Clingerman and Ehret 2013). Extant work examining how hope overrides fear and fear overwhelms hope rely on this key relationship and the emotions' instinctual/cognitive basis. As Bar-Tal (2001, 605) states "if hope can subdue the often irrational and spontaneous domination of fear, it must do so through reasoning and imagination."

The process underlying this effect relies on Fredrikson's (2001) broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, stating that emotional types are controlled by different but reciprocal processing systems (Cacioppo and Gardner 1999) where, as one increases, the other falls. Hence hope increases the number of thoughts and actions an individual might typically consider (Fredrickson 2001) and fear reduces them (Fredrickson and Levenson 1998), consequently, according to Spears, Blankson, and Guzmán (2012), hope can overcome the effects of fear.

Spears, Blankson, and Guzmán (2012), using Folkman and Moskowitz (2000) strategies for maintaining positive emotions during chronic stress, examine how hope can undermine fear in advertising. They demonstrated that in a high fear scenario (e.g. developing skin cancer), hope cognitions (e.g. "energizing oneself to handle fear") and personal action plans can reduce it. Rather than instilling hope, these successful interventions reduce fear by increasing perceived efficacy (Witte and Allen 2000). Kitzinger and Williams (2005) highlight how hope created by media use relied on a range of rhetorical devices that made the hoped-for reality more possible, important and goal congruent, whilst marginalizing fears.

Hope and fear are often interlinked in political campaigns and the relationship between the two can be considered as one presupposing, and being derived from, the other (i.e. the production of hope is a counter-response to the arousal of fear and the maintenance of fear occurs when there is an absence of hope). Whereas opposing campaigns may look to increase feelings of fear or hope, parties can impose self-inflicted wounds. Hope appeals can be too fanciful and be dismissed as unlikely (O'Shaughnessy and O'Shaughnessy 2002). When using fear appeals, constant repetition reduces a threat's impact as viewers habituate to it and the threat can be extinguished (Raio et al. 2012).

Political and referendum marketing campaigns are contested as part of wider, combative, fluid contests where unlike commercial manufactured goods or services, frequent direct attacks are made on the opposing brand(s) and their intended position (Lock and Harris 1996). There is a particular dearth of work examining this interplay and the utilization of hope in response to fear appeals. Consequently, we believe we have identified an important gap in the literature; one worthy of further investigation given its ubiquitous use in political and referendum campaigns to settle important public policy questions and help political marketing practitioners understand how to employ these appeals more effectively. This research, therefore, seeks to explore the following research question:

RQ. How are hope (fear) appeals used to undermine and/or negate fear (hope) appeals?

Study context: the Scottish independence referendum

By setting out to answer the question, the Scottish independence referendum provides a single context, dual unit (Yes and No campaigns) extreme case (Gerring 2004) of political campaigning. Referenda are being used increasingly in the UK (for example, 1975 EC membership; 1979 devolution in Scotland and Wales; 1997 devolution in Scotland and Wales; 2004 North East England; 2011 UK Alternative Vote and the 2016 "Brexit" vote on EU membership). Research suggests that referenda, including those on constitutional affairs, take place in a low information environment where voters feel less informed than in elections (Mendelsohn and Cutler 2002). Campaign groups (such as Yes Scotland and Better Together) play an important yet highly partial role in providing information and generating interest in the decision hence messages designed to elicit visceral emotions are a legitimate tactic.

The Scottish Independence referendum provided a particular rich context in which to study hope versus fear appeals because, whilst referenda and elections campaigns are typically short and use a restricted range of messages, this referendum was fought over nearly 3 years and touched on a wide range of emotive issues including national identity, poverty and social justice. Hence, the Scottish referendum allowed a longer term examination of campaign material capable of highlighting the nuanced and reactive use of hope and fear strategies and how their use developed over time and in response to one another.

Methodology

A qualitative content analysis (Kassarjian and Kassarjian 1988; Krippendorff 2018) was used to examine how hope and fear appeals were operationalized and employed against one another. Content analysis is defined as "a technique for making replicable and valid inferences from data to their context" (Krippendorff 2018, 403). Content analysis has been widely used to understand the content of communications across a broad range of media such as print media (Nimegeer et al. 2017), social media (Ashley and Tuten 2015), print and online advertising (Belch and Belch 2013; Dahl, Eagle, and Báez 2009) and outdoor media (Bragg et al. 2017). It is a rigorous method for examining what a message communicates, the effects this can have, and it allows a deeper understanding of a sender's motives to be inferred (Krippendorff 2018). As such it represents an ideal methodology for revealing the underlying structures (or constituent dimension) by which hope and fear appeals were operationalized, how the elements used to operationalize these have changed over time and in response to messages of their opponents.

The analysis focused on the two "designated organizations" (Yes Scotland and Better Together). Other groups campaigned for a yes vote such as the "Radical Independence Campaign" and "Women for Independence," and "No Borders" and "Let's Stay Together" campaigned for No. Whilst they too used hope or fear based messaging, there was little dynamic interplay between these different groups, hence the focus here on the main designated organization.

The sample from which the qualitative content was conducted included a full set of printed campaign materials (flyers, billboards and newspaper advertisements) and an extensive set of 102 videos and graphics distributed online via social media channels (Facebook and Twitter) and via email by the two campaigns. These were collected from May 2012 until polling day on the 18th September 2014. The sample of 48 texts were purposefully chosen for analysis to ensure representation across the campaigning time frame, to include a broad range of the specific issues focused upon (economy, jobs, pensions, prosperity, self-determination), and to include all printed pieces (and hence the texts most widely distributed) from both campaigns. Most communications addressed more than one issue, i.e. in the first leaflet widely distributed by Better Together in 2012, uncertainty over the economy was highlighted via concern about jobs. However, the communication was categorized according to the main issue they focused upon (identified via headline, slogan and focus of introductory content). This was felt preferable to grouping the communications using more than one variable (i.e. economy, jobs, and prosperity) as doing so would have created many categories containing one or two examples. See Table 1.

The Dynamic Interplay of Hope vs Fear Appeals in a Referendum Context

Published online:

11 March 2021

Table 1. The breakdown of campaign sample.

In order to provide rules and procedure, the coding frame was designed according to the following principles:

1. to record general structures such as the aim of the communication,

2. its focus and appeal type, such as Hope, Fear, Prevention Hope and Promotion Hope (Peols and DeWitt 2008).

3. with fear appeals, a priori codes from the literature were employed, i.e. relevant, significant and expected to happen (Dalley and Buunk 2011).

4. likewise, for hope appeals, goal congruent, possible, important and expected (Chadwick 2015; MacInnis and De Mello 2005; Roth and Hammelstein 2007) were employed as a priori codes.

One of the authors lived in Scotland during the campaign and undertook participant observation of the referendum campaigns, examining the visual texts and providing a coding of the texts. There may therefore have been some bias contained within the initial analysis, but this is offset by the consideration of these by other authors.

Findings

The findings section is structured around examining how the campaigns attempted to create their desired emotional position and then examining the campaign interplay as they responded to each and worked to undermine their opponent's position whilst repairing, fortifying and extending their own. First, a brief overview of the organizations contesting the Scottish Independence referendum is provided as is their choice of fear versus hope campaign positioning.

Hope or fear? Choosing a campaign archetype

The referendum was officially fought between Yes Scotland (YS) – an alliance between the SNP, the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) and unaligned individuals – and Better Together (BT) – an umbrella organization comprising the Labor, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats parties. BT used a centralized hierarchical messaging structure, focusing on creating fear and uncertainty around independence. YS used a grassroots volunteer centered strategy to attempt to build a hopeful case for an independent Scotland. Neither campaign used positive or negative emotional appeals exclusively.

The analysis highlights how the referendum conditions helped determine the competing approaches undertaken by Yes Scotland and Better Together (Boelpaep 2014; Saul 2014). The decision involved choosing an unknown/unknowable future, where "certainties" could not be guaranteed. Communications from both sides highlighted this uncertainty at the heart of their campaigns to the detriment of the opposition.

Whilst initially promising to provide a positive vision for voting no, BT used fear as its main campaign archetype and called its own strategy "Project Fear" (Gordon 2014). The fear approach was appropriate given the campaign's aims. As the group promoting the low-risk option (i.e. no change in Scotland's constitutional status), all it had to do was ensure that enough voters did not change their intentions (What Scotland Thinks 2014b).

Fears are more readily represented in vivid communications (MacInnis and De Mello 2005), and supporters are less likely to see negative campaigns as negative (as per the motivated reasoning argument). Hence, attempting to create fear of the unknown future rather than the hope of a better future in the UK, was easier to achieve for BT, more readily attended to, and accepted by the target audiences. Conversely, as wanting change is an inherently hopeful position, framing those previously exercising power as not doing a good job means that a prevention hope strategy used to construct a positive alternative view appears logical. Prevention hope was the most commonly used approach by YS.

BT: creating fear of the unknown and the security of the known

Right from the off, the No campaign focused consistently on their opponent's economic offer to create and maintain fear and uncertainty. Rather than using overtly emotional fear appeals, they used objective fear appeals based on rational threats representing the fear of the unknown (and unknowable) and the fear of both credible/unanticipated consequences. Appeals used to achieve this employed a range of themes (jobs, pensions, cost of living). They followed the pattern of first stating the risks (of separation), then contrasting these with the security of the known (see Table 2 and Appendix 1).

The Dynamic Interplay of Hope vs Fear Appeals in a Referendum Context

Published online:

11 March 2021

Table 2. Summary of No campaign messages.

As can be seen below, taken from the two first leaflets referred to in Table 2, the economic threat is presented with some subtlety through the use of implicit threats rather than overt warnings. The No campaign also includes the rhetorical solidarity inherent in the No campaign's (Better Together) brand name and taps into biases that larger is stronger than smaller, i.e. Scotland as a "wee" (small) country will sink without the sustenance of the UK (Devine 2008). By focusing on the known/normative issues, the audiences are brought back to the present time, creating a contrast to the future, distant nature of hope.

Just one reason we are better together. 1 in 5 workers in Scotland are employed by English, Welsh and Northern Irish firms.

Just one reason we are better together. The pensions of 1,000,000 Scots are guaranteed by the UK welfare system (BT leaflet).

Tactical devices included using language and tone with phrases such as "the facts you need" and reproducing statistics and statements from "expert" academics/organizations (Kitzinger and Williams 2005). The definitive language makes the threats and the economic risks credible. By focusing on jobs, currency and pensions, these fear appeals are highlighted as personally relevant and significant. This can also be seen as highlighting the feared self (Dalley and Buunk 2011), i.e. being unemployed or without a guaranteed pension, and bringing it closer to realization.

Overall, Table 2 highlights BT's consistent use of fear appeals and that they focused on creating relevant and significant threats. Where it could be controlled (but not by BT) the threat was implied or generated using vague language (it "might" occur). BT relied on the implied threat and the voter's imagination to enhance that threat. This attack type was used over long periods of time (for example, see the Appendix 1 "Goodbye" leaflet, see also Table 2).

YS: constructing a hopeful future

From May to December 2013, the Yes campaign used promotion hope appeals (Poels and Dewitte 2008) structured so that a threat was implied, abstract future goals were presented, and then rhetorical devices were used to construct hope. For example, in the text below from YS' first grassroots volunteer distributed leaflet, "a different direction" and "path" as rhetorical devices are used to support voters' feelings of self-efficacy. Such a message was designed to increase voters' beliefs in the possibility of the hope. It also brings the impact of the decision forward in time and attempts to influence personal autonomy and increase voters' feelings of power and their ability to change their future; further boosting the possibility of the hoped-for outcome occurring.

The referendum will give us all the chance to choose a different direction, and say YES to a new and more positive future for our country. A path that will lead to a fairer, greener and more prosperous society

("Yes: Now What's the Question?" YS Leaflet, Appendix 2)

By asking readers to imagine a "more positive future for our country" an unsatisfactory present situation is implied which acts to increase beliefs that the hopeful alternative is important. The hopeful vision is framed as greener, fairer and more prosperous; ideals used throughout the campaign designed to be goal congruent. The abstract nature of these goals means that they are difficult to disagree with, partly because they are sufficiently vague to allow a wide range of interpretations and thus potentially creating goal congruence.

YS: creating fear of the status quo as the basis for change

As the campaign developed, YS moved to using a prevention hope strategy where hope was positioned as providing a solution to prevent a feared outcome that the Opposition would implement (Poels and Dewitte 2008). That was namely the lack of control over one's life (a theme also emphasized very successfully by "Leave" in the 2016 UK Referendum on EU membership). This feared, negative alternative was stated explicitly and projected as relevant, significant and expected to happen. Explicit statements about continued rule and imposition of policies by "Westminster" (the seat of UK government) and the "Tories" (the Conservative and Unionist party) cement this positioning. In this way, YS sought to create fear of the status quo:

Time after time, the policies we reject are taken forward in crucial areas- from the poll tax in the past to the bedroom tax and austerity cuts today. Westminster isn't working for Scotland. It's been taking us in the wrong direction for too many years. That's why we need Independence…

Between 1970 and 2014 Scotland will have had Tory-Led government we didn't vote for in 26 out of 44 years…

Scotland's future will be in the hands of those who care most about our nation- the people of Scotland. We are best placed to make decisions that affect our lives. We've already shown this in health, education and justice through the Scottish parliament.

("Where is Scotland on Westminster's radar" YS Leaflet Table 3 and Appendix 2)

The Dynamic Interplay of Hope vs Fear Appeals in a Referendum Context

Published online:

11 March 2021

Table 3. Summary of Yes campaign messages.

This quote also shows attempts to make the threat credible by constructing it as relevant and significant through highlighting specific economic policies affecting its target audiences ("bedroom tax" and "austerity cuts"). By highlighting the frequent past occurrence of the threat (i.e. years of Tory rule) expectations that it will occur again are increased. This pattern of linking the status quo to specific policies exemplifies the creation of a known and normative present threat. Having attempted to create a credible threat, hope is provided with the Prevention hope appeal. This is brought forward in time by framing the choice with examples of existing Scottish parliamentary powers.

Other tactics creating fear of the status quo included attempts to reframe current beliefs about who is to blame for the perceived negative current state. This often included definitive tone and language, the use of academics, experts and statistics. Rhetorically, numerous promotional materials turned the name and core message of the opposition campaign against itself. This device acts to make the threat from the status quo appear more relevant, expected and significant as follows:

The UK is the World's 4^th most unequal country in the developed world. Still think we are "better together?" (see Table 3, Appendix 2).

By continuing with their contrasting approach, YS hoped voters would notice BT's narrowly focused fear-appeal more readily. They hoped voters might feel that BT was overdoing the fear appeal use, thereby reducing its potency and leading to negative ethical appraisals (Garramone 1984). Prevention hope appeals allow for hope to undermine opponents' fear.

Emotional dialogue: contesting hope and fear

A key part of any political campaign revolves around negating or countering the position created by opponents and responding to their attacks (i.e. rebuttal). In explaining how both campaigns attempted to do this, how BT sought to reduce the hope created by YS and how both sides sought to reduce the fear associated with their own visions is considered next in the sections which follow.

Killing hope

BT's communication sought to undermine YS's hopeful vision. Their messages focused on explicitly (or implicitly) stating that important foundations of the positive future vision were either unlikely to occur or unachievable, hence highlighting reducing the possibility of hope. This emotional appeal type is categorized here as hope reduction and adds to the types previously identified by Poels and Dewitte (2008). Table 2 highlights how such appeals were used, solely, and with fear appeals. Hope is attacked most frequently by reducing the likelihood that it will occur.

As per fear appeals, BT focused their hope reduction appeal on independence economics and undermining beliefs about Scotland's ability to afford the change. For six months, BT sought to undermine YS's assertion that an independent Scotland would continue to use the pound sterling in a currency union with the remainder of the UK (Gordon 2014). BT responded to state the UK would not allow this (see Table 2 "Goodbye" and Appendix 1). In response, YS responded by saying that Scotland could not be stopped from using the pound as it owned the currency too and they highlighted that as a free floating currency it was available for any country to use. These messages attempted, unsuccessfully, to reestablish the possibility of their vision. Motivated reasoning (Kunda 1990) would predict however that it is more likely that the No supporters believed the UK finance minister rather than YS sources (Black 2014).

BT simultaneously attacked the hope aimed at encouraging specific voter groups but where their hoped-for circumstance was under external control. Examples include seeking to undermine the idea that Scotland would remain in the European Union by highlighting the support of a senior EU official for their position and publicizing the proposed relocation out of Scotland by some large employers (Parker 2014). YS's main response was to deny these threats existed by stating that establishment plots existed to undermine independence and/or they were bluffing. This position lacked credibility and hope was self-destroyed as being less possible.

Reducing the fear of change and the fear of the status quo

In addition to creating hope (fear), both campaigns needed to reduce the fear of the future. Appeals taking this focus are labeled as fear reduction. As with hope reduction appeals, having first reduced one emotion, attempts are made to build the opposite, in this instance, hope (Cacioppo and Gardner 1999). The "It all adds up" leaflet (see Table 3 and Appendix 2) exemplifies YS's fear reduction appeal type use. It seeks to reduce the expectation that the fearful alternative will occur by reframing (through a question and answer format) current beliefs upon which the fear rests. The threat's significance is highlighted by discussing the economy in the present. Another regular fear reduction tactic used by YS (and its grassroots volunteers) was to try to use ridicule and sarcasm to reduce the threat's significance (See Table 3 "Saucer-men invade Scotland"). Exactly, how these appeal types work is beyond the scope of this article, so we do not consider further.

In response to attempts to create fear of the status quo, BT could have built hope or reduced fear. It used fear reduction appeals focused on saying "we'll change." Similar to hope reduction appeals, these sought to reduce the expectation that the feared vision would occur by focusing on areas under BT's control. For example, two weeks before voting, former UK Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, a native Scot, offered extensive new powers (Carrell and Wintour 2014). The leaders of all three unionist parties endorsed this, provided an implementation timetable, summed up by: "Vote No for faster, better, safer change" (Table 2). This attempted to reduce the status quo threat, implying a hopeful alternative (new powers to help improve Scotland) could be reasonably expected as it was under the control of those making the offer. This was an astute response, reinforcing full independence as the risky alternative whilst moving from the other extreme position (no change) to the middle ground representing limited change with relative certainty. Table 4 integrates the findings of this research with existing work on how hope and fear appeals are elicited, maintained and reduced.

The Dynamic Interplay of Hope vs Fear Appeals in a Referendum Context

Published online:

11 March 2021

Table 4. Summary of where and how to use hope and fear appeals.

Discussion

BT ran a nuanced fear-based campaign consistently focusing on the (economic) uncertainty of the decision and their opponents' vision, whilst providing reassurance, at the last minute, that significant, safer change would come. Their communications used simple messages to evoke fear. The fear appeal use in BT's campaigns aimed to marginalize the opponent (Hughes and Dann 2009), in this case, Yes Scotland. YS moved from using promotion hope appeals to using prevention hope as its strategy developed to include greater use of status quo fear. Two versions of the prevention hope appeals were identified – one where hope was constructed first, followed by presenting the fear to be avoided and the second, more prevalent, reversed this pattern. So, fear was constructed before hope was provided. Their communications contained more details and structure designed to engage cognition (Bar‐Tal 2001) as the core approach to creating hope and counteracting fear.

The approach used for setting up the initial campaign positions varied. The side looking to create fear of change focused on the economic basis of its opponent's hopeful vision. Thus, fear was created not in the vision itself (though some voters might have felt threatened) but whether it could be realized. By choosing concrete issues such as jobs, pensions and currency, the threat was made relevant and significant.

By contrast, the group promoting change attempted to construct a likely vision of the future that encapsulated the core principles of its political constituents and target audience. The abstract concepts chosen allowed for different interpretations as to their meaning, creating a heterotopic space under which support for independence could be marshaled. By directly providing these ideals, they constructed a goal-congruent, possible and important future. Both sides sought to create their desired emotion by bringing the imagined future forward in time (de Graaf 2016) and building voters' personal efficacy (Witte and Allen 2000).

When responding directly to their opponents, BT focused on reducing the likelihood of YS's hopeful vision occurring by highlighting that YS was not in control of key decisions required to effect its vision. YS attempted to undermine their opponent's case by creating status quo fear. They used the past, the present and existing negative emotions to create a threat perceived as relevant/irrelevant, significant and possible. BT focused on reducing the fear's implied possibility by promising that the vote against the wider change was not a vote against all change and these new powers would be repatriated to the Scottish parliament. This position appeared credible. The locus of control determined whether definitive language could be used or whether the threat's likelihood was couched in vaguer terms. Where one side used emotive language or imagery, the other responded with rational, academic or scientifically credible sources relying primarily on statistics to present a counter-argument. This fits with and extends the notion of using rationality to counteract emotional arguments (Bar‐Tal 2001).

Overall, these findings highlight how fear and hope can be created, either to set up an initial campaign position or to mitigate/reverse the effect of the opposing appeal type, via three mechanisms:

1. Developing threats that are perceived as relevant/irrelevant, significant and expected to occur,

2. Deploying hope against fear by creating an alternative, positive vision of the future that is possible, goal congruent and important to target audiences and

3. Creating messages that reduce feelings of fear (hope) by reducing the perceptions of the dimensions required to create them.

From the findings, this allows us to develop a prescriptive conceptual model summarizing the different appeal types that were found and can be used, key factors in why they were chosen by the relevant campaigns in the two main Scottish referendum campaigns, and the execution tactics employed. See Figure 1. This model provides political marketers with an understanding of how they might devise fear and hope campaigns and their dynamic derivatives (fear and hope reduction appeals) in future referendums and what effects might be generated from what particular message appeal dimensions used and the contexts in which they are used.

The Dynamic Interplay of Hope vs Fear Appeals in a Referendum Context

Published online:

11 March 2021

Figure 1. Prescriptive Guide to Hope/Fear Appeal Message Use.

Figure 1. Prescriptive Guide to Hope/Fear Appeal Message Use.

Further research and conclusions

Despite elucidating how opposing campaigns use hope and fear to counteract one another through the proposed effective appeals model, gaps in our knowledge remain and a number of questions remain unanswered: What is the relative efficacy of, and the best way to deploy, different emotional appeal types? Should they be based on explicit or implicit threats (hopes)? Which sub-appeal types (promotion hope, prevention hope, fear reduction or hope reduction) are most effective, effective against each other and in which combination? How is the relationship between fear and hope appeals moderated by market and audience characteristics? What is the relationship and effect of inertia and the effect of personality traits, demographics and partisanship, on appeal types? Further, do our prescriptions, based on our qualitative analysis of the Scottish referendum, for how message appeal design induces particular audience emotional effects, bear out in other referendums? This question requires further quantitative and experimental research in order to definitively qualify our findings. By answering the questions we pose above, further clarity can be gained into when, where, and how to use fear and hope appeals against each other and under what circumstances, with what effects. We encourage researchers to consider further how hope and fear interact and counteract, including in other media contexts beyond elections and referendums.

Scotland eventually voted No, implying BT's fear appeal won the day in the battle of emotional appeals, at least in the 2014 Scottish Referendum context. The research reveals how the key battle fought between these appeal types is creating or undermining whether the future vision for your (opponent's) appeal is perceived as likely to occur. BT was successful at positioning their opponent's offer as representing a relevant/irrelevant, significant and expected threat. Importantly, they were able to undermine their opponent's attempts to create fear in the choice it represented (the status quo) and their last minute offer of change created hope in the future as it was important, goal congruent and through their power to deliver it, seen as highly possible. Nevertheless, the significant growth of the Yes vote during the campaign and evidence of volunteers saying hope motivated many to volunteer (Bagozzi, Gopinath, and Nyer 1999; Black and Veloutsou 2017), suggests that hope can to some extent counteract fear in political campaigns.

The extant literature on emotional appeals and their use in media campaigning is limited on examining how they are constructed, including a transparent system of measurement (Brookes et al. 2004). This study makes a contribution to the literature by articulating, for the first time, how hope and fear appeals were constructed, and how they counteracted each other, in a political campaign context and importantly by extension, how they can therefore be used in future campaigns more effectively. Further, it contributes to the very limited literature comparing and juxtaposing hope versus fear appeals in a referendum (comparative) media setting. We use Poels and Dewitte (2008) interpretation of hope appeals as both Promotion hope and Prevention hope to propose a conceptual prescriptive model (Figure 1), which presents core dimensions for constructing effective appeals. The proposed conceptual model can be operationalized by using fear appeals to create a threat perceived to be relevant, significant and likely to occur. Then, hope appeals, deployed against fear appeals should focus on generating alternative positive visions seen as possible, goal congruent and important.

Linking to the framework of effective appeals proposed, the practical implications for political campaigns and communications can be outlined as: firstly, building and maintaining fear is an appropriate target for a campaign representing the status quo and possessing a poll lead (or greater market share). For those seeking change, building and maintaining hope in a more positive future vision is important as the decision looms, a dual strategy of also demonstrating the danger of the status quo becomes appropriate. Secondly, new types of hybrid hope and fear appeals (i.e. hope reduction and fear reduction) can be used both by parties and those opposing them in the dynamic interplay between hope and fear appeals. Thirdly, different communication tactics, such as use of facts, humor, or ridicule, can be employed to reduce fear or create more hope in the campaign. We hope this article provides a call to arms to researchers to examine hope and fear appeals more, given their importance in election and referendum campaigns worldwide.

Fear Appeal Definition in Business

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15377857.2021.1892900

Share this post