Fear Appeals: How They Influence You
The emotion of fear has considerable influence over human actions, particularly at times of great uncertainty or high risk. The practice of using fear in campaigns in the United States has become more prominent as time has passed, typically with these messages being disseminated via the internet and television, through emotionally charged advertisements designed to reach and exploit the fears of the voters. The messages used in such campaigns are tailored to the voter's psychological profile. This is often done by using data to identify the type of message that will have the greatest impact on a voter, inducing fear. Campaigns that make use of fear as a message have a considerable influence on voter decisions and, for this reason, should be regarded as a matter of urgency from the viewpoints of ethics and democracy. Using fear as a motivating factor in the short term has negative implications for voter choice, for how voters make their decisions and for the long-term stability of any political system. Fear and distrust have been key elements of a number of electoral campaigns, in which fear of one group for another has been cultivated. This kind of campaigning can harm the democratic system by making the norm that political opponents are hostile seem acceptable. Repeated exposure to frightening messages can, with time, turn anxiety into a normal emotion for many people, rather than a reaction to a particular incident.
When politicians create and exploit external fear, it can cause voters to make emotional choices without carefully thinking about their candidates or the policies they stand for. This situation highlights the importance of honesty in the campaign process, since deceit causes voters to decide with fear rather than knowledge. It is contended by research psychologists that externalised fear causes stress responses in the brain, which in turn interfere with an individual's capacity to reason logically. This is a tactic often used in political advertising. Instead of stimulating public interest, this approach actually provokes people to react, leading to a decline in thoughtful community involvement.
It has been shown in scientific research that the impact of fear can go far beyond the immediate urge to act. Researchers have found that predators can cause wild animals to develop long-term mental trauma. Liana Zennett, in her study 'Predator-induced fear causes PTSD-like changes in the brains and behaviour of wild animals', discovered that a wild animal's brain is altered by fear. This alteration results in long-term effects on the animal's behaviour. Research indicates that constant exposure to fear can bring about changes in brain structure, which might result in higher anxiety and reduced ability to switch between different mental tasks. This research study may seem to be specifically about wild animals, but it is actually of greater importance since it shows how prolonged fear can result in long-term changes to an animal's thought process and actions. Although fear-driven messages can possibly mobilise voters who have been disengaged, there is the downside that over-emphasising the fear may cause long-term psychological damage and lead to distorted judgment in the political field. As individuals are repeatedly exposed to feelings of anxiety, they become normalised, and anxiety becomes a persistent feature of life, rather than a temporary response to genuine threats.
Instead of motivating voters to engage in thoughtful analysis, politicians relying on fear appeal tactics further polarise political ideologies and confound voters' decision-making processes. People voting in a democratic society should assess political candidates with the aid of party platforms and facts. Fear is a powerful motivator that tends to bypass the reasoning process. The Pew Research Centre reveals that distrust across the political spectrum is considerable, as over half of the Democrats are fearful of the Republican Party, and Republicans are fearful of the Democrats. The impact of scare tactics used in the current situation can only serve to heighten people's anxieties rather than handle problems in a constructive way. In such situations, fear may serve to heighten divisions between people and make the tactics of fear more successful.
Fear is a potent, powerful tool that can have a lasting impact on the population. This effect isn't limited to election years but is a constant in our society. Cognitive effects can result from chronic stress and panic. Research indicates this. Research conducted by Zennett implies that the impact of repeated exposure to the emotions evoked by political discourse may be, to some extent, similar to that of people with post-traumatic stress disorder. Using fear as the mainstay of a political campaign may lead to the electorate's emotional exhaustion and disaffection, together with irrational political responses. This results in the capacity of citizens to participate in the democratic process being eroded, and to engage with political information being undermined.
The use of frightening or alarming advertising copy actually decreases critical thinking and can make a consumer more susceptible to misinformation. Individuals who experience a heightened level of fear will rely more heavily on rule-of-thumb thinking as opposed to methodical thought processes, as shown in a Frontiers in Psychology report. During elections, the rapid spread of misinformation via social media can be particularly perilous. Research carried out in neuroscience has shown that fear in an individual hampers the management of the prefrontal cortex, weakening the logical thought process and thereby causing an impulsive reaction to be adopted. Fear-based campaigning often undermines the ability of citizens to think rationally about the choices they are making at the polls. The discovery that elevated emotional arousal boosts susceptibility to misinformation implies that fear-based advertising may be particularly problematic in contemporary information environments.
This kind of campaigning can worsen the tone of our democracy by encouraging the use of very heated language and by stirring up prejudice among voters. Information from the Pew Research Centre shows that the phenomenon of each political party having a deep distrust of the other has been accepted as normal. Election research has shown that negative emotional appeals, particularly those involving fear and anger, are prevalent in modern political campaigns. Research into political propaganda has shown that fear boosts the degree of loyalty felt by voters towards their party and enhances the belief of voters in the malevolent intentions of the opposing party. Polarising dynamics are currently in place, as well as those which reduce the incentive for political parties to negotiate with one another. As a result, the culture of politics is altered in a manner that is detrimental to democratic cooperation.
In highly competitive elections and where the media is becoming ever more specialised, politicians have a greater incentive to deploy the tactic of creating public anxiety. As this kind of situation continues, each party will heighten emotive appeals concerning their respective fears, with a resulting loss of confidence in civic matters. While some strategists claim that a fear-based approach is effective, researchers indicate that the outcome of such an approach is often the increased polarisation of opinion and a diminishment of respectful relations between individuals with differing viewpoints. A lot of dire warnings may result in people becoming disheartened or even less inclined to vote. Fear-mongering must be restrained to include only actual warnings that are backed by fact rather than scaremongering or manipulative tactics.
Others suggest that limiting the use of fear appeals may hinder the impact of the adverts, and enforcing this policy might be hard across all media outlets. The control measures might not be universally applicable due to the cultural and geographical variations present in the world. Limiting the use of fear in political messaging could go some way in reducing the psychological harm experienced by voters, in strengthening voter autonomy and in encouraging a more positive political dialogue. Using less fright in public health appeals would promote a move by campaigns to emphasise evidence, clarity and civic duty rather than the exploitation of fear. This, in turn, would contribute to democratic stability being strengthened.
Bibliography
American Psychological Association. “Why Fear Is a Powerful Motivator for Voters.” APA News, 2020, https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/fear-motivator-elections.
Clinchy, Michael, et al. “Predator-Induced Fear Causes PTSD-Like Changes in the Brains and Behaviour of Wild Animals.” Scientific Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-44383-5.
Druckman, James N., et al. “Partisanship, Political Behavior, and Polarization in 2016.” Pew Research Center, 22 June 2016, https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/.
Hobbs, Emma C., et al. “Fear and Its Impact on Decision Making.” Frontiers in Psychology, vol. 12, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.781851.\
Illinois State University. “Scare Tactics: Messages of Fear, Anger Popular in 2016 Campaigns.” Illinois State News, 2016, https://news.illinoisstate.edu/2016/09/scare-tactics-messages-of-fear-anger-popular-in-2016-campaigns/.
Jost, John T., et al. “Political Ideology and Fear Appeals in Election Messaging.” Political Communication, vol. 36, no. 4, 2019, pp. 1–22, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2019.1631918.
Mertens, Gaëtan, et al. “Effects of Fear Appeals on Persuasion: An Updated Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2024, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38318239/.
Witte, Kim, and Mike Allen. “A Meta-Analytic Review of Fear Appeals.” Health Education & Behavior, vol. 27, no. 5, 2000, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5789790/.
Zanette, Liana Y., et al. “Predator-Induced Fear Causes PTSD-Like Changes in the Brains and Behaviour of Wild Animals.” Scientific Reports, vol. 9, no. 1, 2019.