The Impact of Receivers’ Nationality and Cultural Orientation on the Effects of Fear Appeals in Health Communication

Figures & data

Table 1. Expectations based on country scores in Hofstede (2001, n.d.) for cultural orientation per nationality and per cultural dimension (scale from 0 to 100).

	The Netherlands	China	South Africa^a
Individualism-collectivism	20	80	35
Femininity-masculinity	14	66	63
Power distance	38	80	49
Uncertainty avoidance	53	30	49
Short term versus long term orientation	67	87	34

^aHofstede (n.d.) mentions that the scores for individualism-collectivism, femininity-masculinity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance refer to “South Africa white”, while the score for short term versus long term orientation refers to “South Africa”.

Table 2. Mean scores and standard deviations for cultural orientation variables (scale from 1 to 7) for participants from The Netherlands, China, and South Africa.

		The Netherlands (n = 52)	China (n = 50)	South Africa (n = 166)
Individualism-collectivism	M (SD)	4.13 (1.12)	4.16 (1.24)	4.41 (1.26)
Femininity-masculinity	M (SD)	4.09 ^(1) (1.73)	3.84 ^(1) (1.46)	2.63 ^(2) (1.41)
Power distance	M (SD)	2.68 ^(1) (1.19)	2.48 ^(1) (1.12)	1.85 ^(2) (0.96)
Uncertainty avoidance	M (SD)	5.25 ^(1) (1.19)	5.06 ^(1) (0.98)	5.81 ^(2) (1.05)
Short term versus long term orientation	M (SD)	5.83 ^(1) (0.91)	5.79 ^(1) (0.82)	6.33 ^(2) (0.73)
Self-referenced familism	M (SD)	4.02 ^(1) (0.66)	4.82 ^(2) (0.77)	4.81 ^(2) (0.92)
Culture-referenced familism	M (SD)	3.47 ^(1) (0.62)	4.93 ^(2) (0.85)	4.84 ^(2) (0.95)

Note. Different superscripts indicate significant differences between nationalities (p < .05).

Table 3. Results found for cultural orientation compared to expectations based on country scores in Hofstede (2001, n.d.).

	The Netherlands		China		South Africa^a
	Results found	Results expected	Results found	Results expected	Results found	Results expected
Individualism-collectivism	52	20	53	80	55	35
Femininity-masculinity	51	14	47	66	28	63
Power distance	28	38	25	80	14	49
Uncertainty avoidance	71	53	68	30	78	49
Short term versus long term orientation	80	67	80	87	89	34

Note. For reasons of transparency, results from our study were transformed from a scale from 1 to 7 to a scale from 0 to 100 (formula: x -> (x – 1) * 16.67; outcomes rounded).

^aIn view of the note with Table 1, our scores for individualism-collectivism, femininity-masculinity, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance were based on data from white South African participants; scores for short term versus long term orientation refer to data from all South African participants.

Table 4. Mean scores and standard deviations for EPPM-related variables (minimum 1, maximum 7) for participants from the Netherlands, China, and South Africa for text A (target of threat: self) and text B (target of threat: family).

		Text A (target of threat: self) (n = 134)			Text B (target of threat: family) (n = 134)
		Netherlands (n = 26)	China (n = 24)	South Africa (n = 84)	Netherlands (n = 26)	China (n = 26)	South Africa (n = 82)
Perceived severity	M (SD)	5.47 ^(1) (0.96)	5.36 ^(1) (1.12)	6.18 ^(2) (1.02)	5.78 (1.44)	6.35 (1.26)	5.94 (1.11)
Perceived susceptibility	M (SD)	3.51 ^(1) (1.73)	3.65 ^(1) (1.22)	1.72 ^(2) (1.00)	1.72 (1.09)	2.43 (1.75)	1.86 (1.04)
Fear arousal	M (SD)	3.65 (1.58)	3.47 (1.69)	3.36 (1.78)	3.70 (2.10)	3.74 (1.93)	3.38 (1.71)
Response efficacy	M (SD)	6.29 (0.83)	5.90 (1.33)	5.71 (1.29)	5.63 (1.57)	5.69 (1.20)	5.33 (1.56)
Fear control	M (SD)	3.77 (1.37)	3.86 (1.55)	3.07 (1.56)	3.64 (1.34)	2.70 (1.39)	2.89 (1.58)
Danger control	M (SD)	3.46 ^(1) (1.61)	3.88 ^(1) (1.54)	5.10 ^(2) (2.26)	4.73 (2.01)	5.27 (1.89)	4.99 (2.19)

Note. Different superscripts indicate significant differences between nationalities for the text version mentioned in the top row (p < .05).

Figure 1. Conditional direct effect of N on E, and conditional indirect effect of N on E through C (see Hayes, 2013, p. 451, moderated mediation model 15). N = Nationality (independent variable): Dutch versus Chinese, Dutch versus South African, or Chinese versus South African; C = Cultural orientation variables (mediators): individualism-collectivism, femininity-masculinity, power distance, uncertainty avoidance, short term versus long term orientation, self-referenced familism, and culture-referenced familism; T = Text version (moderator): self-targeted versus family-targeted; E = EPPM variables (dependent variables): perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, or danger control.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

 Google Scholar

Hofstede, G. (n.d.). Dimension data matrix. Geert Hofstede. Retrieved from https://geerthofstede.com/research-and-vsm/dimension-data-matrix/

 Google Scholar

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

 Google Scholar