Fear appeals to promote better health behaviors: an investigation of potential mediators

Figures & data

Figure 1. The postulated model.

Table 1. Description of participants’ health habits (N = 230).

Smoking tobacco		Alcohol consumption				Diet		Physical inactivity
		men		women
Currently smoke	17.4%	5 or more units a day or more than 14 units a week	3.3%	4 units or more a day or more than 7 units a week	2.6%	Never or rarely eat fruit and vegetables	16.1%	Never exercise	17.0%
Quit	25.2%	2–4 units a day	4.6%	2–3 units a day	1.3%	Eat some fruit and vegetables, but less than 5 a day	79.6%	Exercise a little, but less than 30 min a day	46.5%
Never smoked	57.4%	1 unit a day or less than 14 units a week	92.1%	1 unit a day or less than 7 units a week	96.2%	Eat at least 5 fruit and vegetables a day	4.3%	Exercise at least 30 min a day	36.5%

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the variables (N = 230).

	Personal risk	Intention	Efficacy	Threat	Suppression	Denial	Reappraisal
Personal risk
Intention	−.037
Efficacy	−.197 **	.308 ***
Threat	.479 ***	.031	−.090
Suppression	.022	−.524 ***	−.301 ***	−.046
Denial	−.019	.136 *	.141 *	.005	−.166 *
Reappraisal	.079	−.247 ***	−.192 **	.099	.264 ***	−.191 **
	scale: 0–3 M = 1.47 SD = 0.58	scale: 1–5 M = 4.17 SD = 0.67	scale: 4–20 M = 17.55 SD = 1.95	scale: 4–20 M = 16.48 SD = 2.19	scale: 1–5 M = 1.54 SD = 0.75	scale: 1–5 M = 3.86 SD = 0.80	scale: 1–5 M = 3.03 SD = 0.70

Note: *** indicates a p-value < .001, ** indicates a p-value < .01, * indicates a p-value < .05.

Table 3. Regression coefficients, standard errors, and summary information for the hypothesized model.

		Consequent
		M1 Threat				M2 Efficacy				M3 Suppression				M4 Denial				M5 Reappraisal				Y Intention
Antecedent		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p		Coeff.	SE	p
X1 Condition Threat-only (−0.5) Threat-coping (+0.5)	a1	.11	.16	.49	a2	.11	.18	.52	a3	.03	.18	.85	a4	−.06	.17	.75	a5	−.10	.18	.57	c’	.18	.15	.24
X2 Condition Threat-coping (−0.5) Coping-threat (+0.5)	a1	.06	.16	.70	a2	−.07	.17	.70	a3	−.12	.18	.48	a4	−.05	.17	.76	a5	−.10	.18	.58	c’	.07	.15	.62
W Personal risk	d1	.47	.06	<.001	d4	−.19	.06	.004	d7	−.01	.07	.93	d12	−.01	.07	.89	d17	.00	.08	.95	b1	.00	.06	.97
Int1 Personal risk * X1	d2	−.14	.16	.39	d5	.20	.17	.24	d8	−.22	.18	.23	d13	−.04	.17	.82	d18	−.15	.18	.41	b2	.00	.15	.98
Int2 Personal risk * X2	d3	−.23	.16	.15	d6	.12	.18	.49	d9	−.08	.18	.67	d14	.16	.17	.37	d19	−.09	.18	.63	b3	−.15	.15	.32
M1 Perceived threat		–	–	–		–	–	–	d10	−.08	.07	.30	d15	.02	.07	.75	d20	.08	.08	.30	b4	.03	.06	.66
M2 Perceived efficacy		–	–	–		–	–	–	d11	−.32	.07	<.001	d16	.14	.07	.036	d21	−.19	.07	.008	b5	.15	.06	.014
M3 Suppression		–	–	–		–	–	–		–	–	–		–	–	–		–	–	–	b6	−.42	.06	<.001
M4 Denial		–	–	–		–	–	–		–	–	–		–	–	–		–	–	–	b7	.03	.06	.63
M5 Reappraisal		–	–	–		–	–	–		–	–	–		–	–	–		–	–	–	b8	−.09	.06	.11
		R^2 = .489 F(5, 224) = 14.052, p < .001				R^2 = .221 F(5, 224) = 2.298, p = .046				R^2 = .325 F(7, 222) = 3.743, p < .001				R^2 = .163 F(7, 222) = 0.862, p = .537				R^2 = .048 F(7, 222) = 1.609, p = .134				R^2 = .317 F(10, 219) = 10.183, p < .001

Note: Effects significant at <.05 are shown in bold.

Figure 2. Diagram showing statistically significant relationships between the variables.