Do Scare Tactics Work in Political Advertising?

Polls say yes, research says sometimes.

As Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton approached the Ohio and Texas primaries, their tension was obvious to all spectators. While Obama made last minute speeches, Clinton launched a controversial ad that many have termed a “scare tactic”. It depicted small children snuggled in bed with a telephone ringing in the background. A voiceover explains that it is 3 a.m. and the phone is ringing in the White House. After some tension-building music, the voiceover asks viewers who they would want to answer the phone. The ad was intended to bring back vestiges of 9/11 and scare voters into choosing the more experienced candidate. Though Obama was quick to respond and accuse Clinton of trying to scare up votes, Clinton still won the Ohio and Texas primaries.

The question now remains – was Clinton helped by her scare tactic ad? Do scare tactics work in political advertising? In this election, every delegate counts, so should candidates utilize fear appeal ads or will these strategies eventually backfire? Television advertisements are very common in politics, yet most of them center on denouncing the opposing candidate or building up a candidate’s image. However, there have been several studies on the effectiveness of scare tactics or “fear appeal” ads.

For example, one study by Tony L. Henthorne, Michael S. LaTour and Rajan Nataraajan found that ads with fear appeal arouse more energy and tension in the viewer, which sometimes correlate to action versus ads that do not use fear. They suggest that these results show that advertisers should look into utilizing fear to promote action (Fear Appeals In Print Advertising: An Analysis of Arousal and Ad Response). This is exactly what Clinton seems to be trying to do with her ad. By using a low threshold of fear, which is the level these researchers found to be most effective, Clinton is attempting to gather votes based on the idea that she is the only person capable of keeping the nation safe.

An article by John R. Stuteville discusses three things that must be present for a fear tactic to work: “(1) The feared condition is avoided quickly and almost magically by application of the sponsor's product. (2) There is no psychological investment in not using the product. In such cases fear does not challenge a cherished habit. (3) What is feared is damage to the social image of the self rather than to the physical self” (Psychic Defenses Against High Fear Appeals: A Key Marketing Variable”). Clinton’s ad appears to fulfill the first requirement, as she insinuates that only by electing her would she keep the nation safe. She also appeals to the third requirement, as her ad shows that the safety of children is in question. The safety of children is seen as more important than one’s own safety, thus damage to the social image is being identified. However, Clinton’s ad does not uphold the second prong of the test.

Not enough research exists to make a completely verifiable prediction as to the outcome of Clinton’s fear appeal ad, but it is probably safe to assume that a swell of low involvement voters might have been swayed to her side. History is on Clinton’s side as well, for Lyndon B. Johnson used a scare tactic advertisement, and he won his election by a significant amount. My conclusion is that Clinton was smart to add this strategy to her repertoire of advertising techniques. Her ad contained a low level of fear, which is also considered to be more effective than an ad with a high level of fear (Henthorne).