1.Do fear and exaggeration increase risk?Larry Magid(not pictured above)Co-director, ConnectSafely.org Founder, SafeKids.comlarry@ConnectSafely.org

2. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was rightThe only thing we haveto fear is fear itself. 3. After 9/11, flying was dangerousSo people drove more and deaths perpassenger mile went up 4. Some parents fear inoculationsWhich means fewer kids are protectedagainst preventable diseases 5. And sometimes fear can lead toquestionable invasive procedures 6. Some panicked over: Y2K Killer bees Swine flu Stranger danger Stock market crash Al Qaeda and nuclear weapons in Iraq Unemployment Not enough people to fill available jobs Inflation Deflation Obama getting elected McCain getting elected 7. And, of course 8. But fear can also be protective 9. You should not try to scare people into healthy practicesIn 50 years of research, many different theories have beendeveloped to explain the inconsistent results with respect tothe effects (or lack of effects) of fear appeals, but in generalhealth communicators have assumed for a long time thatyou should not try to scare people into healthy practices,including smoking prevention and cessation.(Hill, Chapman, Donovan, 1998).http://www.thcu.ca/infoandresources/publications/fear%20appeals%20-%20web%20version.pdf 10. If its not credible & actionable, peopledont respondAccording to EPPM*, how people respond to fearappeals depends on their assessment of the threat andtheir perceived efficacy. When assessing threat, theaudience considers severity, or the seriousness of it, aswell as their susceptibility, or the likelihood that it willhappen to them.*Extended Parallel Process ModelBased on research from Kim White @ Michigan Statehttp://www.thcu.ca/infoandresources/publications/fear%20appeals%20-%20web%20version.pdf 11. Boomerang effectIf the perception of threat exceeds perception ofefficacy They will avoid the message Deny they are at risk Mock the message or become angry at the source orissue (and ignore it). They may even increase their unhealthy behaviors(boomerang effect). 12. Danger control When perceived threat is low, the audience does notworry about efficacy and so they do not respond When perceived threat is high and perceived efficacy islow(er), the result is avoidance, denial or anger towardsthe source or issue (fear control) When perceived threat is high and perceived efficacy ishigher, the recommended behavior is adopted (dangercontrol)Based on research from Kim White @ Michigan Statehttp://www.thcu.ca/infoandresources/publications/fear%20appeals%20-%20web%20version.pdf 13. The DARE experience DARE classes were no less likely to have smoked marijuana orcigarettes, drunk alcohol, used "illicit" drugs like cocaine or heroin, orcaved in to peer pressure than kids whod never been exposed to DARE. Its panic-level assertions that "drug abuse is everywhere." Kids dontrespond well to hyperbole, and both the "Just Say No" message and thehysteria implied in the anti-drug rhetoric were pushing students away. Its also possible, some researchers speculate, that by making drugs seemmore prevalent, or "normal" than they actually are, the DARE programmight actually push kids who are anxious to fit in towards drugs.Time Magazine:http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99564,00.html#ixzz1W0XkvmW1DD 14. DARE to keep kids away from candy My 6-year old daughter was afraid of Walgreens because itsold drugs Besides, kids her age werent at risk of drugs the biggest riskin their lives was candy and junk foodSource: My wife Patti Regehr 15. Fear can paralyze 16. And lead to irrational decisions 17. Predator Panic of 2004-2006 18. The rise of the web has not resulted in increasedvictimization of children51% Decline(during the period of theWebs existence) Blue line represents 58% decline in child sex abuse from 1992 to 2008Source: Updated Trends in Child Maltreatment, 2008: Finkelhor, Jones and Shattuck: Crimes AgainstChildren Research Center 19. Moving right alongThe Internet Safety Technical Task Force found that:Bullying and harassment, most often by peers, are themost salient threats that minors face, both online andoffline.Which naturally leads to . 20. Cyberbullying Panic! 21. Its a problem, not an epidemicData is not consistent but the consensus is that about 20% of kids experienced cyberbullyingChart: Cox Communications Teen Online & Wireless Safety Survey 22. Be careful about bullycide Suicide experts say there israrely one single reason why aperson takes his or her life Dramatizing or glorifying suicidecan actually lead to copycatsuicides. Be aware of suicide mediaguidelines 23. Most children are neither victims normonsters Not every interaction that makes kids uncomfortable is bullying While some are very vulnerable, most children are reasonably resilient. Across Europe, 6% of 9 to 16-year-old internet users have been bullied online. 3% confess to having bullied others. * Far more have been bullied offline, with 19 per cent saying they have been bullied at all and 12 per cent have bullied someone else** EU Kids Online 24. And bullying is going down, not upThe percentage of youth (2-17) reporting physicalbullying in the past year went down from 22 percentto 15 percent between 2003 and 2008.Source: Trends in Childhood Violence and Abuse Exposure ..Finkelhor, et al) 25. Sexting PanicA 2008 survey found that 20% of teens sent a sext Which led to stories like this: 26. But a 2011 study found 1.3% sent an image where they showed breasts, genitals or someones bottom 2.5% sent an image where they were nude or partially nudeSource: Crimes Against Children Research Center, Dec , 2011 27. Danger of exaggeration Can destroy credibility Can cause boomerang effect Can cause people to believe that behaviors arenormal 28. Social norms approach People emulate how they think their peersbehave If people think their friends dont smoke,theyre less likely to smoke. Same is true with over-eating, excessivealcohol use and other negative behaviors,including bullying**Assessing Bullying in New Jersey Secondary Schools: Applying the SocialNorms Model to Adolescent Violence: Craig, Perkins 2008 29. Alternative to fear messagingSocial-norms marketing campaigns have emergedas an alternative to more traditional approaches(e.g., information campaigns, moral exhortation,fear inducing messages) designed to reduceundesirable conduct.Donaldson, Graham, Piccinin, & Hansen, 1995http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/118375.pdf 30. Emphasize the positive People, especially youth, can benefit frompositive images and role models Creating a culture of respect actually can leadto respect Respectful behavior truly is normal. Most kidsdo not bully 31. Examples of positive normingSource: Assessing Bullying in New Jersey Secondary Schools: Applying the Social NormsModel to Adolescent Violence: Craig, Perkins 2008 32. Thanks Larry MagidCo-director, ConnectSafely.org Founder, SafeKids.comlarry@ConnectSafely.org