Fear: From Survival to Motivation to Manipulation
- Dr. Chris Fuzie
- Mar 14
- 13 min read
Introduction:
Fear is deeply embedded in nearly every aspect of media, from advertising and news stories to social media posts and political campaigns, strategically targeting audiences through fear-based messaging. Commercials frequently warn of hidden dangers in everyday life, news segments sensationalize crises to capture attention, and social media posts are often designed to provoke outrage. These strategies follow a familiar pattern—creating a sense of urgency, emphasizing worst-case scenarios, and employing tactics such as Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) to pressure individuals into action. The ultimate goal is often to benefit advertisers, political figures, or media outlets rather than to provide objective information.
Recognizing these manipulative tactics requires a conscious effort to question the motives behind messages, seek out credible sources, and prioritize facts over emotions. By critically evaluating fear-based narratives, individuals can avoid making impulsive decisions driven by anxiety or misinformation. Understanding these strategies enables a more rational and informed approach to consuming media, making decisions based on evidence rather than fear. This article explores how fear is used as a tool of influence and provides practical strategies for resisting its effects in political, commercial, and digital spaces.
Fear As An Early Survival Tool and Motivator
Fear played a crucial role in the survival and evolution of early humanoid species by enhancing their ability to detect and respond to threats in their environment. As an adaptive mechanism, fear triggered the fight-or-flight response, enabling early humans to react swiftly to predators, natural disasters, or hostile encounters (LeDoux, 2000). This heightened awareness helped individuals and groups avoid danger, seek shelter, and develop strategies for self-preservation (Öhman, 2005). The TV show 'Naked and Afraid" captures what this may have looked like for our ancestors thousands of years ago. Additionally, fear contributed to social cohesion, as early human communities relied on shared warning signals and collective responses to threats, strengthening group survival (Boyd & Richerson, 2005). While fear remains an essential survival tool today, modern society often exploits this primal instinct in ways that can manipulate decision-making and behavior.
Fear is a powerful psychological motivator that the media frequently exploits to drive consumer behavior. Marketers and advertisers use fear appeals by highlighting potential dangers, risks, or negative consequences that consumers may face if they do not purchase a particular product or service (Tannenbaum et al., 2015). For instance, advertisements for home security systems emphasize rising crime rates to create a sense of vulnerability, prompting consumers to invest in protection. Similarly, health and wellness industries leverage fear of illness or aging to sell supplements, fitness programs, or cosmetic products, reinforcing the idea that failure to act will result in undesirable outcomes (Hastings, Stead, & Webb, 2004). By creating urgency and a perceived need for safety, these tactics manipulate consumers into making impulse purchases based on emotional responses rather than rational decision-making.
The effectiveness of fear-based advertising is rooted in its ability to trigger a strong emotional reaction, often bypassing logical evaluation. Research indicates that moderate levels of fear, combined with an actionable solution, can effectively persuade consumers to change behaviors or make purchases (Witte & Allen, 2000). However, excessive fear can lead to avoidance, where individuals disengage from the message entirely rather than act. The media also uses fear to maintain audience engagement, with news outlets emphasizing threats such as economic instability, pandemics, or cybersecurity risks to drive viewership and encourage consumers to invest in related protective products or services (O’Keefe, 2002). While fear-based marketing can be effective, ethical concerns arise when advertisers manipulate emotions to create unnecessary anxieties, leading to consumer distrust and potential harm.
Fear of Missing Out (FoMO) is a psychological phenomenon where individuals experience anxiety over the possibility of missing rewarding experiences, opportunities, or social connections (Przybylski et al., 2013). Marketers frequently exploit FoMO as a fear-based strategy to drive consumer behavior by creating urgency and scarcity, such as limited-time offers, flash sales, or exclusive events (Hodkinson, 2019). Social media platforms amplify this effect by showcasing curated lifestyles and experiences, making people feel pressured to participate or make purchases to avoid being left out (Bright & Logan, 2018). By leveraging FoMO, advertisers and brands manipulate consumers into making impulsive decisions based on fear rather than necessity or logic.
Fear In Political Contests
Fear is also a prevalent tool in political contests, often used to motivate and influence public opinion and mobilize voters. Political campaigns and interest groups frequently employ fear-based messaging to highlight perceived threats posed by opponents, policies, or external forces (Brader, 2005). For example, candidates may warn of economic collapse, national security threats, or social instability if their opponent is elected, creating anxiety that drives voters toward their platform. Research shows that fear appeals can increase political engagement by making issues feel more urgent and personally relevant (Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000). However, fear-based political messaging can also lead to polarization, as it encourages individuals to view opposing parties or ideologies as existential threats rather than political alternatives.
The use of fear in politics is particularly effective when it targets deeply held values and identity concerns. Studies indicate that messages evoking fear can amplify partisan divides by reinforcing existing biases and increasing hostility toward opposing groups (Albertson & Gadarian, 2015). For instance, rhetoric surrounding immigration, terrorism, or healthcare policies often frames the opposition as dangerous or reckless, instilling fear in voters to sway their decisions (Banks, 2014). While fear-based appeals can successfully drive voter turnout and shape public opinion, they also pose ethical concerns, as they can manipulate emotions at the expense of rational debate. Overuse of fear in political discourse may lead to public cynicism, distrust in democratic institutions, and a climate of heightened political anxiety.
The Dangers of Not Recognizing Fear-Based Tactics
Failing to recognize fear-based tactics can lead individuals to make decisions driven by emotion rather than critical thinking, increasing their susceptibility to manipulation. Fear appeals are designed to create a sense of urgency, often bypassing rational evaluation, and encouraging reactionary responses (Witte & Allen, 2000). In politics, media, and marketing, unrecognized fear tactics can push individuals toward extreme viewpoints, reinforcing biases and limiting exposure to alternative perspectives (Albertson & Gadarian, 2015). This can contribute to misinformation, as people may accept emotionally charged narratives without verifying their accuracy. When fear is exploited without awareness, it can also drive impulsive actions, such as panic buying during crises or voting based on fear rather than policy analysis (O’Keefe, 2002).
Beyond individual decision-making, the widespread use of unrecognized fear-based tactics can erode trust in institutions and society. Persistent exposure to fear-driven messaging fosters anxiety and paranoia, creating a culture of division and hostility (Brader, 2005). In democratic societies, fear-based rhetoric can lead to voter suppression, policy decisions based on exaggerated threats, and decreased public confidence in governance (Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000). Moreover, businesses that exploit fear to drive sales may contribute to long-term consumer distrust, harming their brand reputation (Hastings, Stead, & Webb, 2004). Recognizing and critically analyzing fear-based tactics is essential to making informed decisions, promoting media literacy, and fostering a more rational and cohesive society.
How Do You Know if You’ve Been Emotionally Hijacked
Recognizing when someone is experiencing emotional hijacking involves identifying signs of intense emotional reactions that override rational thinking and decision-making. Emotional hijacking, a term derived from Goleman’s (1995) concept of emotional intelligence, occurs when the amygdala—the brain’s center for processing emotions—reacts to perceived threats before the rational brain can assess the situation logically. Common indicators include rapid breathing, increased heart rate, heightened agitation, and impulsive reactions such as yelling, withdrawing, or making rash decisions (LeDoux, 2000). Individuals experiencing emotional hijacking may also struggle to process information clearly, display tunnel vision, or engage in black-and-white thinking, where they see only extreme outcomes (Davidson & Begley, 2012).
Additionally, nonverbal cues such as clenched fists, tense posture, or an uncharacteristic change in tone can signal that emotions are overwhelming their cognitive processes. Recognizing these signs early allows for interventions such as deep breathing, pausing before responding, or shifting focus to a calming activity, which can help restore emotional balance and prevent irrational decision-making (Siegel, 2012).
How People Can Recognize Fear-Based Tactics in Politics, Media, and Advertising
Recognizing fear-based tactics in politics, media, and advertising requires an awareness of how emotional appeals are used to manipulate decision-making. Fear appeals often frame issues as urgent threats, emphasizing potential dangers while downplaying counterarguments or alternative viewpoints (Brader, 2005). In political campaigns, candidates may use exaggerated rhetoric about crime, economic collapse, or national security threats to create fear and push voters toward their policies (Albertson & Gadarian, 2015). Similarly, the media frequently employs sensationalized headlines and dramatic narratives to increase engagement, as fear-driven stories tend to attract more attention (O’Keefe, 2002). Understanding these tactics allows individuals to critically evaluate whether the fear being presented is based on factual evidence or emotional manipulation.
One key strategy to identify fear-based tactics is analyzing the language and framing of messages. Fear-driven content often uses hyperbolic terms such as "crisis," "catastrophe," or "imminent danger" to create urgency (Witte & Allen, 2000). Advertisements may employ phrases like "Don't wait until it's too late!" or "Protect your family now!" to invoke anxiety and drive immediate consumer action. In politics, candidates may demonize opponents, portraying them as existential threats rather than legitimate alternatives (Banks, 2014). By questioning whether a message relies on factual reasoning or exaggerated consequences, individuals can better discern between genuine concerns and manipulative rhetoric.
Another way to recognize fear-based tactics is to verify claims through reputable sources. Misinformation spreads rapidly in fear-based messaging, as emotionally charged content often bypasses rational scrutiny (Marcus, Neuman, & MacKuen, 2000). Fact-checking organizations, academic research, and nonpartisan news sources can help determine whether a fear appeal is grounded in reality. Additionally, looking at multiple perspectives on an issue can reduce susceptibility to one-sided, fear-based narratives. If a message only presents a dire consequence without offering balanced information or alternative viewpoints, it is likely designed to provoke fear rather than inform.
Finally, understanding psychological responses to fear can help individuals resist manipulation. Studies show that fear activates a fight-or-flight response, making people more likely to react impulsively rather than logically (Hastings, Stead, & Webb, 2004). Being mindful of emotional reactions and taking time to process information can help counteract this effect. Engaging in media literacy training, questioning motives behind messages, and discussing concerns with others can also build resilience against fear-based persuasion (Tannenbaum et al., 2015). By developing critical thinking skills and recognizing fear-driven strategies, individuals can make more informed choices in politics, media consumption, and consumer behavior.
How Fear Is Used As A Weapon in Social Media
Fear is often weaponized on social media to manipulate public opinion, drive engagement, and influence behavior. Social media platforms amplify fear-based messaging by promoting emotionally charged content that garners high levels of interaction (Tandoc, Lim, & Ling, 2018). Algorithms prioritize sensationalized posts, which can create an environment where misinformation and fear-driven narratives spread rapidly (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018). Fear is particularly effective in shaping political discourse, as extremist rhetoric and fearmongering posts receive more shares and comments than neutral or fact-based discussions (Garrett, 2020). This digital amplification of fear can create a distorted perception of reality, leading individuals to believe that threats are more immediate or severe than they actually are.
In addition to political manipulation, fear is used in social media to drive consumer behavior and public anxiety. Marketers and influencers leverage fear appeals by emphasizing risks such as aging, illness, or financial instability to sell products and services (Wiederhold, 2020). For example, posts warning about “hidden dangers” in everyday life—ranging from food additives to cybersecurity threats—often include links to products that claim to offer protection. Fear-based messaging is also used in health-related misinformation, where misleading posts about diseases or medical treatments go viral, sometimes leading to dangerous public health consequences (Chou, Gaysynsky, & Vanderpool, 2020). The combination of algorithm-driven engagement and unchecked fear-based content creates an environment where people are frequently exposed to anxiety-inducing messages without adequate context or fact-checking.
The psychological impact of fear-based social media content can be profound, leading to increased stress, anxiety, and social division. Studies show that constant exposure to fear-inducing content can alter perceptions of safety and trust, making individuals more likely to adopt extreme views or engage in aggressive online behavior (Luqman, Cao, Ali, Masood, & Yu, 2017). Fear-based narratives also contribute to online echo chambers, where individuals are repeatedly exposed to content that reinforces their fears while excluding alternative perspectives (Bail et al., 2018). This polarization can deepen societal divisions, erode trust in institutions, and make individuals more susceptible to further manipulation. Recognizing and critically evaluating fear-based tactics on social media is essential for maintaining mental well-being and fostering a more informed, balanced public discourse.
How You Can Resist the Fear-Based Tactics
First, by recognizing when you are experiencing emotional hijacking requires self-awareness and the ability to identify physical and cognitive changes associated with heightened emotional responses. When recognizing these signs, the first step in responding effectively is to pause and engage in deep breathing or mindfulness techniques, which help activate the prefrontal cortex and restore rational thinking (Davidson & Begley, 2012). Additionally, reframing the situation by questioning whether the perceived threat is real or exaggerated can help reduce emotional intensity. Seeking perspective by stepping away, journaling thoughts, or discussing the situation with a trusted individual can also aid in regaining control and making more reasoned decisions (Gross, 2015).
Resisting fear-based tactics in politics, advertising, and social media requires individuals to develop critical thinking skills and media literacy. One of the most effective strategies is recognizing and analyzing the emotional appeal (triggers to emotional hijacking) behind messages before reacting to them. Fear-based content is often designed to provoke an immediate response (trigger) rather than encourage rational evaluation (Witte & Allen, 2000). By questioning whether a message is based on facts or emotional manipulation, individuals can make more informed decisions. Seeking out multiple sources and comparing information across reputable platforms can also help counteract misleading narratives (Tandoc, Lim, & Ling, 2018). Additionally, fact-checking organizations provide a valuable resource for verifying political claims, debunking misinformation, and preventing the spread of fear-driven content.
Another important approach is promoting resilience against fear appeals by fostering emotional awareness/intelligence and rational decision-making. Research suggests that fear-based messaging is most effective when individuals feel powerless or lack the resources to address perceived threats (Wiederhold, 2020). To counter this, people can focus on solutions rather than fear itself. For example, instead of succumbing to fear-driven political rhetoric, individuals can engage in civic education and policy discussions to develop a deeper understanding of issues (Garrett, 2020). In consumer advertising, understanding common marketing strategies—such as urgency tactics and exaggerated risks—can help consumers make more rational purchasing decisions (Hastings, Stead, & Webb, 2004).
Engaging in discussions with others about media influence and recognizing emotional triggers can also contribute to greater awareness and resistance to fear-based manipulation.
On social media, actively controlling one’s digital environment can reduce exposure to fear-driven content. Algorithms often amplify sensationalized posts, making it important for users to be mindful of their online engagement (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018). Unfollowing or muting sources that consistently use fear tactics, engaging with balanced and fact-based content, and reporting misleading posts can help disrupt the spread of fear-based narratives. Encouraging digital literacy in schools and workplaces can further empower individuals to critically analyze online content (Bail et al., 2018). Finally, fostering positive and constructive discussions rather than sharing fear-based messages can help shift the digital landscape toward more informed and rational discourse.
Conclusion:
Fear is a powerful psychological force that has been used throughout history to influence human behavior, from its evolutionary role in survival to its exploitation in modern media, politics, and advertising. Early humanoid species relied on fear as an adaptive mechanism, helping them detect and respond to threats, fostering social cohesion, and improving survival chances (LeDoux, 2000; Öhman, 2005). However, in today's society, fear is frequently manipulated to drive engagement and decision-making. Advertisers use fear-based tactics, such as FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), to create urgency and persuade consumers to make impulsive purchases (Przybylski et al., 2013; Hodkinson, 2019). Similarly, political campaigns and news media capitalize on fear to shape public opinion, increase voter turnout, and maintain audience attention (Brader, 2005; Albertson & Gadarian, 2015). Social media platforms further amplify fear-driven content through algorithmic reinforcement, often leading to misinformation, political polarization, and public anxiety (Vosoughi, Roy, & Aral, 2018; Garrett, 2020).
Recognizing and resisting fear-based tactics requires critical thinking, emotional awareness, and media literacy. People can identify fear-driven messaging by analyzing language, fact-checking sources, and questioning the motives behind emotionally charged content (Witte & Allen, 2000; Tandoc, Lim, & Ling, 2018). Emotional hijacking, where fear overrides rational thinking, can be managed through mindfulness techniques, reframing negative thoughts, and seeking alternative perspectives (Goleman, 1995; Siegel, 2012). By curating their social media environments and engaging in constructive discussions, individuals can reduce their exposure to manipulative fear tactics and make more informed decisions (Bail et al., 2018). Understanding how fear influences human behavior—both as a survival tool and as a weapon of manipulation—empowers individuals to navigate political, commercial, and digital landscapes with greater awareness and resilience.
References
Albertson, B., & Gadarian, S. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge University Press.
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., ... & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(37), 9216-9221. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Banks, A. J. (2014). The public’s anger: White racial attitudes and opinions toward health care reform. Political Behavior, 36(3), 493-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-013-9246-z
Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2005). The origin and evolution of cultures. Oxford University Press.
Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00130.x
Bright, L. F., & Logan, K. (2018). Looking on the bright side: Examining the role of online social network site optimism in reducing fear of missing out. Telematics and Informatics, 35(2), 595-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.04.006
Chou, W. Y. S., Gaysynsky, A., & Vanderpool, R. C. (2020). The COVID-19 social media infodemic. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(5), 569-572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120924532
Davidson, R. J., & Begley, S. (2012). The emotional life of your brain: How its unique patterns affect the way you think, feel, and live—and how you can change them. Hudson Street Press.
Garrett, R. K. (2020). Social media and political polarization. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(1), 20-21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0781-5
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Bantam Books.
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp. 3-20). Guilford Press.
Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology & Marketing, 21(11), 961-986. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20043
Hodkinson, C. (2019). ‘Fear of missing out’ marketing tactics: A conceptualization and review. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(17-18), 1746-1764. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1650378
LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 155-184. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.155
Luqman, A., Cao, X., Ali, A., Masood, A., & Yu, L. (2017). Excessive use of mobile social networking sites and poor academic performance: The role of fear of missing out (FoMO), social anxiety, and depression. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 347-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.05.041
Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion: Theory and research (2nd ed.). Sage.
Öhman, A. (2005). The role of the amygdala in human fear: Automatic detection of threat. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(10), 953-958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.03.019
Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841-1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
Siegel, D. J. (2012). The whole-brain child: 12 revolutionary strategies to nurture your child's developing mind. Delacorte Press.
Tandoc, E. C., Lim, Z. W., & Ling, R. (2018). Defining “fake news”: A typology of scholarly definitions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 137-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1360143
Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Appealing to fear: A meta‐analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1178-1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
Wiederhold, B. K. (2020). Social media use during social distancing. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(5), 275-276. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.29181.bkw
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-615. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506
Comments