Andrew Wiseman discusses how Protection Motivation Theory helps explain why fear-based messaging can sometimes drive action, but can just as easily fall flat.
I recently watched a home security ad that was supposed to reassure me. It didn’t. It did the opposite.
It left me feeling uneasy – more than that – I told my colleagues that I found it ‘f***ing terrifying’. The kind of low-level dread that hangs around longer than it should. Which is probably not what they were going for.
It got me thinking about something we’ve been working with a lot recently. Protection Motivation Theory. One of those behavioural science ideas that quietly sits behind a lot of marketing, especially in categories built around risk, safety or hygiene.
When it’s used well, it works brilliantly. When it isn’t, it can land very differently, as the example above shows. So where does it go right, and where does it go wrong?
The basic idea behind PMT
At its core, Protection Motivation Theory is straightforward. When people are confronted with a threat, they tend to run two quick checks.
- How serious is this, and does it apply to me?
- Can I actually do something about it?
If the threat is credible, and there’s a clear response, you’re much more likely to see action. If they don’t, the response becomes a lot less predictable.
Where it tends to work
There’s a reason certain types of advertising have barely changed over time. Take household cleaning products. You’ve seen the formula countless times.
This surface is filthy.
Here’s the risk (let’s show some bacteria in an animation, or tell people it has more germs than your toilet).
Use this product. (it kills 99.9% of germs. Dead).
Problem solved. It’s hardly a subtle message, but it does the job.
The threat is clear. The solution is obvious. The effort involved is low. You don’t have to rethink anything. You just swap one product for another.
The emotional journey is short as well. A small spike of discomfort, followed quickly by reassurance.
That swift move from threat to reassurance matters much more than people often realise.
When things go wrong
Going back to that security ad, the issue wasn’t that it showed something unsettling. You would expect that in this category.
The problem was how long it stayed there. It built tension very effectively, but didn’t bring things back down in a convincing way. Your mind is running ahead of the ad before you know it.
“There’s someone in your house downstairs.”
“Okay. Are they armed?”
“Now the kids are awake. Are they safe? What if they go downstairs?” “Police are on their way. But how far away are they?”
Before you know it, you’re no longer watching an ad. You’re playing out a scenario.
The solution felt distant compared to the situation it had just created.
That imbalance is where things can come unstuck.
A more reassuring version might show the opposite. An intruder approaching, clocking the alarm system, and deciding to move on. Less drama, but a clearer sense of control. The outcome feels contained. The response feels like it works.
It may not make for the most gripping ad, but it does a better job of answering the question people are really asking. Does this actually keep me safe?
When the threat feels high but the response feels unclear or out of reach, people don’t always move towards action. They can just as easily look away, dismiss it, or sit with the discomfort.
None of those responses are particularly useful if you’re trying to change behaviour.
What ACTUALLY drives action
There’s a temptation to push harder on the emotional side. Make it more dramatic. More urgent. More intense.
But stronger fear doesn’t automatically lead to stronger response. What seems to matter more is whether people feel able to deal with the situation. In PMT this is called the Coping appraisal.
If the action is clear, manageable and believable, people are far more likely to engage. If it feels complicated, unrealistic or only partially effective, they tend to hesitate. Worse still, in our own work we’ve seen people become overwhelmed, and consumed by a paralysis to do anything.
Where brands miss the target
We see a few patterns come up time and again.
- Focusing heavily on the problem without giving equal weight to the response. It is often easier to dramatise the risk than to make the solution feel genuinely useful.
- Assuming that a product being available equals a solution. Showing it is not the same as proving it works in a way people can relate to.
- Leaving people with a lingering sense of unease. That might create attention, but it does not always translate into action.
- Overlooking the effort involved. If the response feels like hard work, people quietly opt out.
Why this matters more widely
This dynamic shows up beyond advertising.
We’re seeing it clearly in work around online safety. The risks are real, but they can feel abstract and difficult to manage. If you highlight the danger without making the response feel practical and worthwhile, people don’t necessarily change what they do.
They can end up feeling resigned to it. That’s probably not the best outcome.
So what?
Fear has a role to play. It can signal importance and create a reason to pay attention. But on its own, it is unreliable.
For something to gain genuine traction, people need to see a way through. Something they can do that feels within reach and worth the effort.
When that piece is missing, the message can drift into the background or leave people feeling worse than when they started.
And that is rarely what any piece of messaging sets out to do.