An Application of Fear Appeal Messages to Enhance the Benefits of a Jail Encounter Program for Youthful Offenders

• Author: J. Scott Allen,James O. Windell
• Published date: 01 October 2005
• Date: 01 October 2005
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1541204005278677
• Published By: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/1541204005278677
Yo
W uth Violence and Juvenile Justice
indell, Allen / JAIL ENCOUNTER PROGRAM
Research Note
AN APPLICATION OF FEAR APPEAL
MESSAGES TO ENHANCE THE BENEFITS
OF A JAIL ENCOUNTER PROGRAM FOR
YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS
James O. Windell
J. Scott Allen Jr.
Oakland County Circuit Court Family Division Psychological Clinic
Research has consistently shown that so-called scared straight types of jail encounter
programs do not have positive benefits for youthful offenders. However, few if any inmate-
youth encounter programs have utilized the results of fear appeals message research.
Results of the present study suggest that an inmate-youth encounter program may lead to
attitude change in youthful offenders if components of successful fear appeals are incor-
porated into the program.
Keywords: jail programs; scared straight; youthful offenders; fear appeals
After almost 20 years of researching and studying aversion programs for juveniles,
Finckenauer and other criminologists have concluded that Scared Straight and similar pro-
grams are failures (Finckenauer, Gavin, Hovland, & Storvoll, 1999; Sherman et al., 1998).
Nonetheless, such programs persist, usually with public and governmental approval. The
underlying theory of all such programs is criminal deterrence. Program advocates believe
that the realistic depiction of adult prison will deter juvenile delinquents or children at risk
from becoming delinquent and from further involvement with crime (Finckenauer, 1982;
Szymanski & Fleming, 1971).
However, no matter how often researchers review programs that provide juveniles
with scary messages about crime and delinquency, the results are at best disheartening.
Most recently, Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino, and Finckenauer (2000) reviewed nine random-
ized evaluations of scared-straight prison programs conducted between 1967 and 1992.
Data from this review indicate that such programs likely have harmful effects leading to in-
creased crime and delinquency. The authors concluded that given the harmful effects of
these kinds of interventions, governments have an ethical responsibility to rigorously evalu-
ate the policies, practices, and programs they implement (Petrosino et al., 2000).
Although scared-straight types of programs have a dubious theoretical and research
history, there is a considerable body of research related to persuasive messages that arouse
fears. The psychology of using fear to influence people has been studied during the past 50
years, but this research has not been applied to scared straight types of programs. Because
the purpose of jail tours and youth-inmate confrontations is to evoke fear of consequences,
Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, Vol. 3 No. 4, October 2005 388-394
DOI: 10.1177/1541204005278677
© 2005 Sage Publications
388

---

Windell, Allen / JAIL ENCOUNTER PROGRAM 389
the psychology of fear appeals is particularly relevant. Witte and Allen (2000) indicate that
the nearly 5 decades of research on fear appeals show that certain fear appeals are success-
ful. Recent research (Witte & Allen, 2000) suggests that the stronger the fear appeal, the
greater the potential influence over attitudes toward relevant behaviors, intentions to
change, and actual behavior changes.
Witte (1992) proposed a model known as the extended parallel process model
(EPPM) that postulates that threat and corresponding fear motivates a response and that the
efficacy of the threat determines the nature of that response. The possible responses to the
perceived threat include either danger-control or fear-control actions. In this model, if the
perceived threat is low, then the individual does no further cognitive processing of the fear
because of a lack of motivation. If the perceived threat is high and there is also a high per-
ception of one’s ability (efficacy) to perform the recommended action (for instance, avoid
further criminal behavior), the individual will be more inclined to follow the danger control
recommendations. On the other hand, if the threat is high but the individual’s perceived abil-
ity to deal with the danger is low or the individual believes the recommended action might
not work (for example, an...