Table 2.
Effect sizes, sample sizes, and moderator codes for each sample in the meta-analysis.
| Paper | d | N | AIB | Eff | Sev | Sus | OR | DPP | DP | SE | Delay | %F | IC | SOC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bagley & Low, 1992 | .08 | 41 | B | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | L | 66 | I | E |
| Bang, 1994 | −.11 | 223 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 54 | I | — |
| Beach, 1966 | .38 | 28 | I | N | Y | N | O | PP | Y | — | L | — | I | E |
| Beck & Davis, 1978 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Interest | −.05 | 31 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 42 | I | — |
| 2: High Interest | 1.03 | 31 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 42 | I | — |
| Beck, 1984 | .77 | 226 | I | N | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 47 | I | — |
| Berkowitz, 1998 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Sensation-Seeking, Message Choice | .02 | 48 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | M | 62 | I | E |
| 2: Low Sensation-Seeking, No Message Choice | −.23 | 34 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | M | 62 | I | E |
| 3: High Sensation-Seeking, Message Choice | .21 | 42 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | M | 62 | I | E |
| 4: High Sensation-Seeking, No Message Choice | .01 | 48 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | M | 62 | I | E |
| Brouwers & Sorrentino, 1993 | .25 | 149 | IB | Y | Y | Y | O | D | Y | — | S | 69 | I | — |
| Brown, 1979 | 1.81 | 38 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 0 | I | L |
| Burnett, 1981 | 1.06 | 76 | AI | N | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Calantone & Warshaw, 1985 | .96 | 180 | B | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Carey, 1990 | .00 | 118 | I | N | Y | N | O | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| Chang et al., 1989 | −.10 | 1425 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| Cho & Salmon, 2006 | .42 | 239 | IB | N | Y | Y | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 61 | I | — |
| Chu, 1966 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Efficacy | .36 | 240 | B | N | Y | Y | O | PP | Y | — | M | — | C | — |
| 2: Medium Efficacy | .52 | 242 | B | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | Y | — | M | — | C | — |
| 3: High Efficacy | 1.71 | 231 | B | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | Y | — | M | — | C | — |
| Cooper et al., 2014 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Appearance | .09 | 98 | I | — | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEH | S | 65 | I | E |
| 2: Cancer | −.33 | 98 | I | — | Y | Y | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 65 | I | E |
| Dabbs & Leventhal, 1966 | .68 | 120 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | E |
| Dahl et al., 2003 | .80 | 68 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| Das et al., 2003 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1, Weak Arguments, Low Vulnerability | -1.09 | 52 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 2: Study 1, Weak Arguments, High Vulnerability | 1.39 | 37 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 3: Study 1, Strong Arguments, Low Vulnerability | 2.12 | 45 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 4: Study 1, Strong Arguments, High Vulnerability | −.63 | 43 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 5: Study 2, Weak Arguments, Low Vulnerability | −.33 | 28 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 6: Study 2, Weak Arguments, High Vulnerability | .11 | 28 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 7: Study 2, Strong Arguments, Low Vulnerability | −.26 | 23 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 8: Study 2, Strong Arguments, High Vulnerability | .23 | 32 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 9: Study 3, Weak Arguments | −.50 | 31 | AB | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 10: Study 3, Strong Arguments | .99 | 29 | AB | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| de Hoog et al., 2005 | .59 | 118 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | 69 | I | — |
| de Hoog et al., 2008 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1, Low Source Credibility | .41 | 30 | AI | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 71 | I | — |
| 2: Study 1, High Source Credibility | .25 | 30 | AI | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 71 | I | — |
| 3: Study 2, Weak Arguments | .51 | 32 | AI | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 75 | I | — |
| 4: Study 2, Strong Arguments | .65 | 32 | AI | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 75 | I | — |
| Dembroski et al., 1978 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Black Communicator | .22 | 40 | A | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | — | 52 | I | E |
| 2: White Communicator | 1.48 | 40 | A | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | — | 52 | I | E |
| Dijkstra & Bos, 2015 | −.01 | 118 | IB | Y | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 56 | I | E |
| Duke et al., 2014 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Threat vs. Control | .41 | 1540 | IB | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | L | 53 | I | E |
| 2: Threat + SE vs. SE | .67 | 970 | IB | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | L | 53 | I | E |
| Evans et al., 1968 | −.53 | 49 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | M | — | I | E |
| Evans et al., 1970 | .35 | 156 | IB | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | M | — | I | E |
| Feenstra et al., 2014 | .32 | 1128 | AIB | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | L | 52 | I | E |
| France et al., 2014 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Threat vs. Control | .65 | 141 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | E |
| 2: Threat + SE vs. SE | .48 | 213 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | E |
| Frandsen, 1963 | .13 | 1080 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Fukada, 1973 | .30 | 345 | IB | Y | Y | N | O | D | N | — | S | 57 | C | — |
| Fukada, 1975 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Efficacy, Low Source Credibility | −.19 | 76 | AIB | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 2: Low Efficacy, High Source Credibility | .58 | 76 | AIB | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 3: High Efficacy, Low Source Credibility | .31 | 76 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 4: High Efficacy, High Source Credibility | .89 | 76 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| Fukada, 1983a | .94 | 48 | AIB | N | Y | N | O | D | N | — | L | 100 | C | — |
| Fukada, 1983 (2) | ||||||||||||||
| 1: No Forewarnings | .99 | 76 | I | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 2: Topic Content Forewarning | .72 | 76 | I | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 3: Persuasive Intent Forewarning | .58 | 76 | I | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 4: Fear Arousal Forewarning | 1.08 | 76 | I | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 5: Topic Content & Fear Arousal Forewarnings | .94 | 76 | I | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 6: Topic Content & Persuasive Intent Forewarnings | 1.10 | 76 | I | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 7: Persuasive Intent & Fear Arousal Forewarnings | .64 | 76 | I | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 8: All Three Forewarnings | .55 | 76 | I | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| Fukada, 1988 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Receive Counterargument | .86 | 42 | I | N | Y | N | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| 2: Don’t Receive Counterargument | .4 | 42 | I | N | Y | N | O | D | N | — | S | 100 | C | — |
| Fukada, 1991 | −.18 | 30 | A | N | N | N | R | PP | N | — | M | 100 | C | — |
| Gleicher & Petty, 1992 | .23 | 336 | A | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | — | — | I | — |
| Goldenbeld et al., 2008 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Males | −.05 | 42 | AI | Y | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 0 | I | — |
| 2: Females | .73 | 32 | AI | Y | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| Griffeth & Rogers, 1976 | 1.17 | 137 | IB | Y | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | — | I | — |
| Hass et al., 1975 | .60 | 56 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Hendrick et al., 1975 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1, Fear Reduction | .15 | 40 | AI | N | N | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| 2: Study 1, No Fear Reduction | .72 | 40 | AI | N | N | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| 3: Study 2 | .24 | 122 | AI | N | N | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| Hill & Gardner, 1980 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Repressors | −.59 | 27 | B | N | Y | N | O | D | N | — | S | 0 | I | — |
| 2: Sensitizers | .44 | 25 | B | N | Y | N | O | D | N | — | S | 0 | I | — |
| Hoeken & Geurts, 2005 | −.34 | 149 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 83 | I | — |
| Horowitz & Gumenik, 1970 | .26 | 112 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| Horowitz, 1969 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Single Exposure | .37 | 60 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 0 | I | — |
| 2: Multiple Exposures | .10 | 60 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | M | 0 | I | — |
| Insko et al., 1965 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Males | .00 | 72 | AI | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 0 | I | — |
| 2: Females | .00 | 72 | AI | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 100 | I | — |
| Janis & Feshbach, 1954 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Anxiety | −.14 | 80 | AB | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | M | — | I | — |
| 2: High Anxiety | −.68 | 51 | AB | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | M | — | I | — |
| Janis & Terwilliger, 1962 | −.72 | 31 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 19 | I | — |
| Janssens & De Pelsmacker, 2007 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Non-Drivers | −.04 | 95 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | — | I | — |
| 2: Drivers | .01 | 89 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| Johnston, 2006 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: No Pre-Test | .57 | 60 | A | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | 38 | I | E |
| 2: Pre-Test | .58 | 60 | A | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | 38 | I | E |
| Jones & Owen, 2006 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Ages 18–39 | .00 | 44 | I | Y | Y | N | R | D | N | — | S | 100 | I | E |
| 2: Ages 40–49 | .00 | 44 | I | Y | Y | N | R | D | N | — | S | 100 | I | E |
| 3: Ages 50+ | −.19 | 61 | I | Y | Y | N | R | D | N | — | S | 100 | I | L |
| Kareklas & Muehling, 2014 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: No Verbal, Control vs. Visual | .25 | 112 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 44 | I | E |
| 2: Verbal, Control vs. Visual | .10 | 112 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 44 | I | E |
| Keller & Block, 1996 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Self-Reference | −.01 | 51 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | E |
| 2: Other-Reference | .84 | 47 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | E |
| Keller, 1999 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Don’t Use Condoms | −.68 | 27 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 100 | I | E |
| 2: Regularly Use Condoms | .66 | 34 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | 100 | I | L |
| Kim et al., 2009 | .00 | 183 | B | N | N | N | R | PP | N | — | L | 53 | C | — |
| Kirscht & Haefner, 1973 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: One Exposure | .22 | 30 | B | N | N | N | R | PP | N | — | L | 58 | I | — |
| 2: Two Exposures | .06 | 28 | B | N | N | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 58 | I | — |
| 3: Three Exposures | −.10 | 27 | B | N | N | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 58 | I | — |
| Kirscht et al., 1978 | 1.23 | 109 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | M | 100 | I | E |
| Kleinot & Rogers, 1982 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Efficacy | .77 | 22 | I | N | Y | Y | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | E |
| 2: High Efficacy | 1.16 | 22 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | E |
| Klohn & Rogers, 1991 | .68 | 85 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 100 | I | E |
| LaTour et al., 1996 | .29 | 305 | AI | N | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| LaTour & Tanner, 2003 | .13 | 124 | AI | N | Y | N | O | D | N | — | S | 43 | I | — |
| Leventhal & Niles, 1964 | .45 | 209 | AI | Y | Y | N | O | D | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| Leventhal & Watts, 1966 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Smokers | −1.57 | 52 | B | Y | Y | N | O | D | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| 2: Non-Smokers | −.02 | 48 | B | Y | Y | N | O | D | N | SEE | S | — | I | — |
| Leventhal et al., 1965 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: No Prior Vaccination | .60 | 59 | AI | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| 2: Prior Vaccination | .36 | 88 | AI | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | L |
| Leventhal et al., 1967 | .53 | 106 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| Levin et al., 2007 | −.41 | 222 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| Lewis et al., 2008 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Male, Low Involvement | .23 | 35 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | L | 0 | I | L |
| 2: Male, High Involvement | .44 | 36 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 0 | I | E |
| 3: Female, Low Involvement | .91 | 65 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | L | 100 | I | L |
| 4: Female, High Involvement | .87 | 65 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 100 | I | E |
| Lewis et al., 2010 | −.08 | 270 | I | N | N | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 66 | I | — |
| Li, 2002 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Outcome | .27 | 28 | AI | N | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 44 | I | E |
| 2: High Outcome | .45 | 29 | AI | Y | Y | Y | O | D | N | — | S | 44 | I | E |
| Liberman & Chaiken, 1992 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Relevance | .35 | 86 | I | N | N | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| 2: High Relevance | .35 | 86 | I | N | N | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 100 | I | — |
| Lwin & Malik, 2014 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: With Wii | .10 | 199 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | SEE | L | 42 | C | E |
| 2: Without Wii | −.24 | 199 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | SEE | L | 42 | C | E |
| McMath & Prentice-Dunn, 2005 | 1.06 | 196 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | SEH | S | 74 | I | E |
| Meijnders et al., 2001a | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Weak Arguments | −.27 | 54 | AI | N | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 50 | I | — |
| 2: Strong Arguments | .47 | 54 | AI | N | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 50 | I | — |
| Meijnders et al., 2001b | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Weak Arguments | .46 | 40 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 67 | I | — |
| 2: Strong Arguments | .47 | 40 | A | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 67 | I | — |
| Morales et al., 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1 (Methamphetamine Use) | .42 | 104 | I | N | N | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| 2: Study 2 (Sun Safety) | .43 | 94 | I | N | N | N | R | PP | N | SEH | S | — | I | — |
| 3: Study 3 (BPA Products) | −.20 | 54 | I | N | Y | N | O | PP | — | — | S | — | I | — |
| Morris et al., 2014 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1, UV Photo | .31 | 31 | IB | N | Y | Y | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 100 | I | E |
| 2: Study 1, No UV Photo | −.53 | 28 | IB | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 100 | I | E |
| 3: Study 2, Appearance Focus | 1.05 | 24 | I | N | N | Y | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 100 | I | E |
| 4: Study 2, Health Focus | −.30 | 27 | I | N | N | Y | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 100 | I | E |
| 5: Study 2, No Photo | −.51 | 33 | I | N | N | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 100 | I | E |
| Muthusamy et al., 2009 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: No Efficacy Message | −.20 | 124 | AIB | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | M | 68 | C | E |
| 2: Efficacy Message | .08 | 124 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | M | 68 | C | E |
| Ordoñana et al., 2009 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: No Efficacy Message | .59 | 45 | IB | N | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | L | 83 | I | E |
| 2: Efficacy Message | .52 | 47 | IB | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | L | 83 | I | E |
| Pengchit, 2010 | 1.25 | 124 | B | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Pepper & Nettle, 2014 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1 | −.22 | 72 | IB | N | — | — | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | 46 | I | E |
| 2: Study 2 | .14 | 66 | IB | N | N | Y | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | 40 | I | E |
| Powell, 1965 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Threat to Listener | −.52 | 28 | A | N | N | N | O | PP | Y | — | S | 0 | I | — |
| 2: Threat to Family | .84 | 28 | A | N | N | N | O | PP | Y | — | S | 0 | I | — |
| 3: Threat to Nation | .01 | 24 | A | N | N | N | O | PP | Y | — | S | 0 | I | — |
| Priolo & Milhabet, 2008 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1, Smokers Committed to Quitting | .72 | 60 | I | N | — | — | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | 85 | I | E |
| 2: Study 1, Smokers Not Committed to Quitting | −.16 | 60 | I | N | — | — | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 85 | I | E |
| 3: Study 2, Smokers Committed to Smoking | −.55 | 60 | I | N | — | — | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 85 | I | E |
| 4: Study 2, Smokers Not Committed to Smoking | .49 | 60 | I | N | — | — | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | 85 | I | E |
| Radelfinger, 1965 | .90 | 131 | I | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| Raleigh, 2002 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Males, Low Response Costs | −.19 | 17 | I | Y | N | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | 0 | I | E |
| 2: Males, High Response Costs | −.25 | 13 | I | N | N | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | 0 | I | E |
| 3: Females, Low Response Costs | −.24 | 11 | I | Y | N | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | E |
| 4: Females, High Response Costs | −.78 | 10 | I | N | N | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | E |
| Ramirez & Lasater, 1976 | .00 | 462 | B | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| Ramirez & Lasater, 1977 | .30 | 196 | B | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| Rippetoe & Rogers, 1987 | .69 | 128 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | D | N | — | S | 100 | I | E |
| Rodriguez, 1995 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Bicycle Safety | .98 | 124 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | E |
| 2: Drinking | .54 | 125 | A | N | N | Y | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | E |
| 3: Tetanus Vaccine | .42 | 120 | A | N | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Rogers & Deckner, 1975 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1 | .25 | 116 | AIB | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| 2: Study 2 | .38 | 152 | AI | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| Rogers & Mewborn, 1976 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Efficacy | −.04 | 44 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 2: High Efficacy | .41 | 44 | I | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Rogers & Thistlethwaite, 1970 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Smokers | .47 | 40 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| 2: Non-Smokers | .82 | 40 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | SEE | S | — | I | — |
| Rosen et al., 1982 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Self-Esteem | .14 | 28 | I | N | Y | Y | O | PP | Y | — | S | 49 | I | E |
| 2: High Self-Esteem | −.24 | 28 | I | N | Y | Y | O | PP | Y | — | S | 49 | I | E |
| Rosenthal, 1997 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Peptic Ulcers | .01 | 70 | AI | N | N | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 2: Heart Disease | .26 | 70 | AI | N | N | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Roskos-Ewoldsen et al., 2004 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Efficacy | −.19 | 55 | AI | N | N | Y | R | D | Y | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| 2: High Efficacy | .10 | 55 | AI | Y | N | Y | R | D | Y | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| Ruiter et al., 2003 | .17 | 130 | AI | N | Y | Y | R | D | Y | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| Schmitt & Blass, 2008 | .56 | 30 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | — | I | — |
| Schoenbachler & Whittler, 1996 | .00 | 248 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| Self & Rogers, 1990 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Efficacy | −.55 | 42 | I | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | 55 | I | — |
| 2: High Efficacy | .64 | 42 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | 55 | I | — |
| Shehryar & Hunt, 2005 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1, Low Commitment to Drunk Driving | .01 | 45 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | 57 | I | — |
| 2: Study 1, High Commitment to Drunk Driving | -1.07 | 45 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 57 | I | — |
| 3: Study 2, Low Commitment to Drunk Driving, No Delay | −.79 | 25 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | 57 | I | — |
| 4: Study 2, High Commitment to Drunk Driving, No Delay | .12 | 25 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 57 | I | — |
| 5: Study 2, High Commitment to Drunk Driving, Delay | −1.17 | 25 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 57 | I | — |
| Shelton & Rogers, 1981 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Empathy | .85 | 56 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| 2: High Empathy | .26 | 56 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Shen, 2011 | .59 | 174 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 66 | I | L |
| Siero et al., 1984 | .24 | 269 | B | N | Y | Y | R | D | Y | — | L | 100 | I | L |
| Skilbeck et al., 1977 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Single Exposure | −.99 | 40 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | SEE | M | 100 | I | E |
| 2: Multiple Exposures | −1.23 | 46 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | SEE | M | 100 | I | E |
| Smalec & Klingle, 2000 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Efficacy | −.60 | 22 | B | N | Y | Y | O | PP | N | SEH | S | 81 | I | L |
| 2: High Efficacy | 1.40 | 22 | B | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | SEH | S | 81 | I | L |
| Smart & Fejer, 1974 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Marijuana, Non-Users | −.05 | 856 | I | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | — | I | — |
| 2: Marijuana, Users | −.17 | 249 | I | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| 3: Fictional Drug | 1.66 | 194 | I | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Smerecnik & Ruiter, 2010 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Efficacy | −.19 | 30 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 65 | I | L |
| 2: High Efficacy | .76 | 30 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 65 | I | L |
| Smith & Stutts, 2003 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Males, Overall | .29 | 79 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 0 | I | — |
| 2: Females, Overall | .38 | 76 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 100 | I | — |
| 3: White Subjects | .51 | 61 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 49 | I | — |
| 4: Hispanic Subjects | .29 | 55 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 49 | I | — |
| 5: African-American Subjects | .41 | 24 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | L | 49 | I | — |
| Stainback & Rogers, 1983 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Immediate Post-Test | .65 | 38 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | — | I | — |
| 2: Delayed Post-Test | 1.30 | 38 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | — | I | — |
| Stark et al., 2008 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Lozenges | .24 | 90 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 73 | I | E |
| 2: Reduced-Exposure Cigarettes | .42 | 90 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 73 | I | E |
| 3: Oral Tobacco | .34 | 90 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 73 | I | E |
| Stephenson & Witte, 1998 | .47 | 92 | AI | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | SEH | S | 56 | I | E |
| Struckman-Johnson et al., 1990 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Males | −.10 | 96 | I | N | — | — | R | PP | N | — | S | 0 | I | — |
| 2: Females | −.03 | 95 | I | N | — | — | R | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| Sturges & Rogers, 1996 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Kids, Low Coping | .02 | 30 | I | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 50 | I | — |
| 2: Kids, High Coping | .43 | 37 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 50 | I | — |
| 3: Teens, Low Coping | .05 | 23 | I | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 50 | I | — |
| 4: Teens, High Coping | .32 | 22 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 50 | I | — |
| 5: Adults, Low Coping | −.34 | 31 | I | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 50 | I | — |
| 6: Adults, High Coping | .27 | 38 | I | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | S | 50 | I | — |
| Tanner et al., 1991 | .81 | 60 | I | N | — | — | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | — |
| Taubman Ben-Ari et al., 2000 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Study 1, Low Driving-Related Self-Esteem | 1.06 | 27 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | 0 | C | — |
| 2: Study 1, High Driving-Related Self-Esteem | .08 | 27 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 0 | C | — |
| 3: Study 2, Low Driving-Related Self-Esteem | −.76 | 27 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEE | S | 0 | C | — |
| 4: Study 2, High Driving-Related Self-Esteem | .20 | 28 | B | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | 0 | C | — |
| ter Horst et al., 1985 | −.12 | 107 | B | Y | Y | Y | O | PP | N | — | S | — | I | E |
| Thornton et al., 2000 | −.65 | 112 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | — | I | L |
| Umeh & Stanley, 2005 | −.04 | 100 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | N | — | S | 0 | I | — |
| Umeh, 2012 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Credibility Source | .06 | 134 | I | Y | Y | N | R | D | Y | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| 2: High Credibility Source | .25 | 134 | I | Y | Y | N | R | D | Y | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| Venkatesan, 2010 | 3.01 | 72 | A | Y | N | Y | O | PP | N | — | L | 100 | I | E |
| Weinstein et al., 1990 | .24 | 264 | I | Y | Y | Y | O | D | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| Welbourne et al., 2008 | .00 | 308 | A | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| Wheatley & Oshikawa, 1970 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Anxiety | .30 | 49 | A | N | N | N | O | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| 2: High Anxiety | −.14 | 47 | A | N | N | N | O | PP | Y | — | S | — | I | — |
| Will et al., 2009 | .54 | 352 | AB | Y | Y | N | O | PP | N | — | S | 80 | I | E |
| Witte & Morrison, 1995 | −.32 | 122 | AIB | Y | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | L | 45 | I | — |
| Witte et al., 1998 | .03 | 96 | AIB | N | Y | Y | R | PP | N | — | S | 100 | I | — |
| Wong & Cappella, 2009 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Efficacy | −.01 | 277 | I | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 47 | I | E |
| 1: High Efficacy | .81 | 278 | I | Y | Y | N | R | PP | Y | — | S | 47 | I | E |
| Wurtele & Maddux, 1987 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: No Efficacy Message | 1.42 | 40 | I | N | N | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | M | 100 | I | E |
| 2: Self-Efficacy Message | −.11 | 40 | I | Y | N | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | M | 100 | I | E |
| 3: Response-Efficacy Message | .75 | 40 | I | Y | N | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | M | 100 | I | E |
| 4: Both Efficacy Messages | 1.22 | 40 | I | Y | N | Y | R | PP | N | SEE | M | 100 | I | E |
| Wurtele, 1988 | .82 | 49 | IB | Y | N | Y | R | PP | N | — | M | 100 | I | E |
| Yoon & Tinkman, 2013 | ||||||||||||||
| 1: Low Past Threat, Nonhumor Ads | −.28 | 48 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | — | I | E |
| 2: Low Past Threat, Humor Ads | .60 | 48 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | — | I | E |
| 3: High Past Threat, Nonhumor Ads | .62 | 48 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | — | I | E |
| 4: High Past Threat, Humor Ads | −.58 | 48 | AI | N | Y | N | R | PP | Y | SEH | S | — | I | E |
Note: d = Standardized mean effect size. N = Sample size for treatment plus comparison. AIB = Whether d was based on attitude (A), intention (I), and/or behavior (B) outcomes. EFF = Whether an efficacy statement was included (Y) or not (N). Sev = Whether the treatment message was manipulated to be higher in depicted severity than the comparison message (Y) or not (N). Sus = Whether the treatment message was manipulated to be higher in depicted susceptibility than the comparison message (Y) or not (N). OR = Whether the recommended behavior was one-time (O) or repeated (R). DPP = Whether the recommended behavior was detection (D) or prevention/promotion (PP). DP = Whether the word death was present in the message (Y) or not (N). SE = Whether the recommended behavior was self-esteem enhancing (SEE) or self-esteem hindering (SEH). Delay = Whether the outcome followed exposure to the message by less than 24 hours (S), 1–14 days (M), or more than 14 days (L). %F = Percent of sample that was female (0–100%). IC = Whether the sample was from an individualist (I) or collectivist (C) culture. SOC = Whether the sample was in the early (E) or late (L) stages of change. Dash (–) indicates the variable was not relevant for the study.