THE ARTICLE · 17 MIN
Some messages make you feel something before you’ve had a chance to think. A jolt of worry. A flicker of “I might miss out”. A warm sense that everyone else is already in.
That’s emotion doing its job. It can point you at something that matters, and it can also hurry you past a decision. This page looks at four common emotional triggers, what the research says about each, and how to tell an honest use from a pushy one.
Emotional appeals, in plain words
An emotional appeal is a message built to make you feel something so that you act. That isn’t dishonest by itself. A safety campaign showing a real risk uses emotion to point at something true.
The trouble starts when the feeling is attached to something false: a deadline that isn’t real, a stock count that never changes, reviews nobody wrote. This page looks at four triggers:
- Fear: a warning about what could go wrong.
- Scarcity: only a few left.
- Urgency: it ends soon.
- Social proof: everyone else is doing it.
What the research says
Fear
Fear can move people, but researchers still argue about how much, and when. The studies below test warnings about risks, as in public health campaigns, rather than ads.
- A 2015 meta-analysis pooled 127 articles and 248 samples, with 27,372 people in all. On average, fear appeals moved attitudes, intentions and behaviour in the intended direction.
- It identified no situations in which they backfired.
- They worked better when the message said what people could do about the risk, showed the risk as serious and likely, and asked for a one-off action.
A team based mainly at Maastricht University in the Netherlands reads the evidence differently.
- A 2018 review by that team set stricter tests: random assignment, measured behaviour, and fear compared at high and low efficacy, meaning how able people feel to act.
- It concluded that the evidence does not support positive effects of fear appeals.
- In the team’s view, people who feel able to act may change, while people who don’t react defensively.
- An earlier re-analysis by three of its members, in 2013, found six studies that crossed high and low threat with high and low efficacy and measured behaviour. In them, threat had an effect only when efficacy was high.
An older meta-analysis, from 2000, found the greatest behaviour change when strong fear came with high efficacy. Strong fear with low efficacy produced the most defensive responses.
The 2018 review drew several published replies. One, co-written by the 2015 study’s senior author, argues that fear appeals do change behaviour in lab studies.
Our reading: the overall size of the fear effect is still argued. But every side we read finds that fear works better, or only works, when the message also shows a step people can take.
Scarcity
Scarcity cues make people value things more, at least in what they say.
In a 1975 experiment, cookies in scarce supply were rated more desirable than the same cookies in abundant supply. Cookies that were scarce because of high demand were rated higher than cookies that were scarce by accident.
A 2022 meta-analysis of 416 effect sizes from 131 studies starts from the finding that scarcity cues generally raise a product’s value and the intention to buy it, and maps which kinds of scarcity work best for which products.
Both measure ratings and intentions rather than actual purchases.
Urgency
Urgency that isn’t real can still pull people toward the worse choice.
In five experiments published in 2018, people were more likely to pick a lower-payoff task over a higher-payoff one when the worse task merely looked urgent. One way to make it look urgent was an illusion that it was about to expire.
An independent replication with 2,374 people, published in September 2026, found the effect again. It was smaller once more controls were added, but still there, at least in that kind of experiment.
These studies used tasks with payoffs, not shopping. They show that false urgency can pull, not how often it does so in shops.
What other people do
Telling people what most others do can help, but the famous hotel example is still argued.
In the original 2008 hotel study, a sign saying most guests reused their towels beat the standard environmental message: 44.1% against 35.1% reuse in one experiment. Five later replications each failed to reach significance on their own. A separate 2014 study in two hotels, which counted towels used, found guests used significantly fewer towels when the message described what other guests in their own situation had done.
A 2016 reanalysis that pooled the studies found strong evidence for the effect. Critics argued the pooling was flawed and that models allowing the studies to differ weaken the evidence. The reanalysis team agreed that analysing the studies separately suited this case better, and replied that averaging across models still gave fairly constant evidence in its favour.
We lean towards a real but small effect over the standard message, because the pooled evidence points that way while no single study on its own was strong. Our Influence summary covers this in more depth.
The “95% subconscious” figure
You may have seen the claim that 95% of buying decisions happen in the subconscious mind. It is credited to a Harvard Business School professor, in a 2003 interview about his new book.
The interview gives no study for the number, and we couldn’t find one. Even on that page the figure shifts: the summary speaks of purchase decision making, while the interviewer’s question speaks of all cognition.
His own 2003 book, as quoted in later books, gives a broader version and credits it to “most estimates”: about 95 percent of thought, emotion and learning. That is a claim about the mind in general, not about buying.
When the trigger is built into the page
Online, these triggers can be part of the design. Researchers call such designs dark patterns: choices that steer or deceive people into decisions they didn’t intend.
A 2019 study scanned about 53,000 product pages on about 11,000 shopping websites. It found 1,818 dark pattern instances, and 183 websites using deceptive ones. It also found 22 third-party providers offering dark patterns as a ready-made service.
The claims, one by one
Here are eight popular claims about emotional triggers. Each verdict is about the claim as it’s usually stated.
“Scare tactics work”
Still argued The 2015 meta-analysis found that fear appeals worked on average and found no backfire. The Maastricht team argues that, under stricter tests, the evidence doesn’t support positive effects. Both sides find fear works better when the message shows a step people can take.
“Scarcity makes people want things more”
Holds up Scarcity cues raise how much people say they want something. The studies measure ratings and intentions rather than actual purchases, so the effect on what people buy is less clear.
“False urgency pushes people into worse choices”
Partly In lab experiments, tasks that merely looked urgent pulled people away from better ones, and an independent replication found the effect again. Those experiments used tasks with payoffs, not shopping.
“Telling people what everyone else does always works”
Still argued The famous hotel-towel result did not reach significance in five later replications taken one by one. Pooled, the studies point to a real effect, and researchers disagree about the right way to pool them. Always goes further than any of them.
“95% of buying decisions are made subconsciously”
Can't confirm The figure is credited to a 2003 interview that gives no study for it, and we couldn’t find one. In his own book, as later books quote it, he credits the figure to “most estimates” and applies it to thought, emotion and learning in general.
“A fake ‘ends tonight’ timer is just marketing”
Doesn't hold up Falsely saying an offer is only available for a limited time, to rush a decision, is on the EU’s and the UK’s lists of practices that are always unfair. A 2022 report by US Federal Trade Commission staff lists fake countdown timers among dark patterns.
“Buying good reviews is a legal grey area”
Doesn't hold up The US, the EU and the UK all have rules that name it. In the US, an FTC rule bans paying for reviews that must be positive or negative. EU and UK law list fake reviews among practices that are always unfair.
“The FTC’s click-to-cancel rule is in force”
Doesn't hold up The FTC finalised one in 2024, but a federal appeals court vacated it in 2025. As of early October 2026, the FTC has asked for comments on whether to amend its older rule, but has not proposed new rule text. Separately, a 2010 federal law already requires online sellers of these plans to provide “simple mechanisms” to stop recurring charges.
The 30-second pause test
When a message makes you feel a sudden push, give it 30 seconds before you act. This is our own rule of thumb, not a tested method. We found no study that tests this routine or its timing.
- Name the feeling. Is it worry, fear of missing out, guilt, or the pull of the crowd?
- Find the claim behind it. What fact is the feeling resting on? “Only 2 left.” “Ends at midnight.” “Thousands of happy customers.”
- Ask if you can check it. Does the count ever change? Is there a date and time zone? Can you read the reviews, including the bad ones?
- Ask what happens if you wait. If the honest answer is “nothing much”, the hurry belongs to the seller, not to you.
- Look for the step. An honest warning tells you what you can do about it. A pushy one only turns up the feeling.
The point isn’t to stop feeling. It’s to let the feeling and the facts catch up with each other before you decide.
Spot the trigger: a short quiz
Each message below is one we wrote. None comes from a real company. Name the trigger, then read the answer.
-
Only 2 left in stock! Order now before they’re gone.
Answer: scarcity. It may be true. Check whether the number ever changes, and whether more stock arrives later.
-
Hurry! This price disappears in 09:59.
Answer: urgency. A countdown is honest only if the price really changes when it ends. Reload the page and see if the timer starts again.
-
Join 50,000 people who already made the switch.
Answer: social proof. Ask who is counting, and whether those people are like you.
-
Every day you wait, your savings are shrinking.
Answer: fear. A real risk can sit behind a line like this. Look for the step it offers and whether that step is the only one.
-
Are you sure? You’ll lose all your progress and your rewards.
Answer: fear of loss, shown just as you try to leave. Check whether anything is really lost, and keep going if you meant to leave.
-
Customers love it: ★★★★★ “Best purchase ever!”
Answer: social proof. One glowing quote says little. Look for the full spread of reviews and the date they were written.
-
Sale ends Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.
Answer: urgency, stated plainly. A specific end time you can check is the honest version of a deadline.
-
Your friend Sam just signed up. Don’t get left behind!
Answer: social proof and fear of missing out together. Ask whether you wanted this before you heard about Sam.
Honest versions: before and after
Emotion isn’t the problem. The same feelings can carry a true message. Here are five messages we wrote, each in a pushy version and an honest one.
Scarcity
Before: Almost gone! Only a few left!!!
After: We made 200 of these and 40 are left. We don’t plan to make more this year.
What changed: a real count, and a plain statement about what happens next.
Urgency
Before: Last chance! Price goes up any minute!
After: The launch price ends on Friday at 6 p.m. London time. After that it goes back to the normal price.
What changed: a real deadline you can check, and what happens after it.
Social proof
Before: Everyone’s raving about it!
After: Here are all our reviews, newest first, including the critical ones.
What changed: the reader sees the evidence instead of being told the verdict.
Fear
Before: One crash and your memories are gone forever. Don’t be that person.
After: If your laptop fails, photos stored only on it can be lost. Our backup runs every night once you switch it on in Settings.
What changed: the risk is still there, but the message gives a step you can take.
Leaving
Before: Are you SURE? You’ll lose everything forever.
After: Your plan ends on the last day of this billing period. You can rejoin any time.
What changed: cancelling is as clear as signing up, and the message says what really happens.
A simple test for your own messages: would it still persuade if the reader knew every fact behind it?
What regulators have acted on
This section describes what regulators in three places have done. It is not legal advice, and the rules differ by country.
United States
Dark patterns. In 2022, staff at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a report called Bringing Dark Patterns to Light. It grew out of a workshop the FTC held in April 2021. It focuses on four common tactics:
- misleading people and disguising ads as independent content;
- making subscriptions or charges hard to cancel;
- burying key terms and junk fees;
- tricking people into sharing their data.
Among its examples are countdown timers made to suggest a limited time when the offer isn’t actually time-limited. The report found dark patterns in online shopping, cookie banners, children’s apps and subscription sales.
Fake reviews. In August 2024, the FTC announced a final rule on fake reviews and testimonials. It bans, among other things:
- reviews by people who don’t exist, including AI-generated ones, or by people with no real experience of the product;
- paying for reviews on condition that they are positive, or negative;
- reviews by company insiders without a clear disclosure;
- company-controlled review sites posing as independent;
- using threats or intimidation to remove negative reviews;
- buying or selling fake followers or views.
The rule lets the FTC seek civil penalties against people who break it knowingly. It took effect on 21 October 2024, and it was still in the official code of federal rules on 1 October 2026.
Click to cancel. The FTC announced a final “click-to-cancel” rule in October 2024. In 2025, a federal appeals court vacated it, finding the FTC had skipped a required preliminary regulatory analysis. Separately, a 2010 federal law already requires online sellers of these plans to provide “simple mechanisms” to stop recurring charges.
In February 2026, the FTC restored the older version of its rule on negative option plans, the ones where you’re charged unless you act. In March 2026, it asked the public whether to amend that rule, including whether to adopt parts of the vacated one. Comments closed on 13 April 2026.
As of early October 2026, the FTC’s page for the rule lists no newer step. The FTC said it still receives thousands of complaints each year about these plans, more than 100,000 in the past five years.
European Union
Unfair commercial practices. The EU’s Unfair Commercial Practices Directive of 2005 has an annex of practices that are always unfair, often called the blacklist. Point 7 covers:
Falsely stating that a product will only be available for a very limited time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a very limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice.
Fake reviews. A 2019 amendment added two review practices to that list. One is claiming reviews come from real customers without taking reasonable steps to check. The other is submitting, or paying someone to submit, false reviews. EU countries had to apply the new rules from 28 May 2022.
Platform design. The Digital Services Act, which applies from 17 February 2024, has an article on dark patterns, Article 25. It says online platforms must not design their interfaces in a way that deceives or manipulates users, or otherwise impairs their ability to make free and informed decisions.
It doesn’t apply to practices already covered by the unfair practices directive or by EU data protection law (the GDPR). The European Commission may issue guidelines on specific practices. One named example is making it harder to end a service than to sign up.
Coming next. The European Commission plans a Digital Fairness Act. As of 20 September 2026, the European Parliament’s tracker listed it as announced, with a proposal expected in the last quarter of 2026. It is expected to cover dark patterns, unfair pricing, misleading influencer marketing and addictive design.
United Kingdom
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 has its own list of practices that are always unfair. That part came into force on 6 April 2025. The list includes:
- falsely saying a product will only be available for a limited time, to rush a decision;
- submitting, or getting someone else to write or submit, fake reviews, or reviews that hide that they were incentivised, for example paid for.
The Act also has rules for subscriptions, but they are not in force yet. In August 2026 the government said they will come into force in January 2027.
How to use this
- Notice the feeling first. A sudden push is a cue to slow down, not proof that something is wrong.
- Look for the fact under the feeling. A count, a date, a review, a risk. If you can’t find one, the feeling is doing all the work.
- Check the step. An honest warning tells you what you can do. A pushy one only adds pressure.
- Use the same test on your own messages. True scarcity, real deadlines and real reviews persuade without hiding anything.
For more on checking claims before you act, see our guides to checking something online before you share it and numbers that mislead. For the classic persuasion principles, see our Influence summary.
Why it matters
Feeling something about a message isn’t a flaw. The problem is a feeling attached to something false. The pause test gives you 30 seconds to tell the two apart, in other people’s messages and in your own.
Sources
Fear
- Melanie B. Tannenbaum, Justin Hepler, Rick S. Zimmerman and others, “Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories”, Psychological Bulletin 141(6) (2015), 1178–1204. We read the abstract.
- Gerjo Kok, Gjalt-Jorn Y. Peters, Loes T. E. Kessels, Gill A. ten Hoor and Robert A. C. Ruiter, “Ignoring theory and misinterpreting evidence: the false belief in fear appeals”, Health Psychology Review 12(2) (2018), 111–125. We read the abstract.
- Gjalt-Jorn Y. Peters, Robert A. C. Ruiter and Gerjo Kok, “Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory”, Health Psychology Review 7(Suppl 1) (2013), S8–S31.
- Kim Witte and Mike Allen, “A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns”, Health Education & Behavior 27(5) (2000), 591–615.
- Benjamin X. White and Dolores Albarracín, “Investigating belief falsehood. Fear appeals do change behaviour in experimental laboratory studies”, Health Psychology Review 12(2) (2018), 147–150.
Scarcity, urgency and social proof
- Stephen Worchel, Jerry Lee and Akanbi Adewole, “Effects of supply and demand on ratings of object value”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32 (1975).
- Belinda Barton, Natalina Zlatevska and Harmen Oppewal, “Scarcity tactics in marketing: a meta-analysis of product scarcity effects on consumer purchase intentions”, Journal of Retailing 98 (2022). We read the abstract.
- Meng Zhu, Yang Yang and Christopher K. Hsee, “The Mere Urgency Effect”, Journal of Consumer Research 45 (2018). We read the abstract.
- Mills, Cubitt and Starmer, “Brief Commentary: An Independent Replication Study of the Mere Urgency Effect”, Journal of Consumer Research (2026). We read the abstract.
- Noah J. Goldstein, Robert B. Cialdini and Vladas Griskevicius, “A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels”, Journal of Consumer Research 35 (2008).
- Benjamin Scheibehenne, Tahira Jamil and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, “Bayesian evidence synthesis can reconcile seemingly inconsistent results: the case of hotel towel reuse”, Psychological Science 27 (2016); and the authors’ 2017 reply to critics.
- Gerhard Reese, Kristina Loew and Georges Steffgen, “A Towel Less: Social Norms Enhance Pro-Environmental Behavior in Hotels”, The Journal of Social Psychology 154(2) (2014), 97–100. We read the abstract.
The 95% figure and dark patterns
- Manda Mahoney, “The Subconscious Mind of the Consumer (And How To Reach It)”, interview with Gerald Zaltman, HBS Working Knowledge, 13 January 2003; and later books quoting him and his 2003 book (including Arthur Asa Berger, Ads, Fads, and Consumer Culture, 5th edition, 2015), read as short searchable passages through Open Library.
- Arunesh Mathur and others, “Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites”, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (CSCW, 2019). We read the abstract.
United States
- Federal Trade Commission, “FTC Report Shows Rise in Sophisticated Dark Patterns Designed to Trick and Trap Consumers”, 15 September 2022, on the staff report Bringing Dark Patterns to Light.
- Federal Trade Commission, “Federal Trade Commission Announces Final Rule Banning Fake Reviews and Testimonials”, 14 August 2024; 16 CFR Part 465, read in the Electronic Code of Federal Regulations (version for 1 October 2026).
- Federal Trade Commission, “Negative Option Rule” (rule page, read 6 October 2026); “Revision of the Negative Option Rule …”, Federal Register, 12 February 2026; “FTC Seeks Public Comment in Response to Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Negative Option Marketing Practices”, 11 March 2026; and the advance notice in the Federal Register, 13 March 2026.
- 15 U.S.C. 8403 (Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act, Pub. L. 111-345, 2010), section 8403(3).
European Union
- Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices, Annex I, Official Journal L 149, 11 June 2005, read through the EU Publications Office.
- Directive (EU) 2019/2161, amending Annex I (points 23b and 23c), read through the EU Publications Office.
- Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 (Digital Services Act), Article 25, read through the EU Publications Office.
- European Parliament, Legislative Train Schedule, “Digital Fairness Act”, information updated 20 September 2026.
United Kingdom
- Prime Minister’s Office, “PM starts roll out of ‘everyday fixes’ on the cost of living – ending rip-off discounts and subscription traps”, GOV.UK, 9 August 2026.
- Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Schedule 20, and the Commencement No. 2 Regulations 2025.
- Department for Business and Trade, “Government response to consultation on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime”, 2 April 2026.
Checked October 2026.
Related: Influence summary · Check something online before you share it · Cognitive biases, checked
- persuasion
- psychology
- critical thinking
- consumer protection