The impact of perceived risk on risk-reducing behaviours
12 important questions on The impact of perceived risk on risk-reducing behaviours
Cigarette warning labels controversy
Models relating Risk Perceptions to Protective Behaviour
2. The extended parallel process model (EPPM)
Protection motivation theory (PMT)
- threat appraisal
- coping appraisal
- Higher grades + faster learning
- Never study anything twice
- 100% sure, 100% understanding
Threath appraisal (PMT model)
+ perceived vulnerability (perceived likelihood of adverse outcome occurring; if lower, more likely to engage in risky behaviour; e.g. getting a STD)
+ perceived severity (perceived extent of harm likely if adverse outcome occurs; e.g. 'i will just get meds')
- perceived rewards (if higher, more likely to engage in risky behaviour; e.g. no discussion about condom use)
________________________________________________________
= threat appraisal
Coping appraisal (PMT model)
+ self-efficacy (beliefs about one's ability to perform risk-reducing behaviour; e.g. I am able to use a condom when having sex)
- Response costs (beliefs about any physical or psychological costs reduce its likelyhood; e.g. the sexual experience is less intense when using a condom)
____________________________________________________________
= coping appraisal
Threat appraisal x coping appraisal interaction (PMT model)
↑ perceived threat, ↑ intentions risk-reducing behaviour
If people do not believe they can cope (low efficacy appraisal):
↑ perceived threat, ↓ intentions risk-reducing behaviour
Increasng perceived threat is counterproductive in individuals with low efficacy for risk-reducing behaviour (boomerang effect)
Danger control (EPPM model)
Fear control (EPPM model)
Evidence for PMT and EPPM
- Stronger relation between efficacy appraisals and health-related intentions/behaviour than threat appraisals.
- Difficult to change coping or self-efficacy through the provision of written information
- No support for threat x efficacy interaction
Many PMT and EPPM intervention studies assume that participants process information in a careful way, but: Cognitive processing of health threat information does not happen in a carefully considered manner!!
NOG GOED LEZEN DIT critical appraisal of studies testing PMT and the EPPM
PMT or EPPM studies often do not assess behaviour as an outcome, instead focusing on intentions. Some respondents may report low vulnerability because they do not perceive the threat as probable, while others may report low vulnerability because they intend to begin protective behaviour, and figure their anticipated future behaviour into their reported vulnerability.
Heuristic-systematic Model (HSM)
1. systematic processing: involves an analytic and in-depth consideration of judgement-relevant information.
2. heuristic processing: requires less cognitive effort, entailing the activation and application of heuristics: 'quick and easy' judgmental rules of thumb stored in memory.
According to th HSM, the sufficiency principle determines how information is processed.
Different types of motivation according to HSM
- accuracy motivation
- Impression motivation (desire to hold attitudes that satisfy current perceived social demands)
- Defense motivation (desire to hold beliefs congruent with one's existing self-definitional beliefs)
ALL COMBINATIONS ARE POSSIBLE
The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:
- A unique study and practice tool
- Never study anything twice again
- Get the grades you hope for
- 100% sure, 100% understanding
![Trustpilot Logo](/images/design_2020/lp/clp-trustpilot-en.png)