The data support the assumption that there is an important association between threat and coping appraisals facilitating behaviour change. Moreover, the widely held notion that people have to be scared or threatened to encourage attitude and behaviour changes should be treated with caution. Communication should instead focus on efficacy to foster adaptive responses. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? There is mixed support for the effectiveness of fear appeals in persuasive health communication, especially regarding the interaction of threat perceptions and coping appraisals for fear and danger control processes. The Extended Parallel Process Model - being a current and often applied model to investigate the effects of fear appeals - suggests a multiplicative relationship between threat perceptions and coping perceptions Most studies applying conventional analysis strategies (e.g., [M] ANOVAs) indicate that perceptions and appraisals of threat and efficacy are not directly related to each other. What does this study add? It demonstrates the parallelism and interaction between threat appraisal and coping appraisal processes and demonstrates the usefulness of SEM in testing associations within the EPPM. It confirms the assumption of an important multiplicative association between threat and coping appraisals within the EPPM, while related cognitive processes still seem to operate independently. Adaptive responses to persuasive messages are mainly triggered using efficacy cues, not threat, which could also be triggered by promoting positive emotional experiences (e.g., gain-framing or entertainment education).

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The overload of health information has been a major challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public health authorities play a primary role in managing this information. However, individuals have to apply critical health literacy to evaluate it. The objective of this paper is to identify targets for strengthening critical health literacy by focusing on the field of argumentation theory. This paper is based on the textual analysis of instances of health information through the lens of argumentation theory. The results show that critical health literacy benefits from: (1) understanding the concept of argument and the supporting reasons, (2) identifying the main argument schemes, and (3) the knowledge and use of the main critical questions to check the soundness of arguments. This study operationalizes the main aspects of critical health literacy. It calls for specific educational and training initiatives in the field. Moreover, it argues in favor of broadening the current educational curricula to empower individuals to engage in informed and quality decision making. Strenghtening individuals' critical health literacy involves interventions to empower in argument evaluation. For this purpose, argumentation theory has analytical and normative frameworks that can be adapted within a lay-audience education concept.