The EPPM put to the test

Abstract

Fear appeals are frequently used in health communication, for example in anti-smoking campaigns. Of the different theoretical models that predict and explain how fear appeals work, the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM; Witte, 1992) is probably used most often. However, most propositions of the EPPM were not explicitly tested, or received mixed empirical support (Popova, 2012). To clarify the relationships between the variables of the EPPM, four of the EPPM's propositions were tested by performing correlational and mediation analyses. The results (n = 116) show that a large part of the relationships between the concepts of the EPPM and the outcomes of fear appeals differ from what the EPPM claims: threat and intention did not prove to be related, threat did not mediate the effect of fear on intention, and fear did not prove to influence the fear control responses. The findings from this study raise questions regarding the appropriateness of the EPPM.

Predicator of Pregnant Women’s Self-care Behavior against Air Pollution: An explanation based on the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM)

“…Studies have shown that self-efficacy, regardless of high perceived severity, can have a significant predictive role in health and self-care behavior ( 24 ). Although other research findings showed that response efficacy ( 25 ) and perceived susceptibility ( 26 ) have more predictive power in self-care behavior, in another study results showed self-efficacy as the most important factor in postnatal self-care behavior (physical activity and eating habits) in diabetic women ( 27 ). A study showed self-efficacy as an important factor in participation of women in the use of condoms ( 28 ).…”

Reactions to tobacco warning labels: predictors and outcomes of adaptive and maladaptive responses

“…In contrast, when in fear control (maladaptive response), people engage in defensive mechanisms aimed at reducing fear, such as denial (Ooms et al, 2016;Witte, 1994). Thus: H3: Participants exhibiting a maladaptive response will report greater levels of denial compared to participants exhibiting an adaptive response.…”

“…First, those with high perceived efficacy will engage in danger control (i.e., adaptive response) which leads to positive changes in attitude, intention, and behavior. Second, those with low perceived efficacy will engage in fear control (i.e., maladaptive response), including defensive avoidance, reactance, and denial (downplaying the message or stating that the message is trying to manipulate them) (Ooms, Jansen, & Hoeks, 2016;Witte, 1992Witte, , 1994. In the case of tobacco use, fear appeals could lead to adaptive responses such as increased intention to quit, quit attempts, and intention to not use tobacco, or maladaptive responses such as denial of the threat and reactance (Cho et al, 2016;Popova, 2014;Thrasher et al, 2016;Wong & Cappella, 2009).…”

Examining the Extended Parallel Process Model for communicating about cardiovascular disease to an at-risk population utilising a think aloud methodology

“…A number of gaps have been identified within the literature on the EPPM: none of the core theoretical propositions of the EPPM have received complete support, there are inconsistencies between the level of examination given to each proposition, there is a lack of operational definitions for the 'critical point' and what constitutes a 'true control', and a lack of in-depth experimental assessments of the model processes (Maloney et al, 2011;Ooms et al, 2015;Popova, 2012). When assessing illnesses and their related health behaviours, further complications can arise as inconsistent results could be attributed to potential differences in the specific illnesses and health behaviours (Rimal, 2001).…”