Testing the Theoretical Design of a Health Risk Message: Reexamining the Major Tenets of the Extended Parallel Process Model

Abstract

This study examined the fear control/danger control responses that are predicted by the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM). In a campaign designed to inform college students about the symptoms and dangers of meningitis, participants were given either a high-threat/no-efficacy or high-efficacy/no-threat health risk message, thus testing the extreme assumptions of the EPPM. Although the study supports the main predictions of the EPPM in the context of meningitis, the results provide new evidence that only a marginal amount of threat is necessary in a health risk message to move the target audience toward the desired protective measures. In addition, the results also suggest that the messages containing only threat may only scare the target audience further into fear control. Implications and future research are discussed.

The Extended Parallel Process Model

“…Beliefs about one's risk of experiencing the threat (Witte, 1998;Witte et al, 1996) (Witte, 1998;Witte et al, 1996) Efficacy = Response efficacy + Self efficacy (Gore & Bracken, 2005;LaVela et al, 2007McMahan et al, 1998 Self-efficacy Beliefs about one's ability to perform the recommended response to avert the threat (Gore & Bracken, 2005;Witte, 1998;Witte et al, 1996) I (Witte et al, 1996) Response efficacy…”

Use of the Extended Parallel Processing Model to Evaluate Culturally Relevant Kernicterus Messages

“…The guide includes (a) in-depth information on jaundice and how it is treated; (b) information on how to use the guide; (c) checklists for expectant parents to use before the baby is born (and what action to take if the child is at risk), for parents to complete before they take their newborn home from the hospital (and what to do if the baby is at risk), and for new parents to complete during the first few days the baby is home (e.g., tracking the number of wet and dirty diapers); (d) The EPPM is an effective and commonly utilized framework in communication health campaigns and is designed to increase the adoption of positive health behaviors (Gore & Bracken, 2005;McMahan, Witte, & Meyer, 1998;Rimal, 2001;Roberto, Meyer, Johnson, & Atkins, 2000;Witte & Allen, 2000). The EPPM attempts to explain how individuals process and respond to threatening persuasive messages by addressing both emotional and cognitive aspects of message processing that contribute to the acceptance of a message (Witte, 1992).…”

“…As perceived threat and efficacy increase, individuals are motivated to address the presented danger (Gore & Bracken, 2005). This danger control is addressed through adaptive outcomes, that is, changes in behavior that reduce the threat (Witte, 1992).…”

“…This danger control is addressed through adaptive outcomes, that is, changes in behavior that reduce the threat (Witte, 1992). If threat is high and efficacy is low, danger is not addressed and fear control processes are initiated (Gore & Bracken, 2005;Witte, 1992). In these cases, individuals respond to their fear as opposed to the threat and engage in defensive motivation, which may include denial and rejection of the message.…”

“…Because the EPPM is a message construction framework well-adapted to the construction of successful health behavior messages (Gore & Bracken, 2005;Hullett & Witte, 2001;Murray-Johnson et al, 2004;Rimal, 2001;Roberto et al, 2000;Smith et al, 2008;Witte, 1997), the model was utilized in this study as a guiding framework for design and analysis of interview questions for multicultural parents and health care professionals as they evaluated kernicterus prevention materials.…”