The Extended Parallel Process Model

Abstract

This article examines constructs, propositions, and assumptions of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Review of the EPPM literature reveals that its theoretical concepts are thoroughly developed, but the theory lacks consistency in operational definitions of some of its constructs. Out of the 12 propositions of the EPPM, a few have not been tested explicitly and not a single one received unequivocal empirical support. This article proposes alternative operationalization for some of the constructs and examines some assumptions of this theory, such as additive relationship between the constructs, the role of time and issue of thresholds, and disregard for the existing state of the audience. Finally, the role of the EPPM as a potential foundation for a general theory of negative emotional appeals is addressed. Keywords behavioral theories, health communications, injury prevention/safety, measurement development, risk communicationScaring people to motivate them to change their behavior has been practiced for millennia. Systematic empirical investigation of fear appeals, on the other hand, is less than 60 years old (Dillard, 1994). Since the 1950s, several theories have been proposed to explain the processing and effects of fear appeal messages, and the extended parallel process model (EPPM; Witte, 1992) is one of the latest developments in this area. The EPPM integrates previous research on fear appeals in an attempt to answer a long-standing question of why fear appeals sometimes fail and sometimes succeed.The EPPM has many strong points that make it appealing to both scholars and practitioners of public communication campaigns. It was able to reconcile contradictory predictions and findings of its predecessors, it has an elegant and easy to understand structure, it is useful in guiding many decisions of public communication campaigns, and it served as a foundation for more than 50 empirical studies (Witte, Girma, & Girgre, 2003).But has the EPPM been supported to the extent it is assumed? A closer examination of the EPPM researchpresented in this article-demonstrates that contrary to the common beliefs, none of the EPPM's propositions received unequivocal support, some important assumptions remained unexamined, and the same constructs were measured in various ways in different studies making it difficult to pinpoint the explanation for disparate findings. The EPPM can still illuminate a great deal about responses to fear appeals if additional and more rigorous tests of the theory are undertaken with consideration for the diverse findings of past research.This article is organized in five sections. First, the EPPM is introduced through the brief history of its theoretical development. Second, the conceptual and operational definitions of the 11 constructs are presented. Third, research on each of the 12 propositions is summarized. Fourth, the assumptions underlying the EPPM are discussed. Finally, the last section provides recommendations for extending the model into the foundation for the coverin...

Experiencing fear appeals as a challenge or a threat influences attainment value and academic self-efficacy

“…When appraised as threatening, fear appeals result in higher test anxiety, a higher performance-avoidance goal (to avoid performing worse than one's classmates), lower intrinsic motivation, and lower grades on tests and examinations (Putwain & Best, 2011, 2012Putwain & Roberts, 2009;Putwain & Remedios, 2014b;Putwain & Symes, 2011a,2011bSprinkle, Hunt, Simonds, & Comadena, 2006). These findings are broadly consistent with those from adjacent areas of the educational psychology literature.…”

“…The nascent literature examining the outcomes of fear appeals, used prior to high-stakes examinations, has shown that when fear appeals are appraised as threatening they result in a higher performance-approach goal, higher test anxiety, lower intrinsic motivation, and lower examination and test grades (Putwain & Best, 2011, 2012Putwain & Symes, 2011b;Sprinkle et al, 2006). The results of this study extend this body of work to show how attainment value and academic self-efficacy are also influenced by how fear appeals are appraised.…”

“…The extended-parallel process model (Popova, 2012;Witte & Allen, 2000) proposes that the success of fear appeals to change behaviour depends on the beliefs about the likelihood and severity of the negative outcome, whether an alternative course of action is likely to avoid that negative outcome (response efficacy) and whether the message recipient believes that they are capable of performing the alternative course(s) of action (self-efficacy). Metaanalyses based on the health literature have supported these predictions.…”

“…Ruiter, Abraham, & Kok, 2001;Smerecnik & Ruiter, 2010). Fear Appeals have been researched most often in the health literature to FEAR APPEALS, VALUE AND ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY 3 examine the effectiveness of messages designed to promote, for example, smoking cessation, safe sex practices, and self-examination for breast and testicular cancer (e.g., Anderson, 2000;Cismaru, Nagpal & Krishnamurthy, 2009;Feng & Burleson, 2008;Umphrey, 2004).The extended-parallel process model (Popova, 2012;Witte & Allen, 2000) proposes that the success of fear appeals to change behaviour depends on the beliefs about the likelihood and severity of the negative outcome, whether an alternative course of action is likely to avoid that negative outcome (response efficacy) and whether the message recipient believes that they are capable of performing the alternative course(s) of action (self-efficacy). Metaanalyses based on the health literature have supported these predictions.…”

A Theory-Based Approach to the Development and Evaluation of Public Education Messages Aimed at Social Interactive Technology Use on Smartphones among Young Drivers

“…A recent meta-analysis by Popova (2012), however, found a lack of consistency in the operationalisation of some of its main constructs; for example, fear has been operationalised as self-reported 'fright' or 'anxiety' and also through physiological changes. Questions have also been raised about whether susceptibility and severity (and response efficacy and self-efficacy) have an additive or multiplicative relationship (Popova, 2012). A broader limitation, however, lies in its focus on only fear-based persuasion (Maloney, Lapinski, & Witte, 2011;Popova, 2012).…”