Extended parallel process model: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:35, 9 February 2022

Latest revision as of 02:09, 9 August 2025

(35 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{short description|How individuals react to fear-inducing messages}}

{{refimprove|date=December 2008}}

The '''extended parallel process model''' ('''EPPM''') is a fear appeal theory developed by communications scholar [[Kim Witte]] that illustrates how individuals react to fear-inducing messages.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Witte K | title = Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. | journal = Communication Monographs | date = December 1992 | volume = 59 | issue = 4 | pages = 329–349 | doi = 10.1080/03637759209376276 }}</ref> Witte subsequently published an initial test of the model in [[Communication Monographs]].<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Witte K | title = Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). | journal = Communication Monographs | date = June 1994 | volume = 61 | issue = 2 | pages = 113–134 | doi = 10.1080/03637759409376328 }}</ref>

The EPPM was developed by Witte as a response to the significant inconsistencies in fear appeal literature, serving as integration andan extension of previous fear appeal models, hence the use of 'extended' in name 'EPPM'. The model is basedoriginally initiallybased on Leventhal's Parallel Process Model -– a danger and fear control framework that studied how adaptive protective behaviour stemmed from attempts of danger control. <ref name=":1">{{Citecite journal |last vauthors = Leventhal|first= H |date=1971-06| title = Fear appeals and persuasion: the differentiation of a motivational construct.|url=http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.61.6.1208 | journal = American Journal of Public Health |language=en| volume = 61 | issue = 6 | pages = 1208–1224 | date = June 1971 | pmid = 4110702 | pmc = 1529874 | doi = 10.2105/AJPH.61.6.1208|issn=0090-0036|pmc=PMC1529874|pmid=4110702 }}</ref> It also significantly draws from Roger's [[Protection motivation theory]], which proposes two responses to fear-inducing stimuli: threat appraisal and coping appraisal.

The '''extended parallel process model''' ('''EPPM''') is a fear appeal theory developed by communications scholar [[Kim Witte]] that evaluates how individuals react to fear-inducing messages. It was first published in [[Communication Monographs|''Communication Monographs'']], Volume 59, December 1992; Witte subsequently published an initial test of the model in a later article in [[Communication Monographs|''Communication Monographs'']], Volume 61, June 1994.

The model's positsmain theory is that when confronted with a fear-inducing stimulus, humans tend to engage in two simultaneous ways of message processing: a perceived efficacy appraisal ([[cognitive processing]]) and a perceived threat appraisal (emotional processing). Differences in message appraisal then lead to two behavioural outcomes, with individuals engaging in either a danger control process or a fear control process. In the case of the message being perceived as having no element of threat, individuals do not exhibit a response, and the message is ignored. The EPPM states that the danger control process leads to behavioural change, while the fear control process does not.

EPPM was developed by Witte as a response to the significant inconsistencies in fear appeal literature, serving as integration and extension of previous fear appeal models, hence the 'extended' in EPPM. The model is based initially on Leventhal's Parallel Process Model - a danger and fear control framework that studied how adaptive protective behaviour stemmed from attempts of danger control. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Leventhal|first=H|date=1971-06|title=Fear appeals and persuasion: the differentiation of a motivational construct.|url=http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.61.6.1208|journal=American Journal of Public Health|language=en|volume=61|issue=6|pages=1208–1224|doi=10.2105/AJPH.61.6.1208|issn=0090-0036|pmc=PMC1529874|pmid=4110702}}</ref>It also significantly draws from Roger's [[Protection motivation theory]], which proposes two responses to fear-inducing stimuli: threat appraisal and coping appraisal.

Witte's EPPM expands on previous fear appeal studies by explaining the reasons for failure in fear appeals and reincorporating fear as a central variable in the model. This is also the first fear appeal model that outlines the relationship between threat and efficacy in propositional forms.

The model posits that when confronted with a fear-inducing stimulus, humans tend to engage in two simultaneous ways of message processing: a perceived efficacy appraisal (cognitive processing) and a perceived threat appraisal (emotional processing). Differences in message appraisal then lead to two behavioural outcomes, with individuals engaging in either a danger control process or a fear control process. In the case of the message being perceived as having no element of threat, individuals do not exhibit a response, and the message is ignored.

Witte's EPPM expands on previous fear appeal studies by explaining the reasons for failure in fear appeals and reincorporating fear as a central variable in the model. The first fear appeal model also outlines the relationship between threat and efficacy in propositional forms. The EPPM's concluding argument isconcludes that a fear control process leads to message rejection, while a danger control process leads to message acceptance, leading to adaptive behavioural changes.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Maloney|first1=E.|last2=Popova|first2=L|year=2011|title=The Extended Parallel Process Model: Illuminating the Gaps in Research|journal=Health Education and Behavior|volume=39|pages=455-473|doi=10.1177/1090198111418108}}</ref>

== Background ==

Witte's motivations for designing an updated fear appeal model was, as described by her, due to the declining role of fear in fear appeals. While initially, fear was the pinnacle of theoretical fear appeal literature, it was starting to be considered as a [[control variable]] in subsequent models. A lack of precision in the Parallel Process Model and empirical inconsistencies in the Protection Motivation Theory were also noted by Witte as reasons for formulating an extended parallel process model.

Two main components of large-scale public messaging that induce behavioural change are fear appeals and fear appraisals. Fear appeals are specifically designed to elicit fear and nudge individuals to adapt to the recommendations outlined in the message and find their use in public health campaigns and political adverts. Appeals are designed to fit three main categories: message, behaviour, and the audience.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Tannenbaum|first=Melanie B.|last2=Hepler|first2=Justin|last3=Zimmerman|first3=Rick S.|last4=Saul|first4=Lindsey|last5=Jacobs|first5=Samantha|last6=Wilson|first6=Kristina|last7=Albarracín|first7=Dolores|date=2015-11|title=Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0039729|journal=Psychological Bulletin|language=en|volume=141|issue=6|pages=1178–1204|doi=10.1037/a0039729|issn=1939-1455|pmc=PMC5789790|pmid=26501228}}</ref>

Two main components of large-scale public messaging that induce behavioural change are fear appeals and fear appraisals. [[Fear appeal|Fear appeals]] are specifically designed to elicit fear and nudge individuals to adapt to the recommendations outlined in the message. andThey find their use in public health campaigns and political adverts., Appealsand are designed to fit three main categories: message, behaviour, and the audience.<ref>{{Citecite journal |last vauthors = Tannenbaum|first=Melanie B.|last2=MB, Hepler|first2=Justin|last3= J, Zimmerman|first3=Rick S.|last4=RS, Saul|first4=Lindsey|last5= L, Jacobs|first5=Samantha|last6= S, Wilson|first6=Kristina|last7= K, Albarracín D |first7=Dolores|date=2015-11| title = Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories.|url=http://doi.apa.org/getdoi.cfm?doi=10.1037/a0039729 | journal = Psychological Bulletin |language=en| volume = 141 | issue = 6 | pages = 1178–1204 |doi date =10.1037/a0039729 November 2015 |issn pmid =1939-1455 26501228 | pmc =PMC5789790 5789790 |pmid doi =26501228 10.1037/a0039729 }}</ref>

* Message: The content that is included in the fear-inducing message

Line 16 ⟶ 19:

* Audience: The characteristics of the audience receiving the message

Fear appraisals are the mental evaluations made in response to experiencing fear-inducing stimuli and are also known as threat appraisals. Fear appeal literature is primarily focused on understanding and deriving key fear appraisal processes in humans, with the intention of using it to drive social campaigns and behavioural interventions.<ref name=":01" />

== EPPM Components ==

Witte's motivations for designing an updated fear appeal model was, as described by her, due to the declining role of fear in fear appeals. While initially, fear was the pinnacle of theoretical fear appeal literature, it was starting to be considered as a control variable in subsequent models. A lack of precision in the Parallel Process Model and empirical inconsistencies in the Protection Motivation Theory were also noted by Witte as reasons for formulating an extended parallel process model.

The EPPM uses persuasive fear-inducing messages to induce intended behavioural responses. WittleWitte details three main processes involved in fear appraisal: the fear appeal ''inputs,'' the ''message ''processing'' of the inputs, and the ''outputs'', or action taken after evaluating the perceived threat.

=== Fear Appealappeal Inputsinputs ===

The EPPM, in addition to message acceptance processes outlined in the Parallel Process Model, explores and expands on the fear control processes that cause message rejection.

[[File:Extended Parallel Process Model.png|400px|thumb|Illustration of the Extended Parallel Process Model.]]According to fear appeal studies, a fear appeal has two components: a component of threat and a component of efficacy. These two components are further divided into two categories each. The threat component is composed of ''Severityseverity'' and ''susceptibility'', make upwhile the threatefficacy component, andis composed of ''response- efficacy'' and ''self-efficacy.'' make up the efficacy component. These four key factors, as defined by the EPPM, predict the likely outcome of communications that involve a fear appeal:

These four key factors, as defined by the EPPM, predict the likely outcome of communications that involve a fear appeal.

== EPPM Components ==

The EPPM uses persuasive fear-inducing messages to induce intended behavioural responses. Wittle details three main processes involved in fear appraisal: the fear appeal ''inputs,'' the ''message processing'' of the inputs, and the ''outputs'', or action taken after evaluating the perceived threat.

'''Threat Variablesvariables'''

=== Fear Appeal Inputs ===

[[File:Extended Parallel Process Model.png|400px|thumb|Illustration of the Extended Parallel Process Model.]]According to fear appeal studies, a fear appeal has two components: a component of threat and a component of efficacy. These two components are further divided into two categories each. ''Severity'' and ''susceptibility'' make up the threat component, and ''response-efficacy'' and ''self-efficacy'' make up the efficacy component. These four key factors, as defined by the EPPM, predict the likely outcome of communications that involve a fear appeal:

* '''Susceptibility''' – The perception the individual has of how likely the threat is to impact them.

'''Threat Variables'''

* '''Severity''' – The perception the individual has of the magnitude of the threat.

'''Efficacy Variablesvariables'''

* '''Susceptibility''' – The perception the individual has of how likely the threat is to impact them.

* '''Severity''' – The perception the individual has of the magnitude of the threat.

* '''Self-Efficacy'efficacy'' – The perception the individual has that they are competent to perform the tasks needed to control the risk.

'''Efficacy Variables'''

* '''Response Efficacy'efficacy'' – The perception the individual has that the action, if carried out, will successfully control the risk.

* '''Self-Efficacy''' – The perception the individual has that they are competent to perform the tasks needed to control the risk.

* '''Response Efficacy''' – The perception the individual has that the action, if carried out, will successfully control the risk.

The outcome of fear appeals is determined by an ''appraisal'', that is, the evaluation of the message as either dangerous or indifferent.

=== Fear Appraisalappraisal ===

[[Appraisal theory|Appraisal Theory]] states that an individual makes either an emotional or affective response to external stimuli. The EPPM outlines two primary appraisals an individual makes in response to a fear appeal: a threat appraisal, followed by an efficacy appraisal.

* ;Low threat appraisal: whenWhen a threat appraisal is perceived to be low, i.e., there is a lack of imminent threat, the fear appeal is rejected immediately.

* ;Moderate to High threat appraisal: When a threat appraisal is perceived as moderate or high, fear is induced, and individuals begin the efficacy appraisal.

* ;Low efficacy appraisal: whenWhen the efficacy appraisal is perceived to be low, the message does not induce behavioural change.

* ;Moderate to High efficacy appraisal: whenWhen the efficacy appraisal is perceived as moderate or high, the message induces a behavioural change.

After appraisals of the fear appeal, individuals then take action based on whether the threat is imminent or trivial.

=== Fear Appeal OutcomesOutputs ===

The EPPM predicts three possible outcomesoutputs after the fear appraisal is carried out:

''';Danger control''' –: When an individual perceives that the severity and susceptibility are high (i.e., high threat appraisal) and also perceives that they are competent to take mitigating action (i.e., high efficacy appraisal), then they are likely to act to control the danger.

''';Fear control'''–: The model predicts that if an individual perceives their ability to control risk as low, even if the severity and susceptibility are perceived as high, they are likely to take steps to control their fear instead. Fear control responses are defined as coping mechanisms that reduce fear and include [[denial]], [[psychological reactance]] and [[Avoidance response|defensive avoidance]]. These are [[maladaptive]] changes, or counterproductive behaviours. Fear controlling behaviour may involve the use of [[cognitive]] [[Defencedefence mechanism|defence mechanisms]]s such as "''It will happen to me sooner or later''", in order to manage the state of [[Anxiety|anxiety.]].

''';No Response''' –: The severity or susceptibility of the danger is perceived as low, and the individual rejects the message. There is no behavioural change.

== Applications ==

'''Fear control'''– The model predicts that if an individual perceives their ability to control risk as low, even if the severity and susceptibility are perceived as high, they are likely to take steps to control their fear instead. Fear control responses are defined as coping mechanisms that reduce fear and include denial, [[psychological reactance]] and defensive avoidance. These are [[maladaptive]] changes, or counterproductive behaviours. Fear controlling behaviour may involve the use of [[cognitive]] [[Defence mechanism|defence mechanisms]] such as "''It will happen to me sooner or later''" in order to manage the state of [[Anxiety|anxiety.]]

The EPPM model is mainly used in [[Social and behavior change communication|social and behaviour change communication]] (SBCC). Practitioners design a general communications program, such as a campaign or an advert, and then test the effectiveness of the program through implementation. SBCC methods in healthcare, education, and marketing have employed the EPPM to induce behavioural change in patients and customers.

Multiple versions of the EPPM are employed in health campaigns. For example, EPPM-based campaigns have helped increase colorectal cancer screening participation among young adults<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Birmingham WC, Hung M, Boonyasiriwat W, Kohlmann W, Walters ST, Burt RW, Stroup AM, Edwards SL, Schwartz MD, Lowery JT, Hill DA, Wiggins CL, Higginbotham JC, Tang P, Hon SD, Franklin JD, Vernon S, Kinney AY | display-authors = 6 | title = Effectiveness of the extended parallel process model in promoting colorectal cancer screening | journal = Psycho-Oncology | volume = 24 | issue = 10 | pages = 1265–1278 | date = October 2015 | pmid = 26194469 | pmc = 7161702 | doi = 10.1002/pon.3899 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Pengchit W, Walters ST, Simmons RG, Kohlmann W, Burt RW, Schwartz MD, Kinney AY | title = Motivation-based intervention to promote colonoscopy screening: an integration of a fear management model and motivational interviewing | journal = Journal of Health Psychology | volume = 16 | issue = 8 | pages = 1187–1197 | date = November 2011 | pmid = 21464114 | pmc = 3162074 | doi = 10.1177/1359105311402408 }}</ref> and increased HPV vaccination interest among LatinX.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Reno |first1=Jenna E. |last2=Dempsey |first2=Amanda F. |date=2022-02-18 |title=Promoting HPV vaccination among Latinx: an application of the extended parallel processing model |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-022-00293-7 |journal=Journal of Behavioral Medicine |volume=46 |issue=1–2 |pages=324–334 |language=en |doi=10.1007/s10865-022-00293-7 |pmid=35178652 |s2cid=246905792 |issn=1573-3521|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

'''No Response''' – The severity or susceptibility of the danger is perceived as low, and the individual rejects the message. There is no behavioural change.

Other usages of EPPM lie in shaping public perceptions, such as in political adverts, climate change messages, and pandemic responses. <ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = von Gottberg C, Krumm S, Porzsolt F, Kilian R | title = The analysis of factors affecting municipal employees' willingness to report to work during an influenza pandemic by means of the extended parallel process model (EPPM) | journal = BMC Public Health | volume = 16 | issue = 1 | pages = 26 | date = January 2016 | pmid = 26757713 | pmc = 4711035 | doi = 10.1186/s12889-015-2663-8 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal| vauthors = Roser-Renouf C, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Zhao X |date=July 2014|title=The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action |journal=Climatic Change|language=en|volume=125|issue=2|pages=163–178|doi=10.1007/s10584-014-1173-5|issn=0165-0009|doi-access=free}}</ref>

==See also==

* [[Behavioural change theories]]

* [[Theory of planned behavior]]

==Original articlesCriticisms ==

While the EPPM has been effective in health campaigns and behavioural change interventions, there are limitations that have been pointed out through rigorous [[Meta-analysis|meta-analytical]] studies.

*Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349.

*Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 61(2), 113–134.

Reviews have highlighted the many applications of the EPPM model in its 20 years since initial publication <ref>{{Cite journal| vauthors = Maloney EK, Lapinski MK, Witte K |date= April 2011 |title=Fear Appeals and Persuasion: A Review and Update of the Extended Parallel Process Model: Fear Appeals and Persuasion |journal=Social and Personality Psychology Compass|language=en|volume=5|issue=4|pages=206–219|doi=10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00341.x}}</ref> but significant theoretical questions on the operationalization of key constructs remain and not all of its hypotheses have received empirical support.<ref name=":0">{{cite journal | vauthors = Popova L | title = The extended parallel process model: illuminating the gaps in research | journal = Health Education & Behavior | volume = 39 | issue = 4 | pages = 455–473 | date = August 2012 | pmid = 22002250 | doi = 10.1177/1090198111418108 | s2cid = 22928121 }}</ref>

==References==

{{Reflist}}

Lucy Popova's '''The Extended Parallel Process Model: Illuminating the Gaps in Research''<nowiki/>', is an extensive review on the theoretical and empirical applications of the EPPM. <ref name=":0" /> Popova discovered that the strong theoretical foundations has some inconsistencies in a few of its operational definitions. A systematic review of existing literature on EPPMs found that its propositions had no clear empirical support. The outcomes of fear appeals differ slightly from what the EPPM claims. This questions the practical validity of the EPPM.

[[Category:Attitude change]]

== See also ==

* [[Social and behavior change communication|Social and behaviour change communication]] – Communication strategies designed to create positive behavioural interventions

* [[Behavioural change theories]] – Theories that attempt to use wide explanations to predict why human behaviours change

* [[Theory of planned behavior]] – The idea that an individual's beliefs shape their behavioural intentions

== References ==

{{psychology-stub}}

{{Reflist|30em}}

[[Category:Attitude change]]