Content deleted Content added
Added additional topics one could read to explore further, and also linked new concepts to the text. Reformatted article. |
1. Reorganised and re-formatted sections by making sentence structure more simple and easy-flowing. 2. Added more hyperlinks and citations. 3. Re-structured original article contributions and made a few grammatical corrections. |
||
Line 1:
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. 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 EPPM was developed by Witte as a response to the significant inconsistencies in fear appeal literature, serving as an extension of previous fear appeal models, hence the 'extended' in EPPM. The model is originally based on Leventhal's Parallel Process Model
The model's main 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 recommends that the danger control process leads to behavioural change, while the fear control process does not.
Line 28:
'''Threat Variables'''
*
*
'''Efficacy Variables'''
*
*
The outcome of fear appeals is determined by an ''appraisal'', that is, the evaluation of the message as either dangerous or indifferent.
Line 41:
[[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'': when 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'': when the efficacy appraisal is perceived to be low, the message does not induce behavioural change.
* ''Moderate to High efficacy appraisal'': when 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.
Line 63:
== Criticisms ==
While the EPPM has been effective in health campaigns and behavioural change interventions, limitations have been pointed out through rigorous [[Meta-analysis|meta-analytical]] studies.
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.
Criticism also came from Ooms, Jansen, and Hoeks from the University of Groningen, who tested four main propositions of the EPPM. They discovered that threat and intention were unrelated, and that the outcomes of fear appeals differ slightly from what the EPPM claims. This questions the practical validity of the EPPM. <ref>{{Cite journal|last=Ooms|first=Joëlle|last2=Jansen|first2=Carel|last3=Hoeks|first3=John|date=2015-01-01|title=The EPPM put to the test: Evaluating four basic propositions|url=https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/dujal.4.2.07oom|journal=Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics|language=en|volume=4|issue=2|pages=241–256|doi=10.1075/dujal.4.2.07oom|issn=2211-7245}}</ref>
| |||