120:
47:) 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.
335:', is an extensive review on the theoretical and empirical applications of the EPPM. 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.
90:
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 key fear appraisal processes in humans, with the intention of using it to drive social campaigns and
305:(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.
254:
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
35:
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 use of 'extended' in name 'EPPM'. The model is originally based on
Leventhal's Parallel Process Model – a danger and fear
50:
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.
75:
are specifically designed to elicit fear and nudge individuals to adapt to the recommendations in the message. They find their use in public health campaigns and political adverts, and are designed to fit three main categories: message, behaviour, and the audience.
327:
Reviews have highlighted the many applications of the EPPM model in its 20 years since initial publication but significant theoretical questions on the operationalization of key constructs remain and not all of its hypotheses have received empirical support.
247:
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
202:
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.
308:
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 and increased HPV vaccination interest among LatinX.
62:
Witte's motivations for designing an updated fear appeal model was 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
67:
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.
127:
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
43:
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 (
54:
The EPPM concludes that a fear control process leads to message rejection, while a danger control process leads to message acceptance, leading to adaptive behavioural changes.
678:"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)"
99:
The EPPM uses persuasive fear-inducing messages to induce intended behavioural responses. Wittle details three main processes involved in fear appraisal: the fear appeal
768:
Maloney EK, Lapinski MK, Witte K (April 2011). "Fear
Appeals and Persuasion: A Review and Update of the Extended Parallel Process Model: Fear Appeals and Persuasion".
320:
While the EPPM has been effective in health campaigns and behavioural change interventions, there are limitations that have been pointed out through rigorous
36:
control framework that studied how adaptive protective behaviour stemmed from attempts of danger control. It also significantly draws from Roger's
582:"Motivation-based intervention to promote colonoscopy screening: an integration of a fear management model and motivational interviewing"
292:
The severity or susceptibility of the danger is perceived as low, and the individual rejects the message. There is no behavioural change.
312:
Other usages of EPPM lie in shaping public perceptions, such as in political adverts, climate change messages, and pandemic responses.
344:
302:
210:
When a threat appraisal is perceived to be low, i.e., there is a lack of imminent threat, the fear appeal is rejected immediately.
28:
that illustrates how individuals react to fear-inducing messages. Witte subsequently published an initial test of the model in
146:
These four key factors, as defined by the EPPM, predict the likely outcome of communications that involve a fear appeal.
71:
Two main components of large-scale public messaging that induce behavioural change are fear appeals and fear appraisals.
216:
When a threat appraisal is perceived as moderate or high, fear is induced, and individuals begin the efficacy appraisal.
232:
After appraisals of the fear appeal, individuals then take action based on whether the threat is imminent or trivial.
403:
Witte K (June 1994). "Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM)".
177:– The perception the individual has that they are competent to perform the tasks needed to control the risk.
37:
376:
Witte K (December 1992). "Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model".
350:
183:– The perception the individual has that the action, if carried out, will successfully control the risk.
356:
228:
When the efficacy appraisal is perceived as moderate or high, the message induces a behavioural change.
531:
Birmingham WC, Hung M, Boonyasiriwat W, Kohlmann W, Walters ST, Burt RW, et al. (October 2015).
846:
222:
When the efficacy appraisal is perceived to be low, the message does not induce behavioural change.
29:
798:
Popova L (August 2012). "The extended parallel process model: illuminating the gaps in research".
631:"Promoting HPV vaccination among Latinx: an application of the extended parallel processing model"
580:
Pengchit W, Walters ST, Simmons RG, Kohlmann W, Burt RW, Schwartz MD, Kinney AY (November 2011).
482:
Tannenbaum MB, Hepler J, Zimmerman RS, Saul L, Jacobs S, Wilson K, Albarracín D (November 2015).
260:
40:, which proposes two responses to fear-inducing stimuli: threat appraisal and coping appraisal.
533:"Effectiveness of the extended parallel process model in promoting colorectal cancer screening"
271:
changes, or counterproductive behaviours. Fear controlling behaviour may involve the use of
44:
8:
823:
704:
677:
658:
606:
581:
557:
532:
508:
483:
459:
434:
353:– Theories that attempt to use wide explanations to predict why human behaviours change
264:
815:
781:
750:
709:
662:
650:
611:
562:
513:
464:
275:
827:
807:
777:
740:
699:
689:
642:
601:
593:
552:
544:
503:
495:
454:
446:
412:
385:
199:
64:
240:
The EPPM predicts three possible outputs after the fear appraisal is carried out:
119:
347:– Communication strategies designed to create positive behavioural interventions
646:
158:– The perception the individual has of how likely the threat is to impact them.
745:
729:"The genesis of climate change activism: from key beliefs to political action"
728:
694:
484:"Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories"
435:"Fear appeals and persuasion: the differentiation of a motivational construct"
416:
389:
840:
811:
754:
654:
630:
597:
321:
191:, that is, the evaluation of the message as either dangerous or indifferent.
819:
713:
615:
566:
517:
450:
468:
359:– The idea that an individual's beliefs shape their behavioural intentions
268:
72:
333:
The
Extended Parallel Process Model: Illuminating the Gaps in Research
548:
499:
272:
25:
530:
164:– The perception the individual has of the magnitude of the threat.
86:
Audience: The characteristics of the audience receiving the message
726:
80:
Message: The content that is included in the fear-inducing message
283:
727:
Roser-Renouf C, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz A, Zhao X (July 2014).
675:
256:
676:
von
Gottberg C, Krumm S, Porzsolt F, Kilian R (January 2016).
579:
83:
Behaviour: The behavioural response recommended by the message
24:) is a fear appeal theory developed by communications scholar
481:
111:, or action taken after evaluating the perceived threat.
767:
123:
Illustration of the
Extended Parallel Process Model.
629:Reno, Jenna E.; Dempsey, Amanda F. (2022-02-18).
838:
187:The outcome of fear appeals is determined by an
136:, while the efficacy component is composed of
628:
770:Social and Personality Psychology Compass
744:
703:
693:
605:
556:
507:
458:
432:
345:Social and behaviour change communication
303:social and behaviour change communication
118:
839:
797:
235:
793:
791:
402:
375:
114:
428:
426:
280:It will happen to me sooner or later
282:", in order to manage the state of
225:Moderate to High efficacy appraisal
13:
788:
14:
858:
439:American Journal of Public Health
423:
301:The EPPM model is mainly used in
213:Moderate to High threat appraisal
194:
782:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00341.x
800:Health Education & Behavior
761:
296:
18:extended parallel process model
720:
669:
635:Journal of Behavioral Medicine
622:
573:
524:
475:
396:
369:
1:
363:
315:
94:
57:
586:Journal of Health Psychology
91:behavioural interventions.
38:Protection motivation theory
7:
351:Behavioural change theories
338:
10:
863:
647:10.1007/s10865-022-00293-7
357:Theory of planned behavior
746:10.1007/s10584-014-1173-5
695:10.1186/s12889-015-2663-8
433:Leventhal H (June 1971).
417:10.1080/03637759409376328
390:10.1080/03637759209376276
812:10.1177/1090198111418108
598:10.1177/1359105311402408
405:Communication Monographs
378:Communication Monographs
30:Communication Monographs
261:psychological reactance
107:of the inputs, and the
488:Psychological Bulletin
451:10.2105/AJPH.61.6.1208
219:Low efficacy appraisal
124:
122:
207:Low threat appraisal
45:cognitive processing
265:defensive avoidance
236:Fear Appeal Outputs
276:defence mechanisms
169:Efficacy variables
125:
115:Fear appeal inputs
682:BMC Public Health
543:(10): 1265–1278.
181:Response efficacy
138:response efficacy
854:
832:
831:
795:
786:
785:
765:
759:
758:
748:
724:
718:
717:
707:
697:
673:
667:
666:
641:(1–2): 324–334.
626:
620:
619:
609:
592:(8): 1187–1197.
577:
571:
570:
560:
549:10.1002/pon.3899
528:
522:
521:
511:
500:10.1037/a0039729
494:(6): 1178–1204.
479:
473:
472:
462:
445:(6): 1208–1224.
430:
421:
420:
400:
394:
393:
373:
200:Appraisal Theory
150:Threat variables
65:control variable
862:
861:
857:
856:
855:
853:
852:
851:
847:Attitude change
837:
836:
835:
796:
789:
766:
762:
733:Climatic Change
725:
721:
674:
670:
627:
623:
578:
574:
537:Psycho-Oncology
529:
525:
480:
476:
431:
424:
401:
397:
374:
370:
366:
341:
331:Lucy Popova's '
322:meta-analytical
318:
299:
238:
197:
117:
97:
60:
12:
11:
5:
860:
850:
849:
834:
833:
806:(4): 455–473.
787:
776:(4): 206–219.
760:
739:(2): 163–178.
719:
668:
621:
572:
523:
474:
422:
411:(2): 113–134.
395:
384:(4): 329–349.
367:
365:
362:
361:
360:
354:
348:
340:
337:
317:
314:
298:
295:
294:
293:
290:
287:
252:
249:
245:
244:Danger control
237:
234:
230:
229:
226:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
208:
196:
195:Fear appraisal
193:
185:
184:
178:
166:
165:
159:
156:Susceptibility
142:self-efficacy.
134:susceptibility
116:
113:
96:
93:
88:
87:
84:
81:
59:
56:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
859:
848:
845:
844:
842:
829:
825:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
794:
792:
783:
779:
775:
771:
764:
756:
752:
747:
742:
738:
734:
730:
723:
715:
711:
706:
701:
696:
691:
687:
683:
679:
672:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
625:
617:
613:
608:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
576:
568:
564:
559:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
527:
519:
515:
510:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
478:
470:
466:
461:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
429:
427:
418:
414:
410:
406:
399:
391:
387:
383:
379:
372:
368:
358:
355:
352:
349:
346:
343:
342:
336:
334:
329:
325:
323:
313:
310:
306:
304:
291:
288:
285:
281:
277:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
253:
250:
246:
243:
242:
241:
233:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
205:
204:
201:
192:
190:
182:
179:
176:
175:Self-efficacy
173:
172:
171:
170:
163:
160:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
144:
143:
139:
135:
131:
121:
112:
110:
106:
102:
92:
85:
82:
79:
78:
77:
74:
69:
66:
55:
52:
48:
46:
41:
39:
33:
31:
27:
23:
19:
803:
799:
773:
769:
763:
736:
732:
722:
685:
681:
671:
638:
634:
624:
589:
585:
575:
540:
536:
526:
491:
487:
477:
442:
438:
408:
404:
398:
381:
377:
371:
332:
330:
326:
319:
311:
307:
300:
297:Applications
279:
267:. These are
251:Fear control
239:
231:
198:
188:
186:
180:
174:
168:
167:
161:
155:
149:
148:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
126:
108:
104:
103:the message
100:
98:
89:
73:Fear appeals
70:
61:
53:
49:
42:
34:
21:
17:
15:
289:No Response
269:maladaptive
364:References
324:studies.
316:Criticisms
105:processing
95:Components
58:Background
755:0165-0009
688:(1): 26.
663:246905792
655:1573-3521
278:such as "
273:cognitive
189:appraisal
26:Kim Witte
841:Category
828:22928121
820:22002250
714:26757713
616:21464114
567:26194469
518:26501228
339:See also
162:Severity
130:severity
705:4711035
607:3162074
558:7161702
509:5789790
469:4110702
460:1529874
284:anxiety
248:danger.
109:outputs
101:inputs,
826:
818:
753:
712:
702:
661:
653:
614:
604:
565:
555:
516:
506:
467:
457:
257:denial
824:S2CID
659:S2CID
816:PMID
751:ISSN
710:PMID
651:ISSN
612:PMID
563:PMID
514:PMID
465:PMID
263:and
140:and
132:and
22:EPPM
16:The
808:doi
778:doi
741:doi
737:125
700:PMC
690:doi
643:doi
602:PMC
594:doi
553:PMC
545:doi
504:PMC
496:doi
492:141
455:PMC
447:doi
413:doi
386:doi
843::
822:.
814:.
804:39
802:.
790:^
772:.
749:.
735:.
731:.
708:.
698:.
686:16
684:.
680:.
657:.
649:.
639:46
637:.
633:.
610:.
600:.
590:16
588:.
584:.
561:.
551:.
541:24
539:.
535:.
512:.
502:.
490:.
486:.
463:.
453:.
443:61
441:.
437:.
425:^
409:61
407:.
382:59
380:.
259:,
32:.
830:.
810::
784:.
780::
774:5
757:.
743::
716:.
692::
665:.
645::
618:.
596::
569:.
547::
520:.
498::
471:.
449::
419:.
415::
392:.
388::
286:.
20:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
