Razones por las que los estudiantes experimentan sentimientos negativos al final de TEAB

The stage model of information processing (Stroebe, 2000; Das et al, 2003; de Hoog et al, 2005) is largely based on the theoretical constructs of the extended parallel process model (Witte, 1992) and integrates constructs from dual process theories of persuasion (e.g.

Chaiken et al, 1989) which have been developed as general theories about persuasion in an advertising context, not specifically in a threat appeals context. As the stage model (de Hoog et al, 2005) is more recent than the others cited in this chapter, studies that test the model are few (Das et al, 2003 and de Hoog et al, 2005) and as such the field of research examining its theoretical proposition is in its infancy. The stage model proposes that the cognitive appraisals in response to exposure to a threat appeal occur in two distinct stages.

The first stage is the cognitive processing of the ‘fear appeal’ and the second stage is the cognitive processing of the action recommendation.

Stage one, or processing of the ‘fear appeal’, occurs as perceptions of severity and

susceptibility. How the ‘fear appeal’ is processed determines the processing mode (depth of processing) and goal of processing (accuracy of information or defensive processing). This

approach moves away from the proposition in the extended parallel process model, that high perceptions of severity generate avoidance. The stage model by contrast posits that high perceptions of severity generate deep processing of the message (opposed to shallow processing). The impact of severity of susceptibility perceptions on processing mode and goal are show in figure 8.

Severity

Susceptibility Low High

Low Shallow processing

Accuracy motivation

Deep processing Accuracy motivation

High Deep processing

Accuracy motivation

Deep processing Defence motivation

Figure 8 - The impact of severity and susceptibility on processing mode and goal (adapted from de Hoog et al, 2005, p26)

When individuals experience both high susceptibility and high severity, deep processing and defence motivation occurs. Prior research (e.g. Witte, 1992) has identified high perceptions of severity and high perceptions of efficacy to be effective in generating fear coping responses. Conversely, according to the stage model, these responses (high severity and susceptibility) represent a threat to an individual’s self –belief which will generate defensive processing, however, given the high severity and susceptibility an individual is also motivated to carefully scrutinise the information presented (de Hoog et al, 2005). The assumption is made (according to dual process theories of persuasion e.g.

Chaiken et al, 1989) that processing will be systematic rather than heuristic. In other words, because the information makes an individual feel susceptible to a severe threat they will undertake a detailed cognitive examination rather than rely on rules on thumb.

According to the stage model, defence motivation can be an avoidance reaction, as proposed by extended parallel process model (Witte, 1992) or alternatively part of biased systematic processing, where the bias is negative in the appraisal of a threat and positive in appraisal of coping strategies. When appraising the threat, defence motivated individuals will be motivated to reduce the threat through a thorough examination of the message.

Information may be minimised (e.g. by downplaying the information) or inconsistencies or

errors of logic highlighted as evidence to criticise the message. Conclusions drawn will therefore be biased in the direction of an individual’s preferred conclusion. However, if this strategy is unsuccessful and biased processing is constrained by evidence, individuals will have to accept they are at risk from the threat presented. If this occurs, subsequent cognitive processing of the information at the second stage will also be biased but in the opposite direction. Therefore if an individual is defence motivated and has identified themselves to be at risk in stage one, they will then maximise any action recommendation because the recommendation will offer a solution to the threat. This can then moderate negative emotional responses and cognitions generated as a result of exposure to the threat appeal (de Hoog et al, 2005).

If the threat is perceived to be trivial and individuals feel they are not susceptible to the threat (low perceptions of severity and susceptibility) little effort will be invested in cognitions, and instead heuristic processing modes are adopted. Alternatively, if an

individual feels susceptible to the threat presented but perceives it to be a minor threat (i.e.

high susceptibility and low severity perceptions) the heightened susceptibility should encourage systematic processing of the message. This is in line with the assumption from dual-process theories that personal relevance, which is a similar concept to perceived vulnerability, is an important motivator for systematic processing (e.g. Eagly and Chaiken, 1993). Equally, if an individual does not perceive themselves to be susceptible to the threat but that the threat is severe (i.e. low perceptions of susceptibility and high perceptions of severity) individuals are likely to invest effort in processing the contents of the message because it is useful to be well informed about a serious health risk, even if the individual does not feel susceptible to the threat.

As described in section 2.2.4 prior theories such as the extended parallel process model assume an interaction between perceptions of threat (susceptibility and severity) and perceptions of efficacy (self- efficacy and response efficacy) (Witte, 1992). The extended parallel process model proposes that high perceptions of threat will only lead to persuasion if the recommended action is effective. The stage model, however, assumes that defence motivated individuals will be motivated to perceive any recommendation as effective, as long as it is at least somewhat plausible, because engaging in a recommended action will reduce the threat. Two empirical studies have been conducted to test the propositions of the stage model. Das et al (2003) found a positive bias in the processing at the second stage (action recommendation processing) when individuals had perceived high susceptibility.

Susceptibility was found to be the only determinant of engaging in the recommended action:

susceptible respondents had higher behavioural intentions. In support of this, de Hoog et al

(2005) also found that susceptibility influenced behavioural intention. However, de Hoog et al (2005) found no evidence that perceptions of susceptibility modify the effect of argument quality on attitude, which had been identified by both Das et al (2003).

As previously stated, the stage theory is relatively new and the purpose for its inclusion here is to demonstrate the continuation and development of thought concerning individuals’

responses to threat appeals. The stage model particularly looks at the properties of

susceptibility which is a fresh approach. Whilst there is a need for more empirical research to test the theory, the initial insights regarding the importance of susceptibility are in line with those presented as part of the extended parallel process model. The stage model particularly introduces a temporal dimension with the consideration of different stages of individuals’ cognitive evaluation of threat appeals. This will be explored in more detail in Chapter 4.

2.2.6 Summary

The previous five sections have outlined the theories and models which focus on cognitive responses in order to attempt to understand individuals’ reactions to threat appeals. There has been sustained interest in understanding the cognitions resulting from exposure to a threat appeal and how they drive persuasion and behaviour change. As theories have been developed, from the health belief model (section 2.2.2) onwards, the roles of perceived severity and susceptibility have remained as central appraisal cognitions. Protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1983; as discussed in section 2.2.3) added the variables of response efficacy and self-efficacy to the cognitive appraisal. These four variables have since served as the cornerstone of cognitive approaches. Yet, there is little consistency between research findings as evidenced throughout this chapter. There is little question that these are conceptually sound cognitive responses, however empirical testing of their role has generated mixed results. Whilst severity was previously assumed to be the cognitive variable that links a threat and the emotional response (e.g. protection motivation theory and extended parallel process model) results suggest that perceived susceptibility has more effect on persuasion.

There are a number of examples of research that has a cognitive focus that has widened the consideration of the role of emotions. Passyn and Sujan (2006) build on appraisal based research and consider the effects of ‘adding’ emotions that are either high or low in self-accountability to the appeal but in the main if cognition focussed theories have included an emotion (as the extended parallel process model does) it is assumed this emotion is fear.