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

The extended parallel process model (Witte, 1992; 1994) can be seen to combine and elaborate on concepts and constructs from the parallel response model (Leventhal, 1970), protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1975; 1983), as well as the drive-reduction model (Hovland et al, 1953). As previously identified, Witte (1992) set out some strong criticisms (whilst acknowledging what were viewed to be positives) of protection motivation theory (Rogers 1975; 1983). As such, a new model was developed that addressed some of the criticism of protection motivation theory and the developments in the field in general (as cited to this point in this chapter). According to the extended parallel process model exposure to a threat appeal creates two appraisal processes; threat appraisal and coping appraisal (Witte, 1992). The more that individuals believe they are susceptible to a serious threat (i.e. high perceptions of susceptibility to threat), the more motivated those individuals are to engage in coping appraisal. However, if the threat is perceived as irrelevant or insignificant (i.e. low perceptions of susceptibility to threat), the extended parallel process model indicates there should be no motivation to process the threat appeal any further, and individuals will simply ignore the remainder of the message. This implies the importance identifying the process that occurs when a threat appeal is ineffective (see above). In contrast, when a threat is believed to be severe and individuals feel susceptible, and response and self-efficacy are low, the extended parallel process model assumes that individuals will experience fear (Witte, 1992; 1994). It can be seen then, that the

consideration of a fear response is a return to the fundamental assumption that underpins so much of threat appeals research, that threats generate fear which in turn effects persuasion or action (see sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2).

According to the extended parallel process model, the fear generated is caused by perceptions of severity and susceptibility. The efficacy responses serve to determine the magnitude of fear experienced. If efficacy is low (In other words the individual does not believe they can carry out the recommended action or that the recommended action would be effective) then fear increases. Increases in fear are suggested to increase defensive motivation responses, leading to maladaptive behaviours. However, if efficacy is high, it is proposed that threat and associated fear are perceived to be manageable and therefore the fear motivates individuals to take some action that is intended to reduce fear, such as a recommended course of action from an advertisement (e.g. reduce speeding or stop

smoking; fear control). The perceived efficacy of the recommended action (a combination of the response efficacy and self-efficacy) will determine whether those individuals who

believe that they are susceptible to a serious threat, will engage in either danger or fear control. More specifically, Witte (1992, 1994) assumes that individuals will mainly engage in danger control when they perceive the recommended action as effective in reducing the threat, and they will mainly engage in fear control when they perceive the recommended action as ineffective in reducing the threat, or when they feel unable to perform the

recommended action. In the latter case (high perceived threat and low perceived efficacy), a defence motivation is elicited, which the extended parallel process model defines as an individual focusing on eliminating their fear through denial or defensive avoidance.

Whereas as seen above, perceived efficacy determines the direction of the response

(danger or fear control), the extended parallel process model suggests that perceived threat determines the actual magnitude of the response to a threat appeal. As such, the extended parallel process model integrates ideas of both protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1983) and the parallel response model (Leventhal, 1970), and extends these ideas by identifying how threat appraisal and coping appraisal relate to each other, as well as specifying the role of perceived fear in threat and coping appraisal. A feedback loop is presented (see figure 7) whereby an individual may first experience fear but, as explained above, if perceptions of efficacy are high the fear does not lead to fear control processes, rather danger control processes occur. Indeed this suggests that initial maladaptive responses may indirectly affect adaptive responses as mediated by the perceived threat and efficacy. Additionally, the extended parallel process model acknowledges the role of individual differences upon coping and threat appraisals. The extended parallel process model is represented in figure 7.

External stimuli Message Outcomes Process

Figure 7 - The extended parallel process model (adapted from Witte, 1992)

The extended parallel process model presents a departure from prior theory in the cognitive focussed category, as it emphasises the role of fear in processing and acceptance of threat appeals. The parallel response model (Leventhal, 1970) forms the basis of the extended parallel process model, with central constructs from protection motivation theory explaining danger and fear control processes (Rogers, 1975; 1983). This synthesis of theoretical constructs attempts to explain how, through danger processes, threat appeals can be effective in changing attitudes, intention and behaviours, and how, through fear control processes, they can instead, be ineffective. Research that has empirically tested the extended parallel process model has been somewhat supportive (e.g. Lewis et al, 2013;

Witte, 1994; Witte and Morrison, 2000), but overall, findings have been mixed (e.g. Witte and Allen, 2000; Lewis et al, 2010).

As can be seen in figure 7 above, the message characteristics, precisely reflect the perceived threat and perceived efficacy variables. Again, this is an example where the message features are conflated with the intended response. Possibly, this is the reason some studies have generated results that rest on an assumption that these effects occur.

For example, Smalec and Klingle (2000) manipulated ‘levels’ of threat and efficacy in the threat appeal and identified that in high efficacy conditions the perception of threat correlated with message acceptance, yet they did not measure perceived threat.

Unfortunately the explanatory power of studies that do not measure the mediating role of perceptions is weakened. Indeed, it could be argued that the fundamental objective of the extended parallel process model is to assist understanding regarding how the responses occur and as such making assumptions about responses less appropriate.

However, a number of the proposed relationships between variables in the extended

parallel process model (Witte, 1992) have been supported in the literature. Tay and Watson (2002), found that increased fear served to increase message rejection, which is an

indicator or defensive motivation and fear control processes which lead to maladaptive responses. Indeed, in a meta-analysis Witte and Allen (2000) found that as fear responses increased or intensified, the fear control responses (as shown in figure 7) increased

accordingly. These results suggest that intense fear responses create defensive avoidance, and suggest that increased fear therefore facilitates maladaptive responses. However, Lewis et al (2010) found that when individuals experience high fear responses and high efficacy responses, message rejection is actually reduced. In other words, these results indicate that although the threat appeal has generated intense fear, the action

recommendation is deemed to be appropriate and therefore the message is not rejected.

Thus, fear control processes are not engaged, rather that danger control processes are facilitated. In further support of the role of efficacy in facilitating danger control processes and specifically not fear control processes, Witte (1994) and Tay and Watson (2002) found no relationship between perceived efficacy and defensive avoidance measures, which was also supported by the meta-analysis conducted by Witte and Allen (2000).

The extended parallel process model states that high perceptions of threat lead to cognitive appraisal responses, yet when the threat is perceived to be low the message is not

processed. Results from Witte and Allen’s (2000) meta-analysis support the idea that perceptions of low threat do not lead to further message processing. Witte and Allen (2000) also identified that high threat perceptions (severity or susceptibility), combined with high efficacy perceptions (response efficacy and self-efficacy) had the most persuasive impact, which is as hypothesised. This finding is replicated across the literature (e.g. Roberto and

Goddall (2009); Wong and Cappella (2009). However, Witte and Allen (2000) found that perceptions of high threat and low efficacy were more persuasive than low threat, low efficacy perceptions. This would suggest that high perceptions of threat encourage

processing due to severity and susceptibility and low efficacy does not influence message processing. In support of this, Allahverdipour et al (2007) found that cognitions about perceived severity were significantly correlated with antidrug attitudes and intentions to avoid drug abuse.

In contrast, results from other research studies have identified efficacy to have an impact on persuasion but not severity. Witte (1994) found that perceptions of efficacy were

significantly correlated with attitudes, intentions, and behaviour changes in use of condoms to prevent AIDS. In addition, Witte et al (1993) found individuals with high efficacy

perceptions had higher attitudes, intentions, and behaviour regarding tractor safety. In another study, Witte (1994) found that for people with high perceived efficacy, neither fear nor perceived threat was related to attitude changes. However, fear both directly and indirectly affected behavioural intentions and only indirectly. In a similar result Lewis et al (2010) found a significant direct effect of fear on message acceptance. However, despite these evidently mixed results, it is claimed that the extended parallel process model is a good explanatory model because in a broad sense threat appeals produce both danger and fear control responses and the stronger the threat appeal, the more motivated individuals are to process the message (Witte and Allen, 2000). Indeed, Witte and Allen (2000, p604) concluded that threat appeals are “effective when they depict a significant and relevant threat, and when they outline effective responses that appear easy to accomplish.”

Based on the explanatory power of the extended parallel process model, scholars have begun to examine the use of the model in different contexts (e.g. So, 2013). Basil et al (2008) used extended parallel process model constructs to examine responses to guilt (rather than threat) appeals. Specifically, Basil et al (2008) found that self-efficacy and empathy generated as a result of exposure to a guilt appeal increased intention to donate to charity and decreased maladaptive responses. Lewis et al (2013) employ a similar

technique used by Passyn and Sujan (as described in section 2.1.4 and section 2.2.3) where emotions are ‘added’ to threat appeals. Lewis et al (2013) examine a fear appeal, an annoyance/agitation appeal, a pride appeal and a humour appeal using the extended parallel process model in the context of speeding. Lewis et al (2013) found that perceptions of threat and efficacy influenced message acceptance for the annoyance/ agitation, pride and humour appeals but not the fear appeal. Low perceived efficacy as a result of exposure to the fear appeal condition influenced message rejection, yet high perceived threat in this

condition decreased message rejection, which was an unexpected result. The annoyance/

agitation, pride and humour appeals generated message rejection when perceived efficacy was low, as expected. Lewis et al (2013) suggest that the explanatory power of the

extended parallel process model is not restricted to a threat appeals context and can be widened to consider the relationship between other types of emotional appeals and persuasion.

Whilst there are mixed findings regarding empirical testing of the extended parallel process model (Witte, 1992), which arguably could add to the confusion outlined in section 1.1, it appears to be generally accepted that the extended parallel process model has marked a positive shift in advancing understanding of responses to threat appeals (de Hoog et al, 2007). Indeed, whereas marked criticism of prior theoretical approaches has been outlined in this chapter, contemporary scholars continue to use the extended parallel process model as a platform to explore improvements in the model (e.g. Basil et al, 2008; Lewis et al, 2013). Stroebe et al (2000) and Das et al (2003) developed a theory to improve the

extended parallel processing model named the stage model of processing of fear arousing communications. Whilst the empirical testing of this model is limited, section 2.2.5 will give a brief description of the model and relevant empirical results to outline the latest theoretical development of cognitive focused models and theories.