Discuss how PMT might be employed

Question 1

Intro

Answer 1

• PMT, Rogers, (1983)

- coping, example

Question 2

Paragraph 1

Answer 2

• Threat appraisal
• Rogers 1983
• Fear
• -Van der Velde and Van der Pligt (1991)
• -Boer and Mashamba (2005)

Question 3

Paragraph 2

Answer 3

• PM behaviors

- example

Question 4

Paragraph 3

Answer 4

• Milne, Sheeran and Orbell (2000)

- Response costs, Norman et al (2005)

Question 5

Paragraph 4

Answer 5

• experimental
• Fruin et al (1992)
• Stainbeck and rogers (1983)
• Construct manipulation, Li et al (2004)

Question 6

Paragraph 5

Answer 6

• Discrepancy, Smerecnik and Ruiter, 2010

- Lea and McCabe (2007)

Question 7

Paragraph 6

Answer 7

• Leas and McCabe (2007)
• Yardley et al (2007)
• Lea and McCabe
• Floyd et al (2000)
• Lea and McCabe (2007)

Question 8

Conclusion

Answer 8

• experimental

- discrepancy

Question 9

Rogers (1983)

Answer 9

that the more individuals perceive threat (perceive the severity of the threat and vulnerability to it to be high), the more likely individuals will be to take part in or stop a behaviour that is perceived to reduce the risk

Question 10

Van der Velde and Van der Pligt (1991)

Answer 10

condom use intentions in multiple-partner heterosexuals was directly affected by fear

Question 11

Boer and Mashamba (2005)

Answer 11

PMT to be effective at increasing condom levels in African Americans, also found a non-significant relationship between fear and intentions to use condoms

Question 12

Milne, Sheeran and Orbell (2000)

Answer 12

all threat and coping variables, except response costs, can be manipulated easily through written communications

Question 13

Norman et al (2005)

Answer 13

response costs have large correlations with both intention and behaviour

Question 14

Fruin et al (1992)

Answer 14

gave participants materials focused on changing exercise in which response efficacy, response costs and self-efficacy were manipulated.

Question 15

Stainbeck and Rogers (1983)

Answer 15

focused on perceived severity of injury caused by excess alcohol consumption.

Question 16

Li et al (2004)

Answer 16

all the PMT constructs have been predictive of the level of sexual risk behaviour

Question 17

Smerecnik and Ruiter (2010)

Answer 17

after manipulating threat and coping appraisals for condom use, only coping appraisals had a significant effect on condom use intentions,

Question 18

Lea and McCabe (2007)

individual differences

Answer 18

individual differences altered constructs that predicted a change in intentions and behaviours. After comparing results of those with a mental health disorder and those without, they found self-efficacy to be predictive of intentions in both groups and predictive of behaviours in those without a mental disorder. In those without mental disorders, response efficacy predicted intentions, while in those with a mental illness perceived severity predicted intentions. Intentions were predictive of behaviour change in both groups.

Question 19

Lea and McCabe (2007)

Dietary behaviours

Answer 19

46-55% of variance in dietary intentions was explained, 27-39% of variance in dietary behaviours have been explained by PMT

Question 20

Yardley et al (2007)

Answer 20

most studies used a cross sectional design rather than a longitudinal design

Question 21

Floyd et al (2000)

Answer 21

indicates that PMT variables have the strongest relationship with intentions

Question 22

Lea and McCabe (2007)

intentions

Answer 22

changing intentions is still an effective outcome of PMT that can help improve health behaviours.