Discuss how PMT might be employed Flashcards
Intro
- PMT, Rogers, (1983)
- coping, example
Paragraph 1
- Threat appraisal
- Rogers 1983
- Fear
- -Van der Velde and Van der Pligt (1991)
- -Boer and Mashamba (2005)
Paragraph 2
- PM behaviors
- example
Paragraph 3
- Milne, Sheeran and Orbell (2000)
- Response costs, Norman et al (2005)
Paragraph 4
- experimental
- Fruin et al (1992)
- Stainbeck and rogers (1983)
- Construct manipulation, Li et al (2004)
Paragraph 5
- Discrepancy, Smerecnik and Ruiter, 2010
- Lea and McCabe (2007)
Paragraph 6
- Leas and McCabe (2007)
- Yardley et al (2007)
- Lea and McCabe
- Floyd et al (2000)
- Lea and McCabe (2007)
Conclusion
- experimental
- discrepancy
Rogers (1983)
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
Van der Velde and Van der Pligt (1991)
condom use intentions in multiple-partner heterosexuals was directly affected by fear
Boer and Mashamba (2005)
PMT to be effective at increasing condom levels in African Americans, also found a non-significant relationship between fear and intentions to use condoms
Milne, Sheeran and Orbell (2000)
all threat and coping variables, except response costs, can be manipulated easily through written communications
Norman et al (2005)
response costs have large correlations with both intention and behaviour
Fruin et al (1992)
gave participants materials focused on changing exercise in which response efficacy, response costs and self-efficacy were manipulated.
Stainbeck and Rogers (1983)
focused on perceived severity of injury caused by excess alcohol consumption.
Li et al (2004)
all the PMT constructs have been predictive of the level of sexual risk behaviour
Smerecnik and Ruiter (2010)
after manipulating threat and coping appraisals for condom use, only coping appraisals had a significant effect on condom use intentions,
Lea and McCabe (2007)
individual differences
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.
Lea and McCabe (2007)
Dietary behaviours
46-55% of variance in dietary intentions was explained, 27-39% of variance in dietary behaviours have been explained by PMT
Yardley et al (2007)
most studies used a cross sectional design rather than a longitudinal design
Floyd et al (2000)
indicates that PMT variables have the strongest relationship with intentions
Lea and McCabe (2007)
intentions
changing intentions is still an effective outcome of PMT that can help improve health behaviours.
