HLTH 6038 Week 10 Theory Use Appraisal Example

Three Studies That Name Protection Motivation Theory in Tick Protection: Which Threat and Coping Constructs Each One Measured, Analyzed or Only Mentioned, Asked of Each Study in the Same Order

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 6038: Health Behavior Theory

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Three Studies That Name Protection Motivation Theory in Tick Protection: Which Threat and Coping Constructs Each One Measured, Analyzed or Only Mentioned, Asked of Each Study in the Same Order

The Question

Protection Motivation Theory proposes that people protect themselves through two appraisals. Threat appraisal weighs the perceived severity of a danger and one's vulnerability to it, against any rewards of not acting. Coping appraisal weighs response efficacy, the belief that the protective action works, and self-efficacy, confidence in one's own ability to perform it, against the response costs of acting (Rogers, 1975; Floyd et al., 2000). A meta-analysis of research on the theory found that increases in severity, vulnerability, response efficacy and self-efficacy facilitated adaptive intentions or behaviors, while decreases in maladaptive rewards and response costs did the same, with the coping variables showing stronger effects (Floyd et al., 2000).

This appraisal asks one question of three published studies of tick-borne disease protection that invoke the theory: did they use the model, or only mention it? Each study is asked the same four things, in the same order: which constructs are named in the introduction, which appear in the measures, which appear in the analysis and which appear only in the discussion.

Study 1: Eitze et al. (2025), Vaccination Against Tick-Borne Encephalitis in Germany

Named in the introduction: all of the model's constructs, including severity, susceptibility, response efficacy, self-efficacy, response costs and maladaptive response rewards, each tied to a stated hypothesis.

In the measures: scales compiled from the literature for each construct, adapted to tick-borne encephalitis and translated, with internal consistency reported. The dependent variable, intention to vaccinate, was measured with three items. The survey of 306 adults in Germany also randomly assigned participants to three conditions that received no tailored risk information, generic information or county-level tailored information.

In the analysis: susceptibility, severity and response efficacy were positively related to intention; in exploratory analyses, self-efficacy was a positive predictor of vaccination status. The tailored information did not detectably change intention.

Only in the discussion: nothing of the model is left there unmeasured.

Verdict: the model is used throughout, from hypotheses to measures to analysis.

Study 2: Hansen et al. (2023), Protective Behavior Against Ticks in Denmark, Norway and Sweden

Named in the introduction: the original 1975 version of the theory, perceived seriousness and likelihood, with self-efficacy acknowledged as a later addition.

In the measures: perceived seriousness and perceived likelihood of a tick bite, Lyme borreliosis and tick-borne encephalitis, and the perceived efficacy of six protective measures, in a survey of 2,658 respondents across three countries.

In the analysis: seriousness of a tick bite and of Lyme borreliosis, and the likelihood of a bite and of infection if bitten, significantly predicted protection, though the increases in the likelihood of protecting oneself were very small. The use of each protective measure was correlated with its perceived efficacy.

Only in the discussion: self-efficacy. The authors state plainly that the survey did not include a self-efficacy question and that their analyses therefore relied on the original fear appeal components.

Verdict: threat appraisal is measured and analyzed in full; coping appraisal is measured in part, as response efficacy, and self-efficacy and response costs are missing, a gap the authors disclose.

Study 3: Beaujean et al. (2013), Lyme Disease Perceptions in the Netherlands

Named in the introduction: an integrated model drawing on Protection Motivation Theory and the Health Belief Model, with threat appraisal and coping appraisal, including response efficacy and self-efficacy, described.

In the measures: perceived severity and perceived vulnerability with two items each, feelings of concern, perceived efficacy of four preventive measures, self-efficacy and intention, alongside knowledge and actual behavior, in an online survey completed by 362 members of a representative Dutch panel.

In the analysis: multivariate logistic regression for skin checks and protective clothing. History of tick bites, higher knowledge and moderate to high worry were significant predictors of checking the skin; the analysis treated the model's constructs as candidate predictors among many rather than testing the model's structure of two appraisals.

Only in the discussion: the model's appraisal structure. The paper's conclusions emphasize knowledge, concern and perceived efficacy as determinants rather than threat and coping appraisal as such.

Verdict: the constructs are measured, but the model frames the questionnaire more than it shapes the analysis.

Comparison

Table 1

Where the Model's Constructs Appear in Each Study

Entries summarize each article's methods and results sections as published.

What the Appraisal Shows

One study uses its model throughout, one measures part of it and says so, and one uses the model to frame a questionnaire whose analysis follows a different logic. None of the three is dishonest; the second is admirably clear about what it left out. But the pattern matters for anyone citing them as evidence for the theory. Only the first tests the model's predictions as the model states them, and it concerns vaccination intention rather than tick checks or protective clothing. The finding that coping variables tend to matter more than threat variables (Floyd et al., 2000) cannot be confirmed for tick protection from studies that measured self-efficacy weakly or not at all.

For a health educator planning a tick program, the appraisal changes how the three papers should be read. The first supports building messages around vulnerability, severity and whether vaccination works, and it warns that county-tailored risk information alone may not move intention. The second supports describing how well each protective measure works, since use tracked perceived efficacy, but says nothing about whether people feel able to do daily skin checks. The third points to knowledge and worry as correlates of checking. A program that wanted to rely on self-efficacy for tick checks would have to measure it first rather than cite these studies as proof.

References

Beaujean, D. J. M. A., Bults, M., van Steenbergen, J. E., & Voeten, H. A. C. M. (2013). Study on public perceptions and protective behaviors regarding Lyme disease among the general public in the Netherlands: Implications for prevention programs. BMC Public Health, 13, Article 225. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-225

Eitze, S., Maslov, V., & Otten, L. (2025). Using protection motivation theory to explain intentions to vaccinate against tick-borne encephalitis. BMC Public Health, 25, Article 4345. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-25470-6

Floyd, D. L., Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R. W. (2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 407-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x

Hansen, M. F., Sørensen, P. K., Sørensen, A. E., & Krogfelt, K. A. (2023). Can protection motivation theory predict protective behavior against ticks? BMC Public Health, 23, Article 1214. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16125-5

Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803