| Course | HLTH 8242 Changing Health Behavior: Theory and Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Discussion post |
| Length | About 540 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8242 Week 3
Week 3 Discussion: When Does Risk Information Change Behavior?
A Colorectal Cancer Risk Message Would Help Few of Our Non-Returners, Who Already Believe the Risk: Reading the Kit Problem Through Witte's Extended Parallel Process Model
My claim is that a stronger colorectal cancer risk message would do little for most patients in the Fallbrook network who do not return their mailed test kits, and might push a few toward avoiding the kit altogether.
Witte's extended parallel process model explains why. It holds that a fear appeal leads people to appraise two things: the threat, how severe it is and how susceptible they are, and their efficacy, whether the recommended action works and whether they can do it (Witte, 1992). When perceived threat and efficacy are both high, people tend to take protective action, which the model calls danger control. If people see a serious threat yet doubt the remedy or themselves, people tend to manage their fear instead of the danger, through denial, avoidance or dismissing the message, which the model calls fear control. When threat is low, the message is ignored.
In this composite, our outreach staff have spoken with patients who did not return kits, and the pattern they describe is not low threat. Most of these patients know that colon cancer is serious, and many have a relative or friend who had it. What they describe is low efficacy: they are unsure how to collect the sample, they find the idea of handling stool embarrassing, or they forget once the kit is put away. In the model's terms, threat is already high and efficacy is low. Adding more risk information raises threat further without addressing efficacy, which is the condition the model associates with fear control.
That points to efficacy messages instead: clear pictures showing each collection step, a short video in the patients' main languages, a line saying that most people find the test quick and private once they start, and a phone number for questions. These target response efficacy, that the test works, and self-efficacy, that the patient can do it. In the behavior change wheel's terms, they build capability and remind at the right moment, rather than adding motivation that is already present (Michie et al., 2011).
I want to be fair to the other side. A meta-analysis of 248 samples concluded that fear appeals generally improved attitudes, intentions and behaviors, that their effect grew when messages included efficacy statements, and that its authors reported no condition under which such messages backfired (Tannenbaum et al., 2015). That finding weakens the avoidance part of my claim. But it supports the main point: what helped most was pairing threat with efficacy. For our non-returners, the efficacy half is what is missing.
Question for the board: in your population, is threat or efficacy the weaker appraisal?
Reply to Chen
Chen, you argued that a personal risk score might motivate patients more than general statistics. For patients who underestimate their risk, I agree. Would you pair the score with instructions so efficacy rises too?
Reply to Isabel
Isabel, you asked whether the outreach staff interviews are enough evidence. They are informal, so I would treat them as a hypothesis. A short survey of non-returners measuring perceived threat and efficacy would test it directly.
References
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, Article 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Tannenbaum, M. B., Hepler, J., Zimmerman, R. S., Saul, L., Jacobs, S., Wilson, K., & Albarracín, D. (2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1178-1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329-349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
HLTH 8242 Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
The Week 3 thread asks students to argue when risk information helps change a health behavior and when it does not. The post should apply a theory of risk communication or fear appeals to the population and behavior chosen earlier in the term. Faculty expect a clear claim, an accurate summary of the theory's predictions and evidence about the population's beliefs, even if informal. A fair treatment of evidence that cuts against the claim is valued. The grade also covers two replies that take a classmate's idea seriously.
How the HLTH 8242 Week 3 example is put together
The post opens with its claim. A paragraph explains Witte's two appraisals and three outcomes. The next describes what outreach staff hear from non-returners in the composite network, high threat and low efficacy, and applies the model. A paragraph proposes efficacy messages, a picture guide, a short video, a reassuring line and a phone number, and cites Michie and colleagues on building capability. The fair-play paragraph cites Tannenbaum and colleagues' meta-analysis, which weakens the avoidance claim but supports pairing threat with efficacy. The board question asks which appraisal is weaker in classmates' populations. The reply to Chen accepts personal risk scores for patients who underestimate risk, and the reply to Isabel treats the staff interviews as a hypothesis to test.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 8242 Week 3 rubric
Grading in this thread rewards a specific claim applied with an accurate theory. A post that says fear appeals work or do not work, without saying for whom, usually earns middle marks. The rubric favors correct description of the theory's predictions, evidence about the population's appraisals and a recommendation that follows. Faculty give substantial credit for engaging evidence that cuts against the claim, especially a large meta-analysis. Replies earn points by narrowing a classmate's idea to the group it fits or by proposing a test. Accurate APA references complete the score. Posts that propose a concrete message, with its parts named, earn more than those that stop at diagnosis. Faculty also notice whether the theory's terms are used correctly, such as danger control and fear control, rather than loosely.
Common HLTH 8242 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Posts on risk messages often take one of two extreme positions, that fear always motivates or that it always backfires. Neither survives the evidence. Another common gap is describing the population's beliefs without any basis. To write a stronger post, choose one theory and summarize its predictions accurately. Say what you know about your population's beliefs and how you know it. Apply the theory to that population. Propose a message that fits. Cite at least one study that challenges your claim and explain what it changes. Name the parts of the message you would send instead, and use the theory's own terms when you describe what you expect to happen. Keep the replies short and pointed. A post applying a different risk theory to your own behavior can be drafted on request.
Get a HLTH 8242 Week 3 example written to your instructions
If your thread names a risk message or a population, include it with the discussion prompt, rubric and required number of replies. You will receive an HLTH 8242 Week 3 post that answers the knowledge question conditionally, applies a named model to that group and concedes where the argument stops, replies attached. Allow 24 to 48 hours; no fee applies to a first request.
More HLTH 8242 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8242 Week 1: Target Behavior Orientation Post
- HLTH 8242 Week 2: Target Behavior Brief
- HLTH 8242 Week 4: Theory Selection Memo
- HLTH 8242 Week 5: Kit Return Barrier Analysis
- HLTH 8242 Week 6: Mechanism Logic Model
- HLTH 8242 Week 7: Construct Activity Map
- HLTH 8242 Week 8: TIDieR Intervention Draft
- HLTH 8242 Week 9: Mediation Evaluation Plan
- HLTH 8242 Week 10: Incentive Design Peer Critique
- HLTH 8242 Week 11: Program Design Defense
- HLTH 8202E Week 3: Heat Survey Construct Memo
HLTH 8242 Week 3 questions, answered
Is the extended parallel process model the only theory for this thread?
No. The health belief model and protection motivation theory also address risk perception, and a section may assign either. Witte's model is used here because it predicts a specific failure, avoidance when efficacy is low, which makes the answer to the thread conditional rather than yes or no. Whichever theory you use, say what it predicts when risk information fails.
Does this mean risk messages should be dropped?
Not for everyone. The post argues that for people who already believe the risk, more threat adds little, and that efficacy is where the gap lies. For people who underrate their risk, a threat message paired with clear steps may still help. The claim is about matching the message to whichever appraisal is actually low in your population.
Where do the patient interviews come from?
They are invented for the example and described in general terms, as the kind of material a barrier analysis might gather. No real patient, clinic or quotation is involved. If your own post draws on conversations from your workplace, keep them unidentifiable and describe patterns rather than individuals, or rely on published qualitative studies instead.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8242 Week 3 sample paper?
The full Week 3 discussion post appears on this page, applying the extended parallel process model to stool test kit non-return, with two replies and three references.
What evidence does the post give against its own claim?
A meta-analysis of fear appeals that found positive effects, larger when messages included efficacy statements, and no circumstances in which they backfired, which weakens the avoidance part of the argument.