All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Risk and Efficacy as Motivators of Change: Test of the Risk Perception Attitude (RPA) Framework
Unformatted Document Text:  The RPA Framework 2 both find, for example, that when either threat (in the EPPM) or risk perception (in the RPA framework) is high, individuals’ responses will be determined by their efficacy beliefs. According to the EPPM, individuals will engage in healthy behaviors (called the danger-control response) if their efficacy beliefs are also high, but they will engage in defensive behaviors (called fear-control response) if their efficacy beliefs are low. The RPA framework makes analogous predictions about the relation between risk perception and behaviors, with two important distinctions. First, the RPA is based on the direct manipulation of perceived risk and, second, the RPA framework posits that efficacy beliefs are important not only when risk perceptions are high but also when they are low. Not all predictions derived from the RPA framework, however, have been supported. In this paper, we present the results of another test of the RPA framework to sort out the previously reported (XXX, in press) contradictory findings. A brief review of the RPA framework is first presented. The Risk Perception Attitude (RPA) Framework The RPA framework categorizes individuals into one of four groups based on their risk perception and efficacy beliefs: responsive (high perceived risk, high efficacy); avoidance (high perceived risk, low efficacy); proactive (low perceived risk, high efficacy); or indifference (low perceived risk, low efficacy). Membership into one of these four groups is associated with information seeking and self-protective behaviors (XXX, 2001). Results, however, have been inconsistent. XXX (in press) tested the RPA framework predictions in two studies, one that manipulated both risk perceptions and efficacy beliefs in the laboratory and another that only measured these variables in a natural setting through a telephone survey. In Study 1, assignment to one of the four experimental conditions was done at random, but participants were led to believe that their risk and efficacy status were determined from their self-reported behaviors,

Authors: Rimal, Rajiv., Morrison, Dan. and Mitchell, Monique.
first   previous   Page 2 of 27   next   last



background image
The RPA Framework
2
both find, for example, that when either threat (in the EPPM) or risk perception (in the RPA
framework) is high, individuals’ responses will be determined by their efficacy beliefs.
According to the EPPM, individuals will engage in healthy behaviors (called the danger-control
response) if their efficacy beliefs are also high, but they will engage in defensive behaviors
(called fear-control response) if their efficacy beliefs are low.
The RPA framework makes analogous predictions about the relation between risk
perception and behaviors, with two important distinctions. First, the RPA is based on the direct
manipulation of perceived risk and, second, the RPA framework posits that efficacy beliefs are
important not only when risk perceptions are high but also when they are low. Not all
predictions derived from the RPA framework, however, have been supported. In this paper, we
present the results of another test of the RPA framework to sort out the previously reported
(XXX, in press) contradictory findings. A brief review of the RPA framework is first presented.
The Risk Perception Attitude (RPA) Framework
The RPA framework categorizes individuals into one of four groups based on their risk
perception and efficacy beliefs: responsive (high perceived risk, high efficacy); avoidance (high
perceived risk, low efficacy); proactive (low perceived risk, high efficacy); or indifference (low
perceived risk, low efficacy). Membership into one of these four groups is associated with
information seeking and self-protective behaviors (XXX, 2001). Results, however, have been
inconsistent. XXX (in press) tested the RPA framework predictions in two studies, one that
manipulated both risk perceptions and efficacy beliefs in the laboratory and another that only
measured these variables in a natural setting through a telephone survey. In Study 1, assignment
to one of the four experimental conditions was done at random, but participants were led to
believe that their risk and efficacy status were determined from their self-reported behaviors,


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 2 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.