Protection motivation theory
Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) is a psychological framework that explores why individuals are motivated to change their behavior in response to perceived threats, particularly health risks. Developed by Ronald W. Rogers in the 1970s and expanded upon in the 1980s, the theory posits that people's responses to threats are influenced by factors such as the perceived severity of the threat, their susceptibility to it, the effectiveness of the proposed behavioral change, and their self-efficacy—essentially, their confidence in their ability to make those changes.
Initially aimed at understanding health-related behaviors, PMT has since been applied to a variety of contexts, including public health campaigns and marketing strategies. The theory emphasizes the role of fear in motivating behavior, recognizing that fear appeals can effectively encourage individuals to adopt healthier habits or avoid risky behaviors. For instance, campaigns against drunk driving often use graphic imagery to evoke fear and encourage safer driving practices.
However, while PMT provides valuable insights into behavioral motivation, it is not without its limitations. Some researchers have noted that the model may not fully account for individual past behaviors or other influencing variables, indicating a need for more comprehensive and longitudinal studies to validate its constructs. Despite these challenges, PMT remains a significant tool for understanding how people respond to risks and the psychological processes that underpin decision-making in the face of potential threats.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Protection motivation theory
Protection motivation theory is a psychological and sociological concept that addresses the reasons and processes by which people are motivated to make behavioral changes. It addresses the risks or perceived risks that can prompt these changes and the factors that need to be present for a person to follow through and make the changes. It was originally developed as a way of explaining why people respond to fear to initiate changes to benefit their health and predict the likelihood of a risk prompting such a change. It has since been adapted to apply to and include other scenarios in which risk can be mitigated by behavioral changes.
Background
The protection motivation theory originated in a 1975 paper published by R.W. Rogers as a means of explaining how people assess and respond to potential threats to their health. Rogers theorized that people who were made aware of a potential health threat based their response to that threat on three factors: perceived noxiousness of the threat, perceived susceptibility, and perceived effectiveness of the response. In other words, people looked at how bad the threat could be, how likely it was to affect them, and how likely it was that changing their behavior would avoid the threat.
According to Rogers’s theory, a person who received news of a potential health threat needed to think that the threat was bad enough to be moved to act to prevent it from happening. It was also necessary for the person to feel vulnerable to the risk. The person also had to feel that any lifestyle or habit changes would reduce or eliminate the vulnerability to the threat.
Overview
Following the publication of Rogers’s theory, additional studies tested his proposal. These studies indicated that there was an additional factor that affected the likelihood of changes in behavior being made. In 1983, Rogers added the fourth dimension of self-efficacy to his theory. This was the person’s assessment of how likely they personally would be able to successfully make the necessary behavioral changes.
These factors were a combination of two processes: a threat appraisal process and a coping appraisal. Rogers suggested that when faced with a potential threat, people would first appraise the threat by determining how bad they thought it would be and how likely it was to affect them. They would then determine how they would cope with it by evaluating how likely it was that they could alter the potential risk by changing behavior and how likely it was they were able to accomplish the required changes. This last factor incorporated the potential cost of making the changes in terms of money, time, or other resources.
For example, imagine that three people are told that their blood glucose levels are higher than the previous year and that this increases their risk of developing diabetes. Their physicians each recommend dietary changes and increased exercise to improve the blood glucose level and reduce the risk of becoming diabetic. All three patients face similar potential consequences of having a life-altering disease, and each would be at risk of severe complications, including amputation of limbs, loss of sight, and a shortened life.
On that basis, it would seem that each would have the same motivation to change. However, two patients have family members who have been affected by diabetes. They have seen the problems it has caused and view the disease as much more severe or noxious. In addition, they both feel their family history increases the likelihood of developing the disease. The third patient has little personal experience with diabetes and sees it as something that can be treated by taking a pill.
The first two patients see the risk they are facing as more threatening than the third one does, and they perceive their vulnerability as being greater. They are more likely than the third patient to undertake behavioral changes to attempt to avoid developing diabetes. However, if one of them has failed on diets before and thinks there is no time to exercise, Rogers’s theory proposes that the patient is also less likely to undertake changes because of the perceived lack of success.
Further study determined that the theory was not foolproof and that there were many instances that did not follow Rogers’s four-dimension model. However, the theory was seen as a valuable way to gather information on how people might respond to decisions in situations motivated by fear. The protection motivation theory also drew attention to the fact that many other models for predicting how people would respond when given information about potential health threats ignored the role that fear plays in determining how people will respond. Those models assumed that people would assess the situation and determine a course of action through rational assessment and did not incorporate a person’s fear of consequences into the process.
In the decades since Rogers first published his theory, the use of protection motivation theory has expanded. Motivating people through fear of potential consequences—also known as fear appeals—are used in numerous circumstances. In some cases, the intent is to benefit a person or group of people. Other uses are more manipulative.
Physicians use the appeals to encourage people to stop bad habits, such as drinking too much, smoking, eating poorly, and using illegal drugs. Society uses the tactics to encourage public safety and well-being. Campaigns against driving while intoxicated or texting while driving that show vehicle crashes that occurred while someone was drinking or texting while driving are an example of a public welfare fear appeal.
Fear appeals are also used in marketing and communications. Commercials that promote products for eliminating bodily conditions such as bad breath or dandruff often use fear of social embarrassment to increase the perceived necessity of their products. In a similar way, ads that promote the safety of a particular automobile are attempting to appeal to the fear of having an inferior vehicle that could result in someone being injured. These are examples of a manipulative use of a social-psychological behavior.
Some uses straddle the line between motivating people for their own good and promoting a product. An example of this is insurance. Having an insurance policy is beneficial in the event of a health problem, a car accident, or a disaster that affects a home. There are clear benefits to the person who has the policy. However, the insurance company also benefits by selling an additional product, and there is motivation to encourage people to buy greater levels of coverage.
Though the theory has been applied in many contexts, a lack of comprehensive tests and thorough examination of the theory’s constructs remained an issue in the twenty-first century. Many studies failed to consider an individual’s past behavior or control for moderating variables that may contribute to inaccurate results, and longitudinal studies were lacking. Some researchers called for increased causal testing and longitudinal effects testing to ensure the theory is applied in useful, accurate ways.
Bibliography
Balla, Jessica, and Martin S. Hagger. “Protection Motivation Theory and Health Behaviour: Conceptual Review, Discussion of Limitations, and Recommendations for Best Practice and Future Research.” Health Psychology Review, 2024, pp. 1–27, doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2413011. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Bender, Holly, et al. “What Motivates Individuals to Protect Themselves from Risks: The Case of Wildland Fires.” Risk Analysis, vol. 27, no. 4, 2007, pp. 887–900, doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00930.x. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Gautam, Sandeep. “Emotions and Motivations.” Psychology Today, 11 May 2012, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-fundamental-four/201205/emotions-and-motivations. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
“Protection Motivation Theory.” Psychology, psychology.iresearchnet.com/sports-psychology/sport-motivation/protection-motivation-theory. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
“Protection Motivation Theory.” Science.gov, www.science.gov/topicpages/p/protection+motivation+theory.html. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Rainear, Adam M., and John L. Christensen. “Protection Motivation Theory as an Explanatory Framework for Proenvironmental Behavioral Intentions.” Communication Research Reports, vol. 34, no. 3, 2017, pp. 239–48, doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2017.1286472. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Shaw, Allen. “Protection Motivation Theory.” Strategic Planet, 31 Dec. 2012, www.strategic-planet.com/2012/12/protection-motivation-theory. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
Stiff, James B., and Paul A. Mongeau. Persuasive Communication. 2nd ed., Guilford Press, 2003.