Within the Protective Motivation Theory (PMT), threat and coping appraisals are important constructs. This theory is classified as an intrapersonal level theory and includes the constructs of threat severity, threat probability (vulnerability), response efficacy, self-efficacy expectancy, and response costs.
In this Discussion, you will examine PMT as it relates to skin cancer prevention. Specifically, you will explore how the constructs of PMT impact this health issue as well as how this theory might be used to create skin cancer prevention programs.
Save your time!
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Note: This Discussion will span the full 2 weeks of this module, with your final participation culminating on Day 7 of Week 7 in the second week of the module.
To prepare:
- Review the resources in this Module, including pages 161–168 in your textbook (Hayden, 2019).
By Day 5 of Week 6
Post your responses to the following questions from your course text (Hayden, 2019, p. 166):
- Discuss how threatening the farmers perceive skin cancer to be (i.e., what are their views on the severity/seriousness of skin cancer, their own vulnerability to it, and the rewards associated with their behavior)?
- Now, use the farmers’ coping appraisal to explain their skin cancer protective behaviors.
- Based on the PMT constructs of threat and coping appraisal, analyze what suggestions the authors made regarding the focus of the interventions to reduce skin cancer.
- Assess what ways, if any, were your threat and/or coping appraisal responses the same as those of the farmers? Do you think the suggested intervention foci would be effective?
ame: PUBH6038_Module4_Discussion_Rubric
Description: Criteria: Adherence to Discussion Expectations (see course for details)
Show Descriptions
Discussion of how threatening the farmers perceive skin cancer to be, such as what are their views on the severity/seriousness of skin cancer, their own vulnerability to it, and the rewards associated with their behavior.
(10 points)–
Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0%) – 7 (11.67%)
Meets Expectations 8 (13.33%) – 8 (13.33%)
Very Good 9 (15%) – 9 (15%)
Outstanding 10 (16.67%) – 10 (16.67%)
Explanation of the farmers’ coping appraisal to explain their skin cancer protective behavior.
(10 points)–
Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0%) – 7 (11.67%)
Meets Expectations 8 (13.33%) – 8 (13.33%)
Very Good 9 (15%) – 9 (15%)
Outstanding 10 (16.67%) – 10 (16.67%)
Analysis of authors suggestions regarding the focus of the interventions to reduce skin cancer, based on the PMT constructs of threat and coping appraisal.
(10 points)–
Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0%) – 7 (11.67%)
Meets Expectations 8 (13.33%) – 8 (13.33%)
Very Good 9 (15%) – 9 (15%)
Outstanding 10 (16.67%) – 10 (16.67%)
Assessment of ways in which your threat and/or coping appraisal responses were the same as those of the farmers and whether you think the suggested intervention foci would be effective.
(10 points)–
Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0%) – 7 (11.67%)
Meets Expectations 8 (13.33%) – 8 (13.33%)
Very Good 9 (15%) – 9 (15%)
Outstanding 10 (16.67%) – 10 (16.67%)
Written Communication: Extent to which discussion communication is appropriate, clear, grammatically and structurally correct, synthesized, and properly supported.
(10 points)–
Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0%) – 7 (11.67%)
Meets Expectations 8 (13.33%) – 8 (13.33%)
Very Good 9 (15%) – 9 (15%)
Outstanding 10 (16.67%) – 10 (16.67%)
Peer engagement: Extent to which postings demonstrate participation in meaningful, substantive, and original discussion with peers.
(10 points)–
Does Not Meet Expectations 0 (0%) – 7 (11.67%)
Meets Expectations 8 (13.33%) – 8 (13.33%)
Very Good 9 (15%) – 9 (15%)
Outstanding 10 (16.67%) – 10 (16.67%)
| Total Points: 60 |
|---|