The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta‐Analysis of Research on Protection Motivation Theory
Abstract
This article reports the first meta‐analysis of the literature on protection motivation theory (Rogers, 1975, 1983; Rogers & Prentice‐Dunn, 1997), a model of disease prevention and health promotion that has generated research for over two decades. The literature review included 65 relevant studies (N= approximately 30,000) that represented over 20 health issues. The mean overall effect size (d+= 0.52) was of moderate magnitude. In general, increases in threat severity, threat vulnerability, response efficacy, and self‐efficacy facilitated adaptive intentions or behaviors. Conversely, decreases in maladaptive response rewards and adaptive response costs increased adaptive intentions or behaviors. This held true whether the measures were based on intentions or behaviors, and suggests that PMT components may be useful for individual and community interventions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research
Rosenthal, R. (1991) · doi:10.4135/9781412984997 · Cited by 4,635
Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9 · Cited by 2,342
Self-citation
Cited by
Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249 · Cited by 3,732
Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis of effects and processes
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38002-1 · Cited by 3,236
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136 · Cited by 2,046
The general self-efficacy scale: multicultural validation studies
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.3200/jrlp.139.5.439-457 · Cited by 1,878
The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence
Lindell, M. K., & Perry, R. W. (2012) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01647.x · Cited by 1,868
Metadata
- Authors
- FLOYD, D. L., PRENTICE‐DUNN, S., & ROGERS, R. W.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-02
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 407-429
- ISSN
- 0021-9029 (ISSN-L)
- 1559-1816
- OpenAlex
- W2025829466
- Cited by
- 2,513
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Meta‐Analysis of Research on Protection Motivation Theory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x
- The paper
- FLOYD, D. L., PRENTICE‐DUNN, S., & ROGERS, R. W. (2000). A Meta‐Analysis of Research on Protection Motivation Theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.