Motives for the adoption of protective health behaviours for men and women: A social psychological model versus the ordered protection motivation model

The aims of the present study were to (a) evaluate and to compare the adequacy of a social psychological model and a cognitive appraisal model in predicting intention and action with respect to the adoption of protective health behaviours, (b) investigate the direction and strength of the path coefficients linking the predictor and criterion variables in each model in order to determine which predictor variables played a significant role in the (non)adoption of protective health behaviours, and (c) investigate the direct and indirect roles that gender role and SES play in determining the decision to adopt or not to adopt protective health behaviours. Existing knowledge about disease and illness makes it imperative for health researchers to understand the factors involved in reducing exposure to these endemic threats. Whilst extensive research has been carried out to investigate health beliefs and health threats, most of the results that have been obtained have been descriptive in nature. They say very little about how males and females internalise and conceptualise the identified social psychological and cognitive appraisal variables or how these variables influence the health decision-making process. Two theoretical models were developed to represent the decision-making process regarding the adoption of good health behaviours. A total of 550 males and 759 females (total n = 1,309) from Rockhampton and Gladstone in the State of Queensland, Australia, participated in the study by responding to one of three questionnaires designed to measure the study's critical variables. Whilst the overall findings generally supported the decision-making process represented by both models, the results indicated that the social psychological model represented a better predictor of the health decision-making process than the cognitive appraisal model. The findings also indicated that high masculinity combined with low femininity and a low SES directly decreased the motivation of males and females to adopt protective health behaviours when confronted by a health threat. Finally, for both models, the results indicated that the exogenous variables of gender role and SES had both direct and indirect influences on behavioural intention and action for males and females across the three disease dimensions. The implications of the findings with regards to differences in male and female health status are discussed.