McClendon & Prentice-Dunn (2001)
Summary:
PMT intervention produced greater intentions
72% had lighter skin at one-month
4 had either seen a dermatologist or had made an appointment
Self-efficacy had declined at one-month
Table 1: PMT and Intentions means across Experimental Conditions (N=58)
Control (N=30)
Time 1
Time 2
|
Vulnerability |
39.8 (5.7) |
39.7 (5.5) |
|
Severity of threat |
47.9 (6.2) |
47.3 (6.5) |
|
Rewards |
37.6 (5.6) |
37.0 (5.7) |
|
Response efficacy |
28.7 (4.7) |
29.0 (5.5) |
|
Self-efficacy |
26.3 (6.9) |
23.5 (6.4) |
|
Response costs |
19.8 (6.4) |
20.3 (5.3) |
|
Primary intentions |
24.2 (7.6) |
24.9 (8.7) |
|
Supplementary intentions |
21.6 (5.0) |
22.4 (5.4) |
Intervention (N=28)
|
Vulnerability |
41.3 (5.8) |
44.2 (4.0) |
|
Severity of threat |
48.7 (7.2) |
52.7 (5.4) |
|
Rewards |
36.9 (6.3) |
31.4 (8.3) |
|
Response efficacy |
28.4 (5.9) |
32.3 (5.6) |
|
Self-efficacy |
26.9 (5.6) |
29.0 (5.9) |
|
Response costs |
20.5 (6.5) |
17.0 (6.0) |
|
Primary intentions |
24.8 (9.0) |
32.7 (6.8) |
|
Supplementary intentions |
22.5 (6.2) |
29.0 (5.1) |
Note: Standard deviations are shown in parentheses.
Table
2: PMT and Intentions means for Follow-up Sample (N=32)
Pretest
Posttest Follow-up
|
Vulnerability |
39.3 (5.5) |
44.1 (4.2) |
43.9 (4.8) |
|
Severity of threat |
47.0 (6.8) |
51.7 (5.5) |
52.0 (5.2) |
|
Rewards |
38.4 (5.0) |
33.7 (7.1) |
33.9 (6.5) |
|
Response efficacy |
28.1 (5.7) |
31.7 (5.3) |
31.9 (5.1) |
|
Self-efficacy |
25.4 (6.3) |
28.1 (6.2) |
25.7 (6.0) |
|
Response costs |
21.4 (6.5) |
17.4 (5.8) |
17.8 (6.1) |
|
Primary intentions |
22.7 (8.1) |
32.6 (7.5) |
31.7 (8.0) |
|
Supplementary intentions |
20.6 (4.9) |
28.6 (5.5) |
27.3 (5.2) |
Note: All posttest scores are significantly different from the respective pretest score (p<.05). All posttest-follow-up comparisons are nonsignificant, except for self-efficacy (p<.05). Standard deviations are shown in parentheses.