Effective risk communication about per-and-polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) is essential due to health risks and low public awareness. Guided by the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) and the Transtheoretical Model (Stages of Change), this study examined how risk-based messages, which include threat and efficacy, influence behavioral intention, advice outcomes, and perceived importance. An experimental survey manipulating threat (high/low) and efficacy (high/low) on 419 municipal water users in Wisconsin found that intentions to reduce PFAS exposure were higher in high-efficacy than low-efficacy messages, especially among those in later stages of change. Perceived importance was higher in the high health-threat condition than in the low-threat condition. Findings emphasize the need to include strong efficacy cues in risk messaging and tailor public health messages to individuals’ readiness for behavior change.
BertholdT. A.McCraryA.deVilleneuveS.SchrammM. (2023). Let’s talk about PFAS: Inconsistent public awareness about PFAS and its sources in the United States. Public Library of Science ONE, 18(11), Article e0294134. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294134
2.
BigsbyE.AlbarracínD. (2022). Self- and response efficacy information in fear appeals: A meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 72(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab048
3.
BosoneL.ChevrierM.MartinezF. (2023). When narratives speak louder than numbers: The effects of narrative persuasion across the stages of behavioural change to reduce air pollution. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1072187. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1072187
4.
CallowayE. E.ChiapponeA. L.SchmittH. J.SullivanD.GerhardsteinB.TuckerP. G.RaymanJ.YarochA. L. (2020). Exploring community psychosocial stress related to per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination: Lessons learned from a qualitative study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(23), 8706.
5.
CaubergheV.De PelsmackerP.JanssensW.DensN. (2009). Fear, threat and efficacy in threat appeals: Message involvement as a key mediator to message acceptance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(2), 276–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.11.006
6.
ChungJ. H.SarmientoI. G.Van SwolL. M.ShawB. R.KoshollekA.AhnP. H. (2020). Promoting reforestation to landowners: The role of advice-giving through information, efficacy, narrative, and identification in storytelling. Journal of Forestry, 118(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvaa028
7.
ClaassenL.HartmannJ.WuijtsS. (2021). How to address consumers’ concerns and information needs about emerging chemical and microbial contaminants in drinking water: The case of GenX in the Netherlands. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(20), 10615. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010615
8.
DiClementeC. C.ProchaskaJ. O.FairhurstS. K.VelicerW. F.VelasquezM. M.RossiJ. S. (1991). The process of smoking cessation: An analysis of precontemplation, contemplation, and preparation stages of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(2), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.295
9.
DillardJ. P.PlotnickC. A.GodboldL. C.FreimuthV. S.EdgarT. (1996). The multiple affective outcomes of AIDS PSAs: Fear appeals do more than scare people. Communication Research, 23(1), 44–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001002
10.
DucatmanA.LaPierJ.FuocoR.DeWittJ. C. (2022). Official health communications are failing PFAS-contaminated communities. Environmental Health, 21(1), 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00857-9
EvichM. G.DavisM. J. B.McCordJ. P.AcreyB.AwkermanJ. A.KnappeD. R. U.LindstromA. B.SpethT. F.Tebes-StevensC.StrynarM. J.WangZ.WeberE. J.HendersonW. M.WashingtonJ. W. (2022). Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in the environment. Science, 375, eabg9065. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg9065
13.
FengB.MacGeorgeE. L. (2010). The influences of message and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication Research, 37(4), 553–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210368258
14.
HarclerodeM.BarylukS.LanzaH.FrangosJ. (2021). Preparing for effective, adaptive risk communication about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water. American Water Work Association Water Science, 3(5), Article e1236. https://doi.org/10.1002/aws2.1236
15.
HollandT.ShawB.HutchinsR.van SwolL. M.DehnertG. K. (2025). What people are asking about PFAS in their drinking water based on online search behaviors?Journal of Environmental Health, 88(1), 8–15. https://doi.org/10.70387/001c.142101
16.
HutchinsR. A.van SwolL. M.ShawB. R.HollandT. E.DehnertG. K. (2024, October23). Risk and efficacy language in PFAS messaging [Conference session]. Presentation at University of Wisconsin-Madison Sustainability Symposium, Madison, WI.
17.
HymanA.ArlikattiS.HuangS.-K.LindellM. K.MumpowerJ.PraterC. S.WuH.-C. (2022). How do perceptions of risk communicator attributes affect emergency response? An examination of a water contamination emergency in Boston, USA. Water Resources Research, 58(1), Article e2021WR030669. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021WR030669
18.
LiuZ.YangJ. Z. (2023). Communicating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination to the public through personal relevance. Journal of Health Communication, 28(2), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053251338341
19.
MacGeorgeE. L.FengB.ButlerG. L.BudarzS. K. (2004). Understanding advice in supportive interactions: Beyond the facework and message evaluation paradigm. Human Communication Research, 30(1), 42–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00724.x
20.
MacGeorgeE. L.GuntzvillerL. M.HanasonoL. K.FengB. (2016). Testing advice response theory in interactions with friends. Communication Research, 43(2), 211–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213510938
21.
MacGeorgeE. L.van SwolL. M. (2018). Advice: Communication with consequence. In MacGeorgeE. L.van SwolL. M. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Advice (pp. 21–42). Oxford University Press.
22.
MaloneyE. K.LapinskiM. K.WitteK. (2011). Fear appeals and persuasion: A review and update of the Extended Parallel Process Model. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5(4), 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00341.x
23.
NabiR. L.Roskos-EwoldsenD.CarpentierF. D. (2008). Subjective knowledge and fear appeal effectiveness: Implications for message design. Health Communication, 23(2), 191–201. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10410230701808327
24.
NakanoY.HondoH. (2023). Narrative or logical? The effects of information format on pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 15(2), 1354. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021354
25.
ProchaskaJ. O.DiClementeC. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390
26.
ShawB. R. (2009). Using temporally oriented social science models and audience segmentation to influence environmental behaviors. In KahlorL.StoutP. (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (1st ed., pp. 123–144). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203867631-13
27.
ShawB. R.RadlerB. T.HaackJ. (2011). Exploring the utility of the stages of change model to promote natural shorelines. Lake Reservoir Management, 27(4), 310–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/07438141.2011.610916
28.
SmithR. A.FerraraM.WitteK. (2007). Social sides of health risks: Stigma and collective efficacy. Health Communication, 21(1), 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230701283389
29.
SniezekJ. A.van SwolL. M. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a Judge-Advisor system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 288–307. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2926
30.
SunderlandE. M.HuX. C.DassuncaoC.TokranovA. K.WagnerC. C.AllenJ. G. (2018). A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 29(2), 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-018-0094-1
31.
TannenbaumM. B.HeplerJ.ZimmermanR. S.SaulL.JacobsS.WilsonK.AlbarracínD. (2015). Appealing to fear: A meta-analysis of fear appeal effectiveness and theories. Psychological Bulletin, 141(6), 1178–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039729
32.
ThompsonS.O’HairH. D. (2008). Advice-giving and the management of uncertainty for cancer survivors. Health Communication, 23(4), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230802229712
33.
van SwolL. M.MacGeorgeE.PrahlA. (2017). Advise with permission? The effects of advice utilization on advice outcomes. Communication Studies, 68(4), 476–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2017.1363795
34.
van SwolL. M.ShawB.DaiI. (2026). Risk and efficacy in communication of contaminants in drinking water. In TeodoroM. (Ed.), Safe drinking water act: The next fifty years. Springer Nature.
35.
VuN. C.LiY.HighA. C. (2025). Advice response theory: A meta-analytic review. Communication Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502251351041
36.
WitteK. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59(4), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
37.
WitteK.AllenM. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591–615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506
38.
ZarębskaM.BajkaczS.MalornaK. (2024). Evaluation of pitcher and bottle filters for reducing selected emerging contaminants in drinking water. Desalination and Water Treatment, 321, Article 100937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dwt.2024.100937
39.
ZindelH.PowersM.BrownP.CordnerA. (2021). State messaging on toxic chemical exposure: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and the individualization of risk on state websites in the United States. Environmental Communication, 15(8), 1001–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2021.1979619
