Total views : 264

Wearable Computing Healthcare by Smart Band: Based on Fear-Appeal Persuasion


  • Department of Interaction Science, 53 Myungryun-dongSungkyunkwan University, Korea
  • Daejin University, Department of Media communication, Hoguk-ro - 11159, Korea


Objectives: As Internet of Things (IoT) leads the growth of wearable computing market. In this study, the healthcare market represented by smart watch and the smart band is one part of the fields that the IoT are the most actively utilized. Methods/Statistical Analysis: This study applies the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) to the wearable healthcare utility using smart band display as the substantial theoretical and empirical evidence. With 32 subjects, the analysis utilized a 2×2 between-subjects fully crossed design. Based on the design, four experimental groups, which are high-threat/highefficacy, high-threat/low-efficacy, low-threat/high-efficacy, and low-threat/low-efficacy, were composed. Findings: As the result of the 1 and 2 research questions, the threat and efficacy were not in a multiplicative relationship but an additive relationship under the both fear and danger control condition on a smart band display. These results lead to the conclusion that the most persuasive message facilitating wearable healthcare users’ danger control responses while impeding their fear control responses could be high efficacy message regardless of the level of threat. Improvements/Applications: This study proved empirically that the threat and efficacy have an additive relationship rather than a multiplicative relationship with wearable healthcare devices.


Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM), Healthcare, Internet of Things (IoT), Smart Band, Wearable Computing.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 186)


  • Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Wearable Computing - Challenges and opportunities for privacy protection.,Date Accessed:27/06/2016.
  • How is IoT changing healthcare? Available from: http:// 415702
  • Donovan R, Henley N. Social Marketing: Principles & Practice. Melbourne, Australia: IP Communications; 2003.p. 1–524.
  • Lewis I, Watson B, White KM. Extending the explanatory utility of the EPPM beyond fear-based persuasion. Health Communication. 2013; 28(1):84–98.
  • Mann S. Smart clothing: The wearable computer and wear cam. Personal Technologies. 1997; 1(1):21–7.
  • Would You Wear a Computer? Consumers Share Insights on Wearable Devices. 2016. Available from:
  • Jeong KS, Lee HM, Lee BC, Lee JI, Oh JM. Wearable computing technology - today and culture. The Journal of Korean Institute of Information Technology. 2004; 1(2): 27–32.
  • Witte K. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs.1992; 59(1):329–49.
  • Witte K. Fear control and danger control: A test of the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM). Communication Monographs. 1994; 61(1):113–34.
  • Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior. 2000; 27(3):608–32.
  • Maddux JE, Rogers RW. Protection motivation and selfefficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1983; 19(5):469–79.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.