In simple terms
A friendly intro before the formal notes — no formulas yet.
Why telling people the truth rarely changes them
Almost every smoker knows smoking is dangerous, yet knowledge alone changes very little. Health promotion is the science of what actually moves behaviour: shaping beliefs, matching the message to how ready a person is to change, and removing the practical obstacles in their way.
Think about getting a friend who never exercises to start running. Just texting 'exercise is good for you' does nothing — they already know. What works is making them feel a run is do-able (lend them shoes, start with ten minutes), making the threat feel personal ('your resting heart rate is high'), and clearing the obstacles (run together so it isn't lonely). Health promotion uses exactly these levers at the scale of whole populations.
- 1
Name a model of behaviour change (health belief model OR stages of change) and explain what it predicts.
- 2
Name a promotion strategy (fear appeal, education, environmental change) and link it to that model.
- 3
Bring in a named study and USE its findings to judge whether the strategy works.
- 4
Weigh effectiveness — including barriers and culture — and reach a conclusion.
Explore the concept
Use the live diagram and synced steps — play it or tap a step card to walk through.
Full topic notes
Formal explanation with the rigour you need for the exam.
Two models of health-behaviour change
The syllabus expects you to be able to explain how psychologists model the decision to change behaviour. Two models do most of the work in exam answers. Both are worth knowing well because they explain WHY a given strategy should — or shouldn't — work, which is the difference between describing a campaign and evaluating it.
Health belief model (HBM — Rosenstock). A cognitive model: a person is more likely to act on a health threat when they perceive high susceptibility ('this could happen to me') and high severity ('it would be serious'), see clear benefits to acting that outweigh the barriers, receive a cue to action (an external prompt), and have the self-efficacy to carry the action out. Its strength is that it names the levers a campaign can pull; its weakness is that it treats behaviour as coldly rational and ignores habit, addiction and emotion.
Transtheoretical / stages-of-change model (Prochaska & DiClemente). Change is not a single event but a process through stages: precontemplation (not considering change) → contemplation (thinking about it) → preparation → action → maintenance, with relapse as a normal loop. The practical payoff: interventions should be stage-matched — a precontemplator needs awareness-raising, while someone in the action stage needs relapse-prevention skills. Giving the right message at the wrong stage wastes it.
How the models connect to strategy. A fear appeal is essentially an attempt to spike perceived susceptibility and severity in the HBM; an education programme tries to raise benefits and self-efficacy; environmental change lowers barriers directly. Naming this link is what turns a description of a campaign into an explanation of it.
Strategies for promoting health — and how well they work
There are three broad strategies the syllabus highlights. Notice that they escalate in how much they depend on the individual's own motivation — and that dependence is a clue to their effectiveness.
Fear appeals. Arouse fear of a threat to motivate change (graphic pack images, shock road-safety adverts). Effective only under conditions: moderate rather than extreme fear, and — crucially — a clear, do-able action that raises self-efficacy. Without that, high fear produces denial, defensive avoidance or reactance (doing the opposite).
Education. Provide information and skills — school programmes, leaflets, mass-media modelling. Reliably raises knowledge, but knowledge alone changes behaviour weakly (the knowledge–behaviour gap). Strongest when it also builds self-efficacy and skills, not just facts.
Environmental change. Reshape the context so the healthy option becomes the easy or default one: indoor smoking bans, sugar/tobacco taxes, plain packaging, removing sweets from checkouts. Because it does not rely on persuading each individual, it is often the MOST effective strategy — but it raises debates about paternalism and freedom.
The general finding. Across the literature, strategies that change the environment or build self-efficacy tend to outperform strategies that rely on information or fear alone. Effectiveness is conditional, which is the point examiners want you to argue — not 'campaigns work' but 'campaigns work WHEN…'.
Common mistakes examiners penalise
Describing a study instead of USING it. Reciting aim/procedure/findings and moving on leaves Criterion C in the lower bands. Every study must earn its place by supporting a specific claim about effectiveness ('Because Janis & Feshbach found…, we can conclude…').
Claiming 'fear appeals work' (or 'never work'). Both are wrong and cost critical-thinking marks. The examinable claim is conditional: moderate fear PLUS self-efficacy. State the condition.
Muddling the HBM components. Susceptibility ('could happen to me') is not severity ('would be serious'), and self-efficacy is not a cue to action. Mislabelling components signals shallow knowledge and caps Criterion B.
Treating stages of change as fixed or one-way. Relapse is a normal loop, not a failure of the model, and interventions must be stage-MATCHED. Giving action-stage advice to a precontemplator is a classic error.
Evaluating the STUDIES but never the STRATEGY. 'The sample was small, it lacked ecological validity…' about the research is not the same as judging whether the health strategy is effective. The question is about strategies — keep the evaluation aimed at effectiveness.
Ignoring barriers and culture. Concluding a campaign 'works' without acknowledging structural barriers or cultural fit produces a one-sided answer that cannot reach the top of Criterion D.
Worked examples
See the formulas applied — reveal one step at a time, like the exam.
Worked example 1 — Explain the health belief model and use it to evaluate ONE fear-appeal campaign.
- 1
Step 1 — State the model precisely. The health belief model (Rosenstock) predicts that a person acts on a health threat when perceived susceptibility and severity are high, perceived benefits outweigh perceived barriers, a cue to action is present, and self-efficacy is sufficient.
Worked example 2 — Discuss barriers to behaviour change and the role of culture, using a healthy-eating strategy.
- 1
Strategy: a '5 A Day'-style education campaign promoting five portions of fruit and vegetables daily.
Evaluate strategies for promoting health. [22]
- 1
Model essay
How it all connects
The big idea sits in the middle — tap a linked idea to explore the link.
Tap a linked idea to see how it connects back to the main topic — that connection is what examiners reward.
Glossary
Key terms for this topic — skim now; the Check step will test them.
- Health promotion
The process of enabling people to increase control over, and improve, their health (WHO). It targets not only individual behaviour but the social and physical environments that shape it.
- Health belief model (HBM)
A cognitive model (Rosenstock) predicting that a person acts on a health threat when the perceived benefits of acting outweigh the perceived barriers. Six components: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, cues to action, and self-efficacy.
- Perceived susceptibility vs severity (HBM)
Susceptibility = how likely I think I am to get the condition ('could happen to me'). Severity = how serious I think it would be. Fear appeals usually try to raise BOTH — but raising them without raising self-efficacy tends to backfire.
- Self-efficacy
Belief in one's own capability to carry out a specific behaviour (Bandura). Added to the HBM because knowing a threat is real is useless if you don't believe you can act on it. The single most consistent predictor of behaviour change.
- Transtheoretical model (stages of change)
Prochaska & DiClemente's model: change is a process moving through stages — precontemplation → contemplation → preparation → action → maintenance (with possible relapse). Interventions should be matched (tailored) to the person's current stage.
- Application
A precontemplator (not even thinking about change) needs information that raises awareness; someone in the action stage needs relapse-prevention skills. Giving the wrong message for the stage — e.g. quit-tips to someone who doesn't want to quit — wastes the intervention.
- Fear appeals
Persuasive messages that arouse fear of a threat (e.g. graphic cigarette-pack images). Effective ONLY under conditions: moderate fear PLUS a clear, do-able action that raises self-efficacy. Too much fear with no solution causes denial, defensive avoidance or reactance.
- Education strategy
Providing information and skills (leaflets, school programmes, mass-media modelling). Raises knowledge reliably but, on its own, changes behaviour weakly — the knowledge–behaviour gap. Strongest when it also builds self-efficacy (e.g. cooking classes, not just 'eat 5 a day').
- Environmental change strategy
Changing the context so the healthy choice is the easy/default choice — smoking bans, sugar taxes, plain packaging, removing sweets from checkouts. Often more effective than persuasion because it does not depend on individual motivation, but can be seen as paternalistic.
- Barriers to behaviour change
Obstacles that defeat even well-designed campaigns: practical/structural (cost, access, time), psychological (addiction, low self-efficacy, optimism bias), social (peer norms) and cultural (message clashes with values). Effectiveness depends on removing barriers, not just raising motivation.
- Role of culture in health promotion
A message that works in one culture can fail or offend in another. Effective campaigns are culturally tailored — matched to language, values, collectivist vs individualist framing, and who counts as a credible source. Ignoring culture is a leading reason imported campaigns fail.
Name it
Read the meaning, then pick which of this lesson’s terms it describes. Miss one and you see what your choice really means.
Prochaska & DiClemente's model: change is a process moving through stages — precontemplation → contemplation → preparation → action → maintenance (with possible relapse). Interventions should be matched (tailored) to the person's current stage.
Quick check
Write your answer first, then compare it with the model one — the gap is what you would have lost.
Teach it back
If you can explain it simply, you own it — gaps here are marks you’d lose.
Teach it back
Explain this topic as if teaching a friend. We name the gaps an examiner would still dock.
Revision flashcards
Guess first, then flip — retrieval beats re-reading.
Key takeaways
Review these before you close the topic — retrieval beats re-reading.
Health belief model (HBM — Rosenstock). A cognitive model: a person is more likely to act on a health threat when they perceive high susceptibility ('this could happen to me') and high severity ('it would be serious'), see clear benefits to acting that outweigh the barriers, receive a cue to action (an external prompt), and have the self-efficacy to carry the action out. Its strength is that it names the levers a campaign can pull; its weakness is that it treats behaviour as coldly rational and ignores habit, addiction and emotion.
Transtheoretical / stages-of-change model (Prochaska & DiClemente). Change is not a single event but a process through stages: precontemplation (not considering change) → contemplation (thinking about it) → preparation → action → maintenance, with relapse as a normal loop. The practical payoff: interventions should be stage-matched — a precontemplator needs awareness-raising, while someone in the action stage needs relapse-prevention skills. Giving the right message at the wrong stage wastes it.
How the models connect to strategy. A fear appeal is essentially an attempt to spike perceived susceptibility and severity in the HBM; an education programme tries to raise benefits and self-efficacy; environmental change lowers barriers directly. Naming this link is what turns a description of a campaign into an explanation of it.
Practice — then mark it
The whole point: a real Cambridge question, marked mark-by-mark.
Get a Paper 2 essay marked: 'Evaluate strategies for promoting health. [22]'
Get a Paper 2 essay marked: 'Evaluate strategies for promoting health. [22]'
Extra simulations & links
PhET, GeoGebra and other curated tools — open in a new tab.
Frequently asked
Checkpoint
One marked question is worth ten re-reads — close the loop before you move on.
Reading it isn’t knowing it — prove it.
Before you move on: do Get a Paper 2 essay marked: 'Evaluate strategies for promoting health. [22]' on paper, snap a photo, and get examiner-style feedback on exactly where you win and lose marks.
Discuss Health psychology: promoting health
Ask, share and discuss with other Psychology HL students