The PMT has been less widely criticized than the HBM; however, many of the criticisms of the HBM also relate to the PMT. For example, the PMT assumes that individuals are conscious information processors; it does not account for habitual behaviours, nor does it include a role for social and environmental factors.

Rippetoe and Rogers (1987) gave women information about breast cancer and examined the effect of this information on the components of the PMT and their relationship to the women’s intentions to practise BSE. The results showed that the best predictors of intentions to practise BSE were response effectiveness, severity and self-efficacy. In a further study, the effects of persuasive appeals for increasing exercise on intentions to exercise were evaluated using the components of the PMT. The results showed that susceptibility and self-efficacy predicted exercise intentions but that none of the variables was related to self-reports of actual behaviour. In another study, Beck and Lund (1981) manipulated dental students’ beliefs about tooth decay using persuasive communication. The results showed that the information increased fear, and that severity and self-efficacy were related to behavioural intentions. Norman et al. (2003) also used the PMT to predict children’s adherence to wearing an eye patch. Parents of children diagnosed with eye problems completed a baseline questionnaire concerning their beliefs and a follow-up questionnaire after two months describing the child’s level of adherence. The results showed that perceived susceptibility and response costs were significant predictors of adherence.

If applied to dietary change, the PMT would make the following predictions: information about the role of a high fat diet in coronary heart disease would increase fear, increase the individual’s perception of how serious coronary heart disease was (perceived severity), and increase their belief that they were likely to have a heart attack (perceived susceptibility/susceptibility). If the individual also felt confident that they could change their diet (self-efficacy) and that this change would have beneficial consequences (response effectiveness), they would reporthigh intentions to change their behaviour (behavioural intentions). This would be seenas an adaptive coping response to the information.

The original PMT claimed that health-related behaviours are a product of four components:
1 Severity (e.g. ‘Bowel cancer is a serious illness’).
2 Susceptibility (e.g. ‘My chances of getting bowel cancer are high’).
3 Response effectiveness (e.g. ‘Changing my diet would improve my health’).
4 Self-efficacy (e.g. ‘I am confident that I can change my diet’).
These components predict behavioural intentions (e.g. ‘I intend to change my behaviour’), which are related to behaviour. Rogers (1985) has also suggested a role for a fifth component, fear (e.g. an emotional response), in response to education or information. The PMT describes severity, susceptibility and fear as relating to threat appraisal (i.e. appraising to outside threat) and response effectiveness and self-efficacy as relating to coping appraisal (i.e. appraising the individual themselves). According to the PMT, there are two types of sources of information, environmental (e.g. verbal persuasion, observational learning) and intrapersonal (e.g. prior experience). This information influences the five components of the PMT (self-efficacy, response effectiveness, severity, susceptibility, fear), which then elicit either an ‘adaptive’ coping response (i.e. behavioural intention) or a ‘maladaptive’ coping response (e.g. avoidance, denial).