PHE 489 Module 4 Discussion Example

Reviewed by Delia Ravenscroft, MSN, RN

This PHE 489 Module 4 Discussion sample works through how to communicate a health risk that people cannot see, taste or smell. It was prepared for SNHU PHE 489 (PHE-489), the BS Public Health capstone, whose fourth module asks learners how they will communicate their issue to the public. The audience is private well owners in five composite towns in southern New Hampshire, many of whom believe arsenic is a problem for other people's wells. The post uses the extended parallel process model to pair a clear threat with an easy action, explains why free tests alone drew mostly better-educated households and argues for local messengers and a single concrete step. It ends by asking classmates how they would handle their own audience's sense that the risk belongs to someone else.

CoursePHE 489 Public Health Capstone Communication
ModuleModule 4
Paper typeundergraduate capstone discussion post on risk communication
LengthAbout 360 words, 3 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolSouthern New Hampshire University
ProgramBS Public Health
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PHE 489 Module 4

1

Module Four Discussion

Your Neighbor's Well Is Not Your Well

The hardest part of my capstone may not be the evidence. It is the sentence I heard most from well owners at our testing day: our water is fine, it tastes great. Arsenic has no taste. How do you persuade someone to act on a risk their senses tell them is not there?

What this page is doingA real quote frames the challenge.
2

The research suggests the obstacle is personal, not general. In central Maine, owners agreed that arsenic was dangerous but rated their own risk lower than their neighbors' (Flanagan et al., 2015). So a message that says arsenic is common and harmful will be accepted and then applied to someone else.

The extended parallel process model helps here. It holds that a fear message works only when people believe both that the threat applies to them and that they can do something effective about it; high threat with low efficacy leads people to dismiss or avoid the message (Maloney et al., 2011). For well owners, the threat must be made personal: wells next to each other can differ, so only a test of your own well tells you anything. The efficacy part must be just as strong: one kit, picked up at the town hall, filled at the kitchen tap and mailed back, with a phone number for questions.

The voice carrying the message counts for as much as its wording. When tests were offered free in New Jersey, fewer than half of households returned samples, and those who did were better educated and better off (Flanagan et al., 2016). Free kits remove one barrier, but they do not reach everyone. I plan to have the message carried by people owners already trust, such as town health officers, librarians and neighbors who have tested, and to target the kits to households with children and to the lower-income areas the survey showed test least.

My draft headline for a postcard is: Your neighbor's well is not your well. Test yours this month.

What this page is doingTheory, evidence and a message are linked.
3

For classmates: does your audience believe the risk belongs to someone else, and how will you make it personal without frightening people into ignoring it?

What this page is doingThe question asks peers to apply the same idea.
4

References

Flanagan, S. V., Marvinney, R. G., & Zheng, Y. (2015). Influences on domestic well water testing behavior in a Central Maine area with frequent groundwater arsenic occurrence. Science of the Total Environment, 505, 1274-1281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.017

Flanagan, S. V., Spayd, S. E., Procopio, N. A., Chillrud, S. N., Ross, J., Braman, S., & Zheng, Y. (2016). Arsenic in private well water part 2 of 3: Who benefits the most from traditional testing promotion? Science of the Total Environment, 562, 1010-1018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.199

Maloney, E. K., Lapinski, M. K., & Witte, K. (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

What the PHE 489 Module 4 instructions ask for

For Module Four, PHE 489 asks you to discuss how you will communicate your capstone issue to the public or another audience. One page and a couple of APA 7 sources is usually enough, with peer replies to follow. Describe your audience and what they currently believe about the risk. Apply a communication or behavior theory to explain how your message should be built, balancing the seriousness of the problem with a clear, doable action. Use evidence on who responds to similar messages, and explain who should deliver the message and why. Offer a draft headline or key message, then ask classmates how they would reach their own audiences.

How this PHE 489 Module 4 discussion example is built

In this PHE 489 post, the student hears well owners in southern New Hampshire insist their water tastes fine. Flanagan and colleagues' Maine survey shows owners place arsenic risk on their neighbors. Maloney and colleagues' extended parallel process model explains why the message must make the threat personal and the action easy. A New Jersey study by Flanagan and colleagues finds free tests drew mainly better-educated households, so the student plans trusted local messengers and targeted kits. The draft postcard headline reads: Your neighbor's well is not your well, test yours this month. Peers are asked how they personalize risk. The theory shapes every line. Kits are targeted to families with children.

Where the PHE 489 Module 4 rubric puts the points

Graders of the PHE 489 communication discussion usually look for a clear description of the audience and its beliefs, accurate application of a communication theory, use of evidence about how similar audiences respond, a thoughtful choice of messenger and channel and a concrete draft message. Posts that score highest anticipate how the audience could misread or dismiss the message. Graders mark down posts that rely on fear alone or assume information will change behavior. Accurate APA 7 citations, tight wording and a closing prompt that lets peers try the idea on their own topics round out stronger posts. Draft messages should be short. Naming how success would be judged, such as kits returned, adds strength.

PHE 489 Module 4 help: the mistakes that cost points

Risk communication posts for PHE 489 often lose points when they describe the audience in general terms, use a theory only as a label or end without an actual message. If your capstone issue is different, such as vaccine hesitancy, heat illness or vaping, pass along the prompt with notes on what your audience believes, and the post will apply a theory to build a message that pairs threat with efficacy and names the right messenger. Quotes or survey findings about your audience make the post sharper. Our PHE 489 communication posts include a draft headline and explain why it should work. Channels are chosen with care.

Get PHE 489 Module 4 written to your instructions

Send the PHE 489 Module 4 prompt and what you know about your audience. The post will describe their beliefs, apply a communication theory, use evidence on who responds, choose messengers and channels and draft a key message, with a question for peers. Ready in about two days; the first sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.

Request this module free All PHE 489 modules

More PHE 489 papers and related BS Public Health samples

PHE 489 Module 4 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PHE 489 Module 4 Discussion sample?

This page carries the full PHE 489 Module 4 post on communicating arsenic risk to private well owners who cannot taste it.

What is the extended parallel process model?

A model holding that fear messages work when people see a threat as personal and believe they can take an effective action against it.

What is optimistic bias in health risk?

The tendency to believe one's own risk is lower than other people's, even when the risk is shared.

Do free tests guarantee well owners will test?

No. In one New Jersey study fewer than half returned free test samples, and those who did tended to have more education and income.

Why does the messenger matter in risk communication?

People act more readily on messages from sources they know and trust, such as local officials and neighbors.