Literature DB >> 10765412

Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment.

C W Trumbo1.   

Abstract

The heuristic-systematic information processing model (HSM) holds that individuals will use one or both of these modes of information processing when attempting to evaluate information in order to arrive at a judgment. Systematic processing is defined by effortful scrutiny and comparison of information, whereas heuristic processing is defined by the use of cues to arrive more easily at a judgment. Antecedents to the two processing modes include information sufficiency, motivation, and self-efficacy. Structural equation modeling is used to examine competing configuration of this model and to evaluate the model as appropriate for predicting risk judgment. The model also is evaluated across three groups that vary with respect to their level of concern. These analyses are executed within a case study involving an epidemiological investigation of a suspected cancer cluster. The analysis confirms the HSM's theoretically proposed structure and shows it to be a useful vehicle for evaluating risk judgment. In the overall analysis, antecedent variables generally function as specified by theory. Systematic processing is predicted by greater motivation. Heuristic processing is predicted by information sufficiency. Self-efficacy is a significant predictor of both processing modes. And heuristic processing is shown to be associated with judgment of less risk. However, when the analysis is contrasted across three groups (those concerned about cancer, not concerned and uncertain) it is shown that the model is significantly more robust for the uncertain group. This finding may have implications for the use of the HSM in risk research specifically, and in field research generally.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10765412     DOI: 10.1023/a:1007092410720

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  18 in total

Review 1.  Information processing in the context of genetic risk: implications for genetic-risk communication.

Authors:  Holly Etchegary; Colin Perrier
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2007-05-01       Impact factor: 2.537

2.  Exploring the link between racial discrimination and substance use: what mediates? What buffers?

Authors:  Frederick X Gibbons; Paul E Etcheverry; Michelle L Stock; Meg Gerrard; Chih-Yuan Weng; Marc Kiviniemi; Ross E O'Hara
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2010-11

3.  Asian Americans and cancer clinical trials: a mixed-methods approach to understanding awareness and experience.

Authors:  Debora A Paterniti; Moon S Chen; Christine Chiechi; Laurel A Beckett; Nora Horan; Corinne Turrell; Ligaya Smith; Claudia Morain; Lisa Montell; Jose Luis Gonzalez; Sharon Davis; Primo N Lara
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2005-12-15       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  It only takes once: The absent-exempt heuristic and reactions to comparison-based sexual risk information.

Authors:  Michelle L Stock; Frederick X Gibbons; Janine B Beekman; Meg Gerrard
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2015-07

5.  Explaining education-based difference in systematic processing of COVID-19 information: Insights into global recovery from infodemic.

Authors:  Qing Huang; Lu Wei
Journal:  Inf Process Manag       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 7.466

6.  Clinician Perceptions of Timing and Presentation of Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts.

Authors:  Kate E Humphrey; Maria Mirica; Shobha Phansalkar; Al Ozonoff; Marvin B Harper
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 2.342

7.  Inferences beyond a claim: a typology of potential halo effects related to modified risk tobacco product claims.

Authors:  Andrew B Seidenberg; Lucy Popova; David L Ashley; Olivia A Wackowski
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2020-10-12       Impact factor: 7.552

8.  Risk Perception and Coping Behavior of Construction Workers on Occupational Health Risks-A Case Study of Nanjing, China.

Authors:  Hui Liu; Jie Li; Hongyang Li; He Li; Peng Mao; Jingfeng Yuan
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Who is sceptical about emerging public health threats? Results from 39 national surveys in the United Kingdom.

Authors:  G J Rubin; Y Finn; H W W Potts; S Michie
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  2015-10-23       Impact factor: 2.427

10.  Assessing perceptions about hazardous substances (PATHS): the PATHS questionnaire.

Authors:  G James Rubin; Richard Amlôt; Lisa Page; Julia Pearce; Simon Wessely
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  2012-10-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.