Dan Mason1, A Toby Prevost, Stephen Sutton. 1. General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom. dm316@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explain inconsistent results in previous attempts to determine whether, when presented with health risk information, people focus primarily on information about their own risk status or on a comparison with others. DESIGN: A randomized between-groups experiment in which participants were presented with hypothetical cardiac risk information. We examined whether affective responses were primarily sensitive to the relative difference between personal and comparison risk, rather than the absolute difference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' negative affective response to the risk information. RESULTS: When relative differences were held constant, participants' responses were independently influenced by both personal risk and comparative standing, effects that were greatly attenuated when absolute differences were held constant. When maintaining constant absolute differences, personal and comparison risk information appeared to interact. CONCLUSION: Previous studies tended to maintain constant absolute risk differences and so may have underestimated the impact of personal risk information. Participants' responses were sensitive to the way the risk difference was constructed. Basing experimental design decisions on assumptions about the information participants will respond to can lead to misinterpretations of the basis of risk judgments.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To explain inconsistent results in previous attempts to determine whether, when presented with health risk information, people focus primarily on information about their own risk status or on a comparison with others. DESIGN: A randomized between-groups experiment in which participants were presented with hypothetical cardiac risk information. We examined whether affective responses were primarily sensitive to the relative difference between personal and comparison risk, rather than the absolute difference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' negative affective response to the risk information. RESULTS: When relative differences were held constant, participants' responses were independently influenced by both personal risk and comparative standing, effects that were greatly attenuated when absolute differences were held constant. When maintaining constant absolute differences, personal and comparison risk information appeared to interact. CONCLUSION: Previous studies tended to maintain constant absolute risk differences and so may have underestimated the impact of personal risk information. Participants' responses were sensitive to the way the risk difference was constructed. Basing experimental design decisions on assumptions about the information participants will respond to can lead to misinterpretations of the basis of risk judgments.
Authors: Job G Godino; Esther M F van Sluijs; Theresa M Marteau; Stephen Sutton; Stephen J Sharp; Simon J Griffin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Job G Godino; Esther M F van Sluijs; Theresa M Marteau; Stephen Sutton; Stephen J Sharp; Simon J Griffin Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 11.069