C M Condit1, L Shen. 1. Department of Speech Communication, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-1725, USA. ccondit@uga.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Public understanding of the relationship between health behaviors and genes is likely to affect the motivational impact of learning information about one's own genes. Extant research has featured difficulty measuring public understandings of this relationship. This essay explores public understanding of the relationship between genes and behavior, especially with regard to the mathematical relationships to risk concept. It contributes a psychometrically valid scale for measuring beliefs about gene- behavior relationships. METHODS: Three population representative surveys (n = 633, 658, 1,218) were conducted using the Knowledge Networks panel platform. RESULTS: Interpretations of risk vary depending on whether genes and behavior are conceived of as health-damaging (loss frame) or health-protecting (gain frame). In the loss frame, the majority of the population adopts an additive model of the relationship with approximately one-third adopting an amplificative model. In the gain frame, beliefs are divided roughly equally among additive, amplificative and sub-additive models. Scores on the nonmathematically based scale indicate higher belief in the existence of interaction than scores on the more concrete question format. CONCLUSIONS: The existence of different interpretations of gene-behavior relationships based on gain/loss frame and abstract/concrete modes indicates the need to select frame and mode carefully in both teaching and research. Research is needed to identify optimal configurations for teaching and presenting this relatively complex material.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Public understanding of the relationship between health behaviors and genes is likely to affect the motivational impact of learning information about one's own genes. Extant research has featured difficulty measuring public understandings of this relationship. This essay explores public understanding of the relationship between genes and behavior, especially with regard to the mathematical relationships to risk concept. It contributes a psychometrically valid scale for measuring beliefs about gene- behavior relationships. METHODS: Three population representative surveys (n = 633, 658, 1,218) were conducted using the Knowledge Networks panel platform. RESULTS: Interpretations of risk vary depending on whether genes and behavior are conceived of as health-damaging (loss frame) or health-protecting (gain frame). In the loss frame, the majority of the population adopts an additive model of the relationship with approximately one-third adopting an amplificative model. In the gain frame, beliefs are divided roughly equally among additive, amplificative and sub-additive models. Scores on the nonmathematically based scale indicate higher belief in the existence of interaction than scores on the more concrete question format. CONCLUSIONS: The existence of different interpretations of gene-behavior relationships based on gain/loss frame and abstract/concrete modes indicates the need to select frame and mode carefully in both teaching and research. Research is needed to identify optimal configurations for teaching and presenting this relatively complex material.
Authors: Katrina A B Goddard; Debra Duquette; Amy Zlot; Jenny Johnson; Ann Annis-Emeott; Patrick W Lee; Mary Pat Bland; Karen L Edwards; Kristin Oehlke; Rebecca T Giles; Ann Rafferty; Michelle L Cook; Muin J Khoury Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-12-23 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Desta Ayode; Colleen M McBride; Hendrik de Heer; Emi Watanabe; Tsega Gebreyesus; Getnet Tadele; Abebayehu Tora; Gail Davey Journal: Am J Trop Med Hyg Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 2.345
Authors: Erika A Waters; Caroline Kincaid; Annette R Kaufman; Michelle L Stock; Laurel M Peterson; Nicole L Muscanell; Rosanna E Guadagno Journal: Br J Health Psychol Date: 2013-10-01
Authors: Muin J Khoury; Steven B Clauser; Andrew N Freedman; Elizabeth M Gillanders; Russ E Glasgow; William M P Klein; Sheri D Schully Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-07-27 Impact factor: 4.254