Literature DB >> 29393593

Don't know responses to cognitive and affective risk perception measures: Exploring prevalence and socio-demographic moderators.

Eva Janssen1, Philippe Verduyn1, Erika A Waters2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Many people report uncertainty when appraising their risk of cancer and other diseases, but prior research about the topic has focused solely on cognitive risk perceptions. We investigated uncertainty related to cognitive and affective risk questions. We also explored whether any differences in uncertainty between cognitive and affective questions varied in magnitude by item-specific or socio-demographic characteristics.
DESIGN: Secondary analysis of data collected for a 2 × 2 × 3 full-factorial risk communication experiment (N = 835) that was embedded within an online survey.
METHODS: We investigated the frequency of 'don't know' responses (DKR) to eight perceived risk items that varied according to whether they assessed (1) cognitive versus affective perceived risk, (2) absolute versus comparative risk, and (3) colon cancer versus 'any exercise-related diseases'. Socio-demographics were as follows: sex, age, education, family history, and numeracy. We analysed the data using multilevel logistic regression.
RESULTS: The odds of DKR were lower for affective than cognitive perceived risk (OR = 0.64, p < .001). This difference occurred for absolute but not comparative risk perceptions (interaction effect, p = .004), but no interactions for disease type or demographic characteristics were found (ps > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: Lower uncertainty for affective (vs. cognitive) absolute perceived risk items is consistent with research stating: (1) Risk perceptions are grounded in people's feelings about a hazard, and (2) feelings are easier for people to access than facts. Including affective perceived risk items in health behaviour surveys may reduce missing data and improve data quality. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Many people report that they don't know their risk (i.e., risk uncertainty). Evidence is growing for the importance of feelings of risk in explaining health behaviour. Feelings are easier for people to access than facts. What does this study add? Don't know responding is higher for absolute cognitive than absolute affective risk questions. This difference does not vary in magnitude by demographic characteristics. Affective perceived risk questions in surveys may reduce missing data and improve data quality.
© 2018 The British Psychological Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  affect; cognition; risk perception; uncertainty

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29393593      PMCID: PMC5882575          DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12296

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Health Psychol        ISSN: 1359-107X


  35 in total

1.  Lake Wobegon be gone! The "below-average effect" and the egocentric nature of comparative ability judgments.

Authors:  J Kruger
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1999-08

2.  The need for affect: individual differences in the motivation to approach or avoid emotions.

Authors:  G R Maio; V M Esses
Journal:  J Pers       Date:  2001-08

3.  Risk as feelings.

Authors:  G F Loewenstein; E U Weber; C K Hsee; N Welch
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Self-regulatory Processes in the Adoption and Maintenance of Health Behaviors.

Authors:  R Schwarzer
Journal:  J Health Psychol       Date:  1999-03

Review 5.  A heuristics approach to understanding cancer risk perception: contributions from judgment and decision-making research.

Authors:  Ellen Peters; Kevin D McCaul; Michael Stefanek; Wendy Nelson
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2006-02

6.  Measuring risk perceptions of skin cancer: reliability and validity of different operationalizations.

Authors:  Eva Janssen; Liesbeth van Osch; Hein de Vries; Lilian Lechner
Journal:  Br J Health Psychol       Date:  2011-02

7.  Examining direct and indirect pathways to health behaviour: the influence of cognitive and affective probability beliefs.

Authors:  Eva Janssen; Liesbeth van Osch; Hein de Vries; Lilian Lechner
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2012-12-24

8.  The Tripartite Model of Risk Perception (TRIRISK): Distinguishing Deliberative, Affective, and Experiential Components of Perceived Risk.

Authors:  Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein; Alexander Persoskie; Aya Avishai-Yitshak; Paschal Sheeran
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2016-10

9.  Risk perception measures' associations with behavior intentions, affect, and cognition following colon cancer screening messages.

Authors:  Amanda J Dillard; Rebecca A Ferrer; Peter A Ubel; Angela Fagerlin
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 4.267

10.  Combining risk communication strategies to simultaneously convey the risks of four diseases associated with physical inactivity to socio-demographically diverse populations.

Authors:  Eva Janssen; Robert A C Ruiter; Erika A Waters
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2017-10-13
View more
  6 in total

1.  Specifying Future Behavior When Assessing Risk Perceptions: Implications for Measurement and Theory.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Nicole Ackermann; Courtney S Wheeler
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-10-24       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Physical activity: the relative associations with cognitive and affective risk beliefs.

Authors:  Eva Janssen; Erika A Waters
Journal:  Psychol Health       Date:  2019-04-23

3.  Dismissing "Don't Know" Responses to Perceived Risk Survey Items Threatens the Validity of Theoretical and Empirical Behavior-Change Research.

Authors:  Erika A Waters; Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay; Heather Orom
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2021-11-23

4.  Assessment of Knowledge, Perceptions and Perceived Risk Concerning COVID-19 in Pakistan.

Authors:  Ayesha Haque; Sadaf Mumtaz; Rafia Mumtaz; Farheen Masood; Hudebia Allah Buksh; Amal Ahmed; Osama Khattak
Journal:  J Epidemiol Glob Health       Date:  2021-01-20

5.  Knowledge of and beliefs about palliative care in a nationally-representative U.S. sample.

Authors:  Jennifer M Taber; Erin M Ellis; Maija Reblin; Lee Ellington; Rebecca A Ferrer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Managing the Consequences of Oncological Major Surgery: A Short- and Medium-Term Skills Assessment Proposal for Patient and Caregiver through M.A.D.I.T. Methodology.

Authors:  Gian Piero Turchi; Alessandro Fabbian; Rita Alfieri; Anna Da Roit; Salvatore Marano; Genny Mattara; Pierluigi Pilati; Carlo Castoro; Davide Bassi; Marta Silvia Dalla Riva; Luisa Orrù; Eleonora Pinto
Journal:  Behav Sci (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-15
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.