General and specific cancer risk perceptions: how are they related?

Understanding how people construe and act upon cancer risk is important for efforts to target risk-increasing health behaviors. Importantly, research participants are often asked to estimate their risk for cancer (in general), which could mask the fact that cancer represents a range of diseases, and that different cancer types can have distinct risk factors. It is unclear whether individuals perceive general cancer risk as being comprised of an aggregation of risk for specific cancer sites, or whether general cancer risk perceptions reflect the specific type of cancer most salient to them. In this study, general cancer risk perceptions were regressed on specific risk perceptions for colon, lung, prostate (men only), and breast (women only), using data from a nationally representative sample. We found that among men and women, all forms of cancer predicted independent variance in estimates of general cancer risk. There were also stronger relationships between general risk perceptions and each specific risk perception than between any two specific risk perceptions, suggesting that individuals differentiate between specific cancers and general cancer risk. These findings offer some confidence that people’s estimates of general cancer risk take multiple cancer types into account.     

Why do parents who usually vaccinate their children hesitate or refuse? General good vs. individual risk

This study examines vaccination hesitancy or refusal following the 2013 polio outbreak in Israel, based on two theoretical models. The first is Sandman’s theoretical model, which holds that risk perception is comprised of hazard plus outrage. The second model is the affect heuristic that explains the risk/benefit confounding. It aims to expose the barriers that inhibited parental compliance with OPV vaccination for their children. The study employed mixed methods – a questionnaire survey (n = 197) and content analysis of parents’ discussions in blogs, Internet sites, and Facebook pages (n = 2499). The findings indicate that some parents who normally give their children routine vaccinations decided not to give them OPV due to lack of faith in the health system, concerns about vaccine safety and reasons specific to the polio outbreak in Israel. Some vaccinated due to a misunderstanding, namely, they believed that OPV was supposed to protect their children, when it was actually for overall societal well-being. This study highlights the difficulty of framing the subject of vaccinations as a preventive measure, especially when the prevention is for society at large and not to protect the children themselves. The findings of this study are important because they provide a glimpse into a situation that can recur in different places in the world where a disease considered to have been ‘eradicated’ returns, and the public is required to take measures which protect the public but which might put individuals at risk. The conclusions from the analysis of the findings of this study are that the public’s risk perception is based on a context-dependent analysis, which the communicating body must understand and respect.     

Risk cultures and dominant approaches towards disasters in seven European countries

This paper builds upon the risk culture concept started with Mary Douglas’ and Aaron Wildavsky’s seminal work on risk and culture. Based upon the empirical results of a qualitative sociological study on sociocultural factors affecting risk perception and crisis communication in seven European countries, a theoretical model, illustrating how differences in disasters framing imply diverse approaches to risk and disaster management, is suggested. According to this framework, culturally bounded assumptions and conventions strongly influence how communities make sense of risks and hazards and how these communities consider some ways of dealing with disasters more appropriate than others. The framework suggested in this article distinguishes between risk cultures of a given society, which do not necessarily respond to nation states. In order to explain differences in how cultures deal with risks and disasters, and to define the main features of our typology, three main interrelated dimensions have been selected: disaster framing, trust in authorities and blaming. By analyzing differences and similarities in how people perceive and interpret disasters, as well as to whom the responsibility for risk prevention and crisis management is attributed, in seven European countries, three specific ideal types of risk cultures emerged: state-oriented risk culture, individual-oriented risk culture and fatalistic risk culture. Implications for crisis management and communication in case of a disaster will be addressed for each of these risk cultures.     

Understanding the framing effect: do affective responses to decision options mediate the influence of frame on choice?

Little research has examined how gain- and loss-framed options influence participants’ affective states. In the current paper, we present two studies that measure affective responses to framed options to identify a potential mediator of the relation between frame and choice. We found that participants reported more positive responses after reading gain-framed options that presented a certain outcome compared to loss-framed options that presented a certain outcome, consistent with the choice patterns of the framing effect. We also found that framing effects were mediated by affective evaluation of the options. We suggest future researchers continue to assess the influence of affective response on evaluating options and making decisions.     

How do we handle new health risks? Risk perception,optimism, and behaviors regarding the H1N1 virus

During Autumn 2009, individuals worldwide were confronted with a new risk, the H1N1 (swine flu) virus and vaccination programs aimed at reducing this risk. We examine the hypothesis that risk perceptions for H1N1 as well as optimism about one’s own chances of contracting H1N1 vs. those of others would impact intentions to get vaccinated against the virus as well as avoidance behaviors such as avoiding air travel, public places where people gather, and those exhibiting flu-like symptoms. To examine this hypothesis, this study uses a survey of 944 residents of Great Britain taken from 2 to 8 October 2009 by Ipsos MORI, prior to the start of the National Health Service (NHS) swine flu vaccination campaign. Controlling for respondents’ personal characteristics as well as their risk perceptions for a familiar risk (food poisoning), we find that higher perceptions about the risk of H1N1 for oneself, trust in the NHS, avoiding those with flu-like symptoms, and having an at-risk condition for H1N1 are all significant and positive predictors of intent to vaccinate against the virus. While 42% of the sample exhibited optimism about their personal risk of contracting H1N1 relative to that of the average UK resident, optimism did not predict vaccination intentions, or avoidance behaviors. Higher risk perceptions for oneself regarding susceptibility to H1N1 as well as knowing friends who have had H1N1 and having an at-risk condition for H1N1 were associated with undertaking avoidance behaviors in general and a higher number of them. We conclude that for a risk about which individuals have limited reference points and great uncertainty because of the new nature of the risk, optimism does not influence the likelihood of associated preventive or avoidance behaviors as individuals rely on their risk perceptions only about themselves.     

No one left behind: how social distance affects life-saving decision making

Extant research on social distance and decision-making under risk has mostly focused on how people reach different decisions for themselves than others under the same circumstances. This research adds to this literature by studying how the social distance between the decision-maker and people in danger influences risk preference in life-saving domain. We found that decision-makers tend to be more risk-seeking when the lives of close others are at stake than distant others regardless of whether the situation is framed in terms of loss or gain. However, the effect of social distance on risk preference was eliminated when it was the responsibility of the decision-makers rather than the chance to pick the potential victims to save. By analyzing the shape of value function, we provided preliminary evidence for the hypothesis that decision-makers engage in feeling-based evaluation when close others’ lives are at stake but calculation-based evaluation when distant others’ lives are at stake, which could account for the effect of social distance on risk preference documented in this research. A final experiment yielded direct evidence that evaluation mode mediates the relationship between social distance and risk preference.