Risk Perceptions After Receiving Multiple Risk Feedback

Gamp, Martina; Schupp, Harald T.; Renner, Britta

Risk Perceptions After Receiving Multiple Risk Feedback

Dateien

Gamp_2-qcf2ojm75nug5.pdfGröße: 248.29 KBDownloads: 498

Datum

2018

Open Access-Veröffentlichung

Open Access Green

Sammlungen

Psychologie

Publikationstyp

Zeitschriftenartikel

Publikationsstatus

Published

Erschienen in

Personality & social psychology bulletin. 2018, 44(9), pp. 1350-1363. ISSN 0146-1672. eISSN 1552-7433. Available under: doi: 10.1177/0146167218767877

Zusammenfassung

How do people respond to multiple risk feedback in a real-life context? Based on theoretical assumptions, three different predictions for risk perceptions were tested: (a) relative accuracy in risk perceptions, (b) self-defensive responses according to self-affirmation theory, and (c) compensatory responses according to the compensatory health belief model. Participants of a community health screening ( N = 725) received multiple risk indicator feedback for actual blood pressure, blood glucose, and blood lipid levels. Consistent multiple risk feedback profiles encompassed three consistent readings (three normal or three elevated readings). Mixed risk profiles included one elevated and two normal readings. Results indicate relative accuracy in responses: an elevated reading triggered higher risk perception of the respective risk factor. Importantly, the effect was not modulated by the presence of normal readings as assumed by the self-defensive or compensatory response perspective, indicating that people accurately integrate multiple risk indicator feedback as it is often provided in real life.

Fachgebiet (DDC)

150 Psychologie

Schlagwörter

risk perception, communication, multiple risk feedback, defensiveness

Zitieren

ISO 690

GAMP, Martina, Harald T. SCHUPP, Britta RENNER, 2018. Risk Perceptions After Receiving Multiple Risk Feedback. In: Personality & social psychology bulletin. 2018, 44(9), pp. 1350-1363. ISSN 0146-1672. eISSN 1552-7433. Available under: doi: 10.1177/0146167218767877

BibTex

@article{Gamp2018-09Perce-43098,
  year={2018},
  doi={10.1177/0146167218767877},
  title={Risk Perceptions After Receiving Multiple Risk Feedback},
  number={9},
  volume={44},
  issn={0146-1672},
  journal={Personality & social psychology bulletin},
  pages={1350--1363},
  author={Gamp, Martina and Schupp, Harald T. and Renner, Britta}
}

RDF

<rdf:RDF
    xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/"
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/"
    xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#"
    xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/"
    xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#"
    xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > 
  <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43098">
    <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/43098"/>
    <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">How do people respond to multiple risk feedback in a real-life context? Based on theoretical assumptions, three different predictions for risk perceptions were tested: (a) relative accuracy in risk perceptions, (b) self-defensive responses according to self-affirmation theory, and (c) compensatory responses according to the compensatory health belief model. Participants of a community health screening ( N = 725) received multiple risk indicator feedback for actual blood pressure, blood glucose, and blood lipid levels. Consistent multiple risk feedback profiles encompassed three consistent readings (three normal or three elevated readings). Mixed risk profiles included one elevated and two normal readings. Results indicate relative accuracy in responses: an elevated reading triggered higher risk perception of the respective risk factor. Importantly, the effect was not modulated by the presence of normal readings as assumed by the self-defensive or compensatory response perspective, indicating that people accurately integrate multiple risk indicator feedback as it is often provided in real life.</dcterms:abstract>
    <dc:contributor>Gamp, Martina</dc:contributor>
    <dc:contributor>Schupp, Harald T.</dc:contributor>
    <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/>
    <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/>
    <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-08-16T09:52:36Z</dcterms:available>
    <dcterms:title>Risk Perceptions After Receiving Multiple Risk Feedback</dcterms:title>
    <dc:contributor>Renner, Britta</dc:contributor>
    <dcterms:issued>2018-09</dcterms:issued>
    <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2018-08-16T09:52:36Z</dc:date>
    <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/43"/>
    <dc:rights>terms-of-use</dc:rights>
    <dc:creator>Renner, Britta</dc:creator>
    <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/43098/1/Gamp_2-qcf2ojm75nug5.pdf"/>
    <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/>
    <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/43098/1/Gamp_2-qcf2ojm75nug5.pdf"/>
    <dc:creator>Gamp, Martina</dc:creator>
    <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
    <dc:creator>Schupp, Harald T.</dc:creator>
    <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/"/>
  </rdf:Description>
</rdf:RDF>

Universitätsbibliographie

Ja

Begutachtet

Ja