Personal and Social Comparison Information about Health Risk

How Do Healthy Women Perceive the Risk of Breast Cancer? The Role of Illness Perceptions and Compared Risk between Portugal and the U.A.E

(1) Background: Breast cancer (BC) shows significant epidemiological differences between Eastern and Western countries. These may arise from socio-cultural factors influencing how healthy young women perceive this condition, their risk of getting cancer, and the implications for preventive screening behaviors. In this study, the illness perceptions, individual risk perception, compared risk, and beliefs about preventive behaviors for BC of female university students were compared using an anonymous online survey between a European country (Portugal) and the United Arab Emirates. (2) Method: A structural equation model (SEM) was developed to investigate the hypothetical relationship between illness perceptions and compared risk as predictors of perceived risk for BC. (3) Results: There were significant differences between the study variables. The SEM was invariant, but the differences between regression coefficients in both countries were highly statistically significant. Mediation analyses revealed a significant indirect effect of compared risk on individual risk and a significantly stronger direct effect for the Emirati sample. (4) Conclusions: These findings suggest that cultural research may help to explain factors that may shape social comparison of individual risk characteristics and influence perceived risk. Moreover, providing culturally appropriate strategies to be designed and implemented can promote early detection behaviors for BC.

Context dependency in risky decision making: Is there a description-experience gap?

When making decisions involving risk, people may learn about the risk from descriptions or from experience. The description-experience gap refers to the difference in decision patterns driven by this discrepancy in learning format. Across two experiments, we investigated whether learning from description versus experience differentially affects the direction and the magnitude of a context effect in risky decision making. In Study 1 and 2, a computerized game called the Decisions about Risk Task (DART) was used to measure people’s risk-taking tendencies toward hazard stimuli that exploded probabilistically. The rate at which a context hazard caused harm was manipulated, while the rate at which a focal hazard caused harm was held constant. The format by which this information was learned was also manipulated; it was learned primarily by experience or by description. The results revealed that participants’ behavior toward the focal hazard varied depending on what they had learned about the context hazard. Specifically, there were contrast effects in which participants were more likely to choose a risky behavior toward the focal hazard when the harm rate posed by the context hazard was high rather than low. Critically, these contrast effects were of similar strength irrespective of whether the risk information was learned from experience or description. Participants’ verbal assessments of risk likelihood also showed contrast effects, irrespective of learning format. Although risk information about a context hazard in DART does nothing to affect the objective expected value of risky versus safe behaviors toward focal hazards, it did affect participants’ perceptions and behaviors—regardless of whether the information was learned from description or experience. Our findings suggest that context has a broad-based role in how people assess and make decisions about hazards.

The effects of tool comparisons when estimating the likelihood of task success

People often use tools for tasks, and sometimes there is uncertainty about whether a given task can be completed with a given tool. This project explored whether, when, and how people’s optimism about successfully completing a task with a given tool is affected by the contextual salience of a better or worse tool. In six studies, participants were faced with novel tasks. For each task, they were assigned a tool but also exposed to a comparison tool that was better or worse in utility (or sometimes similar in utility). In some studies, the tool comparisons were essentially social comparisons, because the tool was assigned to another person. In other studies, the tool comparisons were merely counterfactual rather than social. The studies revealed contrast effects on optimism, and the effect worked in both directions. That is, worse comparison tools boosted optimism and better tools depressed optimism. The contrast effects were observed regardless of the general type of comparison (e.g., social, counterfactual). The comparisons also influenced discrete decisions about which task to attempt (for a prize), which is an important finding for ruling out superficial scaling explanations for the contrast effects. It appears that people fail to exclude irrelevant tool-comparison information from consideration when assessing their likelihood of success on a task, resulting in biased optimism and decisions.

Risk Perceptions After Receiving Multiple Risk Feedback

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.

The impact of multiplex genetic testing on disease risk perceptions

This study assessed the effects of multiplex genetic testing on disease risk perceptions among 216 healthy adults. Participants, aged 25-40, were recruited through the Multiplex Initiative, which offered a genetic susceptibility test for eight common diseases. Participants completed baseline telephone and web-based surveys prior to making the testing decision. Three months after the receipt of mailed test results, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey. Risk perceptions for the eight diseases were measured at baseline and follow-up, along with beliefs about genetic causation of those diseases. The main results were: (i) mean risk perceptions were considerably stable from baseline to follow-up; (ii) the best predictors of follow-up risk perceptions were the corresponding baseline perceptions and family history; and (iii) within-individuals, most participants increased or decreased their risk perceptions for specific diseases in concordance with the number of risk markers they carry, their family history and their beliefs about genetic causality of diseases. In conclusion, participants presented a vigilant approach to the interpretation of genetic test results, which provides reassurance with regard to a potential inflation of risk perceptions in the population because of multiplex genetic testing.

Adaptation and validation of the Spanish version of the Dieting Peer Competitiveness Scale to adolescents of both genders

This study examined the Dieting Peer Competitiveness Scale; it is an instrument for evaluating this social comparison in young people. This instrumental study has two aims: The objective of the first aim was to present preliminary psychometric data from the Spanish version of the Dieting Peer Competitiveness Scale, including statistical item analysis, research about this instrument's internal structure, and a reliability analysis, from a sample of 1067 secondary school adolescents. The second objective of the study corresponds to confirmatory factor analysis of the scale's internal structure, as well as analysis for evidence of validity from a sample of 1075 adolescents.

Relation between comparative risk, absolute risk, and worry: the role of handedness strength

Research is mixed regarding whether comparative or absolute risk perceptions are most associated with important outcomes (e.g. worry). The current research examined the role of individual differences in organizational brain structure and connectivity-assessed via handedness strength-in moderating these effects. Strong handers and mixed handers made comparative and absolute risk estimates for contracting a sexually transmitted disease or sexually transmitted infection and also indicated their worry. Additionally, participants indicated whether they received testing for sexually transmitted diseases or sexually transmitted infections. For strong handers, absolute risk perceptions were generally more associated with worry and testing behaviors, whereas for mixed handers, comparative risk perceptions were more associated.