IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i8p941-945.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Availability, Affect, and Decisions to Seek Information about Cancer Risks

Author

Listed:
  • Michelle McDowell

    (Harding Center for Risk Literacy, Faculty for Health Sciences Brandenburg, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany
    Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany)

  • Thorsten Pachur

    (Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

How do people decide which risks they want to get informed about? The present study examines the role of the availability and affect heuristics on these decisions. Participants ( N = 100, aged 19–72 years) selected for which of 23 cancers they would like to receive an information brochure, reported the number of occurrences of each type of cancer in their social circle (availability), and rated their dread reaction to each type of cancer (affect); they also made relative judgments about which of 2 cancers was more common in Germany (judged risk). Participants tended to choose information brochures for those cancers for which they indicated a higher availability within their social networks as well as for cancers they dreaded. Mediation analyses suggested that the influence of availability and affect on information choice was only partly mediated by judged risk. The results demonstrate the operation of 2 key judgment heuristics (availability and affect), previously studied in risk perception, also in decisions about information choice. We discuss how our findings can be used to identify which risks are likely to fall from people’s radar.

Suggested Citation

  • Michelle McDowell & Thorsten Pachur, 2020. "Availability, Affect, and Decisions to Seek Information about Cancer Risks," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(8), pages 941-945, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:8:p:941-945
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20951775
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20951775
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20951775?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Milou Kievik & Ellen F.J. ter Huurne & Jan M. Gutteling, 2012. "The action suited to the word? Use of the framework of risk information seeking to understand risk-related behaviors," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 131-147, February.
    2. Shelly Hovick & Vicki S. Freimuth & Ashani Johnson‐Turbes & Doryn D. Chervin, 2011. "Multiple Health Risk Perception and Information Processing Among African Americans and Whites Living in Poverty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1789-1799, November.
    3. Ellen Ter Huurne & Jan Gutteling, 2008. "Information needs and risk perception as predictors of risk information seeking," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 847-862, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sophie Tourenq & George Boustras & Jan M. Gutteling, 2017. "Risk communication policy design: Cyprus compared to France and the Netherlands," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 533-550, April.
    2. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    3. Chuanhui Liao & Yu Luo & Weiwei Zhu, 2020. "Food Safety Trust, Risk Perception, and Consumers’ Response to Company Trust Repair Actions in Food Recall Crises," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(4), pages 1-16, February.
    4. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    5. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    6. Femke Hilverda & Margôt Kuttschreuter, 2018. "Online Information Sharing About Risks: The Case of Organic Food," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1904-1920, September.
    7. Hang Lu & APPC 2018–2019 ASK Group & Kenneth Winneg & Kathleen Hall Jamieson & Dolores Albarracín, 2020. "Intentions to Seek Information About the Influenza Vaccine: The Role of Informational Subjective Norms, Anticipated and Experienced Affect, and Information Insufficiency Among Vaccinated and Unvaccina," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 2040-2056, October.
    8. Zhu, Weiwei & Wei, Jiuchang & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "Anti-nuclear behavioral intentions: The role of perceived knowledge, information processing, and risk perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 168-177.
    9. Jan M. Gutteling & Peter W. de Vries, 2017. "Determinants of Seeking and Avoiding Risk‐Related Information in Times of Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 27-39, January.
    10. Emma Soane & Iljana Schubert & Simon Pollard & Sophie Rocks & Edgar Black, 2016. "Confluence and Contours: Reflexive Management of Environmental Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1090-1107, June.
    11. Tianjun Feng & L. Robin Keller & Ping Wu & Yifan Xu, 2014. "An Empirical Study of the Toxic Capsule Crisis in China: Risk Perceptions and Behavioral Responses," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 698-710, April.
    12. Wang, Fei & Zhang, Zhentai & Lin, Shoufu, 2023. "Purchase intention of Autonomous vehicles and industrial Policies: Evidence from a national survey in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    13. Quan Gao & Hye Eun Lee, 2021. "How Framed Messages Influence Depression Assessment Intentions: Interactivity of Social Media as a Moderator," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    14. Wim Kellens & Ruud Zaalberg & Philippe De Maeyer, 2012. "The Informed Society: An Analysis of the Public's Information‐Seeking Behavior Regarding Coastal Flood Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(8), pages 1369-1381, August.
    15. Hoi Yan Cheung & Joseph Wu & Jun Tao, 2016. "Predicting domain-specific risk-taking attitudes of mainland China university students: a hyper core self-evaluation approach," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 79-100, January.
    16. Afiq Izzudin A. Rahim & Mohd Ismail Ibrahim & Faizul Nizam A. Salim & Mohd Ariff Ikram Ariffin, 2019. "Health Information Engagement Factors in Malaysia: A Content Analysis of Facebook Use by the Ministry of Health in 2016 and 2017," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-11, February.
    17. Shasha Li & Guofang Zhai & Shutian Zhou & Chenjing Fan & Yunqing Wu & Chongqiang Ren, 2017. "Insight into the Earthquake Risk Information Seeking Behavior of the Victims: Evidence from Songyuan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Jay D. Hmielowski & Meredith Y. Wang & Rebecca R. Donaway, 2018. "Expanding the Political Philosophy Dimension of the RISP Model: Examining the Conditional Indirect Effects of Cultural Cognition," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1891-1903, September.
    19. Melanie De Vocht & An-Sofie Claeys & Verolien Cauberghe & Mieke Uyttendaele & Benedikt Sas, 2016. "Won’t we scare them? The impact of communicating uncontrollable risks on the public’s perception," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 316-330, March.
    20. Chuanhui Liao & Xiaomei Zhou & Dingtao Zhao, 2018. "An Augmented Risk Information Seeking Model: Perceived Food Safety Risk Related to Food Recalls," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-17, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    information seeking; risk perception;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:8:p:941-945. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.