IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v16y2013i7p879-902.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Communication and knowledge as motivators: understanding Singaporean women's perceived risks of breast cancer and intentions to engage in preventive measures

Author

Listed:
  • Edmund W.J. Lee
  • Shirley S. Ho
  • Josephine K. Chow
  • Ying Ying Wu
  • Zixin Yang

Abstract

As breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer among women in Singapore, encouraging them to engage in preventive measures becomes increasingly important. This study aims to take a closer look at the influence of attention to media, interpersonal communication, news elaboration, and knowledge on women's (aged between 30 and 70) perceived risks of breast cancer and their intentions to engage in preventive measures in Singapore. Attention to media, frequency of interpersonal communication, fatalistic belief, and knowledge structure density were found to be associated with risk perception of breast cancer among Singaporean women. Findings also showed that frequency of interpersonal communication, risk perception, elaboration, and factual knowledge were positively associated with women's intentions to take up preventive measures such as breast self-examination, clinical breast examination, and mammography. Implications for theory and practice were discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Edmund W.J. Lee & Shirley S. Ho & Josephine K. Chow & Ying Ying Wu & Zixin Yang, 2013. "Communication and knowledge as motivators: understanding Singaporean women's perceived risks of breast cancer and intentions to engage in preventive measures," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 879-902, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:16:y:2013:i:7:p:879-902
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2012.761264
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2012.761264
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2012.761264?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claire Marris & Ian H. Langford & Timothy O'Riordan, 1998. "A Quantitative Test of the Cultural Theory of Risk Perceptions: Comparison with the Psychometric Paradigm," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(5), pages 635-647, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li Li & Jinhui Li, 2021. "An Investigation of Factors Influencing Chinese Young Women’s Intention for Mammography Screening," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(3), pages 21582440211, July.
    2. Yi Yang & Ru-De Liu & Yi Ding & Jia Wang & Wei Hong & Ying Wu, 2021. "The Influence of Communication on College Students’ Self–Other Risk Perceptions of COVID-19: A Comparative Study of China and the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    3. Rui He & Yungeng Li, 2021. "Media Exposure, Cancer Beliefs, and Cancer-Related Information-Seeking or Avoidance Behavior Patterns in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-22, March.

    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. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    3. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2001. "Fairness, risk and risk tolerance in the siting of a nuclear waste repository," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 75-101, January.
    4. Paul R. Hindsley & O. Ashton Morgan, 2022. "The Role of Cultural Worldviews in Willingness to Pay for Environmental Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 81(2), pages 243-269, February.
    5. Christian Scheve & Markus Lange, 2023. "Risk entanglement and the social relationality of risk," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Hindsley, Paul & McEvoy, David M. & Morgan, O. Ashton, 2020. "Consumer Demand for Ethical Products and the Role of Cultural Worldviews: The Case of Direct-Trade Coffee," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    7. Rachel Hirsch & Jamie Baxter, 2009. "The Look of the Lawn: Pesticide Policy Preference and Health-Risk Perception in Context," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 27(3), pages 468-490, June.
    8. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    9. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    10. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    11. Changjun Zheng & Konan Richard Kouadio & Bienmali Kombate, 2021. "The United States and China Financial Communication and the Notion of Risk," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-14, March.
    12. Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    13. Alison C. Cullen & C. Leigh Anderson & Pierre Biscaye & Travis W. Reynolds, 2018. "Variability in Cross‐Domain Risk Perception among Smallholder Farmers in Mali by Gender and Other Demographic and Attitudinal Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1361-1377, July.
    14. Wadley, David A. & Han, Jung Hoon & Elliott, Peter G., 2019. "Risk hidden in plain sight: Explaining homeowner perceptions of electricity transmission infrastructure," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 744-753.
    15. Ian H. Langford, 2002. "An Existential Approach to Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 101-120, February.
    16. Stephan Leitner, 2021. "On the dynamics emerging from pandemics and infodemics," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 20(1), pages 135-141, June.
    17. Reuter, Christian & Kaufhold, Marc-André & Schmid, Stefka & Spielhofer, Thomas & Hahne, Anna Sophie, 2019. "The impact of risk cultures: Citizens' perception of social media use in emergencies across Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    18. Wamsler, Christine & Brink, Ebba, 2018. "Mindsets for Sustainability: Exploring the Link Between Mindfulness and Sustainable Climate Adaptation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 55-61.
    19. Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke A. & Permadi, Dwiko B. & Yasmi, Yurdi, 2012. "The value of cultural theory for participatory processes in natural resource management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(C), pages 99-106.
    20. Branden B. Johnson & Brendon Swedlow, 2024. "Scale reliability of alternative cultural theory survey measures," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 527-557, February.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jriskr:v:16:y:2013:i:7:p:879-902. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.