IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i3p741-748.html

Preventive Health Behavior and Adaptive Accuracy of Risk Perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Britta Renner
  • Benjamin Schüz
  • Falko F. Sniehotta

Abstract

This study examined the relation between health behavior and risk perceptions in the context of an acute livestock epidemic. Participants in a longitudinal web‐based survey (N= 195) were asked to report their meat consumption and their perceived risk in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and other related livestock diseases. Cross‐sectional analyses at both measurement points (T1 and T2) showed that participants with low levels of preventive nutrition (high meat consumption) felt more at risk for BSE‐related diseases than those reporting comparable higher levels of preventive behavior (low meat consumption), indicating relative accuracy. These results suggest that people recognize when their behavior is risky. More importantly, perceived risk also showed adaptive accuracy from a change perspective: increases in preventive nutrition from T1 to T2 were significantly associated with decreases in perceived risk between T1 and T2. Possible foundations and implications of an adaptive accuracy of risk perceptions are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Britta Renner & Benjamin Schüz & Falko F. Sniehotta, 2008. "Preventive Health Behavior and Adaptive Accuracy of Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 741-748, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:3:p:741-748
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01047.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01047.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01047.x?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. Paul Slovic & Baruch Fischhoff & Sarah Lichtenstein, 1982. "Why Study Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 83-93, June.
    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. Johnson, Branden B. & Kim, Byungdoo, 2023. "Cross-temporal relations of conditional risk perception measures with protective actions against COVID-19," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    2. Meijun Chen & Xiaoqi Wang & Qingping Yun & Yuting Lin & Qingqing Wu & Qinghua Yang & Dezhi Wan & Dan Tian & Chun Chang, 2021. "Would Older Adults Perform Preventive Practices in the Post-COVID-19 Era? A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Survey in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-12, September.
    3. repec:plo:pone00:0022130 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2014. "Longitudinal Studies on Risk Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1376-1377, August.

    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. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    2. Lekfuangfu, Warn N., 2022. "Mortality risk, perception, and human capital investments: The legacy of landmines in Cambodia," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Yacov Y. Haimes, 2012. "Systems‐Based Guiding Principles for Risk Modeling, Planning, Assessment, Management, and Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1451-1467, September.
    4. Laura K. Siebeneck & Thomas J. Cova, 2012. "Spatial and Temporal Variation in Evacuee Risk Perception Throughout the Evacuation and Return‐Entry Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(9), pages 1468-1480, September.
    5. Noland, Robert B & Kunreuther, Howard, 1995. "Short-run and long-run policies for increasing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 67-79, January.
    6. Sandra Cortés & Soledad Burgos & Héctor Adaros & Boris Lucero & Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá, 2021. "Environmental Health Risk Perception: Adaptation of a Population-Based Questionnaire from Latin America," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-13, August.
    7. Andree Ehlert & Jan Seidel & Ursula Weisenfeld, 2020. "Trouble on my mind: the effect of catastrophic events on people’s worries," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 951-975, August.
    8. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    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. Andrea Cerase & Lorenzo Cugliari, 2023. "Something Still Remains: Factors Affecting Tsunami Risk Perception on the Coasts Hit by the Reggio Calabria-Messina 1908 Event (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-26, February.
    11. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    12. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    13. Ao Zhang & Hao Yang & Zhenlei Tian & Shuning Tong, 2022. "Evolution Model and Simulation Study of the Public Risk Perception of COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-29, September.
    14. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    15. Liu, Wenjuan & Agusdinata, Datu B. & Eakin, Hallie & Romero, Hugo, 2022. "Sustainable minerals extraction for electric vehicles: A pilot study of consumers’ perceptions of impacts," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    16. Hoehn, John P. & van Ravenswaay, Eileen, "undated". "Consumer Demand For Innovations In Food Safety," 1989 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 2, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 270710, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    17. Rianne van Duinen & Tatiana Filatova & Peter Geurts & Anne van der Veen, 2015. "Empirical Analysis of Farmers' Drought Risk Perception: Objective Factors, Personal Circumstances, and Social Influence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(4), pages 741-755, April.
    18. Le, V.D. & Pham, L.T., 2024. "Attitudes towards risk and optimal use of inputs in maize production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam," 1st ASEAN University Symposium for Sustainable Food Systems, Faculty of Economics, Kasetsart University, Thailand. April 18-19, 2024 344440, Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
    19. Syed Hassan Raza & Umer Zaman & Paulo Ferreira & Pablo Farías, 2021. "An Experimental Evidence on Public Acceptance of Genetically Modified Food through Advertisement Framing on Health and Environmental Benefits, Objective Knowledge, and Risk Reduction," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-24, May.
    20. Banus Kam Leung Low & Siu Shing Man & Alan Hoi Shou Chan & Saad Alabdulkarim, 2019. "Construction Worker Risk-Taking Behavior Model with Individual and Organizational Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-13, April.

    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:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:3:p:741-748. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.