Efficacy Assessments as Predictors of Uncertainty Preferences

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
E. Link, E. Baumann
{"title":"Efficacy Assessments as Predictors of Uncertainty Preferences","authors":"E. Link, E. Baumann","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Background: Health challenges can cause feelings of uncertainty that individuals intend to reduce, increase, or maintain. Those goals are connected to different information seeking and avoidance behaviors, building four uncertainty preferences. Aims: We aim to understand what drives people to seek or avoid information through a more differentiated look at the underlying uncertainty preferences and their determinants. Our starting point to explain different uncertainty preferences are stable, individual traits determining individuals’ efficacy assessments. Method: We conducted a secondary analysis of an online survey among the German public in a sample with stratified demographic characteristics ( N = 3,000). The questionnaire measured different uncertainty preferences as well as coping efficacies and communication efficacy. Regression analyses determined the relevance of these predictors for the four uncertainty preferences. Results: The considered efficacy assessments explained a greater amount of variance in uncertainty preferences applying information seeking than information avoidance, but the influencing patterns are similar. Only health literacy as a communication efficacy was positively associated with both preferences applying information seeking and negatively associated with both preferences applying information avoidance. Limitations: The concept of uncertainty preferences should be critically assessed concerning its completeness. The low explanatory power of efficacy assessments for preferences underlying information avoidance strategies shows that further research is needed to identify relevant predictors. Conclusion: The findings suggest that efficacy assessments provide cognitive resources for goal-oriented uncertainty management, but a deeper understanding of specific underlying mechanisms of the different preferences requires further examination.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000092","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract. Background: Health challenges can cause feelings of uncertainty that individuals intend to reduce, increase, or maintain. Those goals are connected to different information seeking and avoidance behaviors, building four uncertainty preferences. Aims: We aim to understand what drives people to seek or avoid information through a more differentiated look at the underlying uncertainty preferences and their determinants. Our starting point to explain different uncertainty preferences are stable, individual traits determining individuals’ efficacy assessments. Method: We conducted a secondary analysis of an online survey among the German public in a sample with stratified demographic characteristics ( N = 3,000). The questionnaire measured different uncertainty preferences as well as coping efficacies and communication efficacy. Regression analyses determined the relevance of these predictors for the four uncertainty preferences. Results: The considered efficacy assessments explained a greater amount of variance in uncertainty preferences applying information seeking than information avoidance, but the influencing patterns are similar. Only health literacy as a communication efficacy was positively associated with both preferences applying information seeking and negatively associated with both preferences applying information avoidance. Limitations: The concept of uncertainty preferences should be critically assessed concerning its completeness. The low explanatory power of efficacy assessments for preferences underlying information avoidance strategies shows that further research is needed to identify relevant predictors. Conclusion: The findings suggest that efficacy assessments provide cognitive resources for goal-oriented uncertainty management, but a deeper understanding of specific underlying mechanisms of the different preferences requires further examination.
功效评估作为不确定性偏好的预测因子
摘要背景:健康挑战可引起个体想要减少、增加或保持的不确定感。这些目标与不同的信息寻求和回避行为相关联,形成了四种不确定性偏好。目的:我们的目标是通过对潜在的不确定性偏好及其决定因素的更差异化的观察,了解是什么驱使人们寻求或避免信息。我们解释不同不确定性偏好的出发点是稳定的,个体特征决定了个体的效能评估。方法:我们对德国公众的一项在线调查进行了二次分析,该调查具有分层的人口统计学特征(N = 3000)。问卷测量了不同的不确定性偏好以及应对效能和沟通效能。回归分析确定了这些预测因子对四种不确定性偏好的相关性。结果:所考虑的效能评估解释了信息寻求比信息回避在不确定性偏好上更大的差异,但影响模式相似。只有健康素养作为一种沟通效能与信息寻求偏好呈正相关,与信息回避偏好负相关。局限性:不确定性偏好的概念应严格评估其完整性。对信息回避策略偏好的有效性评估的解释力较低,表明需要进一步研究以确定相关的预测因子。结论:研究结果表明,效能评估为目标导向的不确定性管理提供了认知资源,但对不同偏好的具体潜在机制的更深入理解需要进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Die "Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie" wurde gegründet, um dem raschen Anwachsen gesundheitspsychologischer Forschung sowie deren Relevanz für verschiedene Anwendungsfelder gerecht zu werden. Gesundheitspsychologie versteht sich als wissenschaftlicher Beitrag der Psychologie zur Förderung und Erhaltung von Gesundheit, zur Verhütung und Behandlung von Krankheiten, zur Bestimmung von Risikoverhaltensweisen, zur Diagnose und Ursachenbestimmung von gesundheitlichen Störungen sowie zur Verbessung des Systems gesundheitlicher Vorsorge.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信