Rebecca R Thompson, Nickolas M Jones, Dana Rose Garfin, E Alison Holman, Roxane Cohen Silver
{"title":"客观风险与感知风险的对比:预测具有全国代表性的美国样本中 COVID-19 的健康行为。","authors":"Rebecca R Thompson, Nickolas M Jones, Dana Rose Garfin, E Alison Holman, Roxane Cohen Silver","doi":"10.1093/abm/kaad055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals confronting health threats may display an optimistic bias such that judgments of their risk for illness or death are unrealistically positive given their objective circumstances.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We explored optimistic bias for health risks using k-means clustering in the context of COVID-19. We identified risk profiles using subjective and objective indicators of severity and susceptibility risk for COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 3/18/2020-4/18/2020, a national probability sample of 6,514 U.S. residents reported both their subjective risk perceptions (e.g., perceived likelihood of illness or death) and objective risk indices (e.g., age, weight, pre-existing conditions) of COVID-19-related susceptibility and severity, alongside other pandemic-related experiences. Six months later, a subsample (N = 5,661) completed a follow-up survey with questions about their frequency of engagement in recommended health protective behaviors (social distancing, mask wearing, risk behaviors, vaccination intentions).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The k-means clustering procedure identified five risk profiles in the Wave 1 sample; two of these demonstrated aspects of optimistic bias, representing almost 44% of the sample. In OLS regression models predicting health protective behavior adoption at Wave 2, clusters representing individuals with high perceived severity risk were most likely to report engagement in social distancing, but many individuals who were objectively at high risk for illness and death did not report engaging in self-protective behaviors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Objective risk of disease severity only inconsistently predicted health protective behavior. Risk profiles may help identify groups that need more targeted interventions to increase their support for public health policy and health enhancing recommendations more broadly.</p>","PeriodicalId":7939,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Behavioral Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contrasting Objective and Perceived Risk: Predicting COVID-19 Health Behaviors in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample.\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca R Thompson, Nickolas M Jones, Dana Rose Garfin, E Alison Holman, Roxane Cohen Silver\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/abm/kaad055\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals confronting health threats may display an optimistic bias such that judgments of their risk for illness or death are unrealistically positive given their objective circumstances.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>We explored optimistic bias for health risks using k-means clustering in the context of COVID-19. We identified risk profiles using subjective and objective indicators of severity and susceptibility risk for COVID-19.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 3/18/2020-4/18/2020, a national probability sample of 6,514 U.S. residents reported both their subjective risk perceptions (e.g., perceived likelihood of illness or death) and objective risk indices (e.g., age, weight, pre-existing conditions) of COVID-19-related susceptibility and severity, alongside other pandemic-related experiences. Six months later, a subsample (N = 5,661) completed a follow-up survey with questions about their frequency of engagement in recommended health protective behaviors (social distancing, mask wearing, risk behaviors, vaccination intentions).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The k-means clustering procedure identified five risk profiles in the Wave 1 sample; two of these demonstrated aspects of optimistic bias, representing almost 44% of the sample. In OLS regression models predicting health protective behavior adoption at Wave 2, clusters representing individuals with high perceived severity risk were most likely to report engagement in social distancing, but many individuals who were objectively at high risk for illness and death did not report engaging in self-protective behaviors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Objective risk of disease severity only inconsistently predicted health protective behavior. Risk profiles may help identify groups that need more targeted interventions to increase their support for public health policy and health enhancing recommendations more broadly.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7939,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Behavioral Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Behavioral Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaad055\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Behavioral Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/abm/kaad055","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Contrasting Objective and Perceived Risk: Predicting COVID-19 Health Behaviors in a Nationally Representative U.S. Sample.
Background: Individuals confronting health threats may display an optimistic bias such that judgments of their risk for illness or death are unrealistically positive given their objective circumstances.
Purpose: We explored optimistic bias for health risks using k-means clustering in the context of COVID-19. We identified risk profiles using subjective and objective indicators of severity and susceptibility risk for COVID-19.
Methods: Between 3/18/2020-4/18/2020, a national probability sample of 6,514 U.S. residents reported both their subjective risk perceptions (e.g., perceived likelihood of illness or death) and objective risk indices (e.g., age, weight, pre-existing conditions) of COVID-19-related susceptibility and severity, alongside other pandemic-related experiences. Six months later, a subsample (N = 5,661) completed a follow-up survey with questions about their frequency of engagement in recommended health protective behaviors (social distancing, mask wearing, risk behaviors, vaccination intentions).
Results: The k-means clustering procedure identified five risk profiles in the Wave 1 sample; two of these demonstrated aspects of optimistic bias, representing almost 44% of the sample. In OLS regression models predicting health protective behavior adoption at Wave 2, clusters representing individuals with high perceived severity risk were most likely to report engagement in social distancing, but many individuals who were objectively at high risk for illness and death did not report engaging in self-protective behaviors.
Conclusions: Objective risk of disease severity only inconsistently predicted health protective behavior. Risk profiles may help identify groups that need more targeted interventions to increase their support for public health policy and health enhancing recommendations more broadly.
期刊介绍:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine aims to foster the exchange of knowledge derived from the disciplines involved in the field of behavioral medicine, and the integration of biological, psychosocial, and behavioral factors and principles as they relate to such areas as health promotion, disease prevention, risk factor modification, disease progression, adjustment and adaptation to physical disorders, and rehabilitation. To achieve these goals, much of the journal is devoted to the publication of original empirical articles including reports of randomized controlled trials, observational studies, or other basic and clinical investigations. Integrative reviews of the evidence for the application of behavioral interventions in health care will also be provided. .