“不知道”的反应和感知风险的估计:未能提供“不知道”的反应系统地影响了外行人的感知风险估计

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
M. Kiviniemi, Erin M. Ellis, H. Orom, Erika A. Waters, J. Hay
{"title":"“不知道”的反应和感知风险的估计:未能提供“不知道”的反应系统地影响了外行人的感知风险估计","authors":"M. Kiviniemi, Erin M. Ellis, H. Orom, Erika A. Waters, J. Hay","doi":"10.1080/13698575.2020.1714557","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Individuals sometimes report that they don’t know their risk for a health problem, but many studies of illness risk perception do not provide a ‘don’t know’ (DK) response option. We examined how providing versus not providing a DK option affected responding – either the number of DK responses when the option was provided or the number of skips when a DK option was not provided. We also examined whether it systematically affected perceived risk estimates. Participants (N = 960) reported perceived absolute and comparative risk for four health issues. They were randomly assigned to receive risk questions with or without a DK response option. In the DK Option condition, ‘don’t know’ answers ranged from 3.5% to 12.7% of responses. For all absolute risk questions, perceived risk was significantly higher in the DK Option condition; all Fs (1, 932) < 3.79, all ps < .05. DK responding was issue-specific; more than 25% of the sample answered DK to at least once, but only 2.7% answered DK to more than half of the items. Substantial use of the DK response option and higher perceived absolute risk estimates were seen when a DK response was provided. These findings have implications for assessing the validity of measured risk estimates, of relations between constructs, and for survey design best practices. In addition, they suggest that DK responses are primarily knowledge-based – that individuals answer DK largely because of lacking sufficient knowledge or health literacy to form a risk perception rather than due to satisficing.","PeriodicalId":47341,"journal":{"name":"Health Risk & Society","volume":"30 1","pages":"69 - 85"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Don’t know’ responding and estimates of perceived risk: failing to provide a ‘don’t know’ response systematically biases laypeople’s perceived risk estimates\",\"authors\":\"M. Kiviniemi, Erin M. Ellis, H. Orom, Erika A. Waters, J. Hay\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13698575.2020.1714557\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Individuals sometimes report that they don’t know their risk for a health problem, but many studies of illness risk perception do not provide a ‘don’t know’ (DK) response option. We examined how providing versus not providing a DK option affected responding – either the number of DK responses when the option was provided or the number of skips when a DK option was not provided. We also examined whether it systematically affected perceived risk estimates. Participants (N = 960) reported perceived absolute and comparative risk for four health issues. They were randomly assigned to receive risk questions with or without a DK response option. In the DK Option condition, ‘don’t know’ answers ranged from 3.5% to 12.7% of responses. For all absolute risk questions, perceived risk was significantly higher in the DK Option condition; all Fs (1, 932) < 3.79, all ps < .05. DK responding was issue-specific; more than 25% of the sample answered DK to at least once, but only 2.7% answered DK to more than half of the items. Substantial use of the DK response option and higher perceived absolute risk estimates were seen when a DK response was provided. These findings have implications for assessing the validity of measured risk estimates, of relations between constructs, and for survey design best practices. In addition, they suggest that DK responses are primarily knowledge-based – that individuals answer DK largely because of lacking sufficient knowledge or health literacy to form a risk perception rather than due to satisficing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47341,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Risk & Society\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"69 - 85\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Risk & Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2020.1714557\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Risk & Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2020.1714557","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

个人有时报告说,他们不知道自己面临健康问题的风险,但许多疾病风险感知的研究并没有提供“不知道”(DK)的回应选项。我们研究了提供与不提供DK选项如何影响响应—提供选项时DK响应的数量或不提供DK选项时跳过的数量。我们还研究了它是否系统性地影响感知风险估计。参与者(N = 960)报告了四种健康问题的感知绝对风险和比较风险。他们被随机分配接受有或没有DK回答选项的风险问题。在DK选项的情况下,回答“不知道”的比例从3.5%到12.7%不等。对于所有的绝对风险问题,DK选项条件下的感知风险显著更高;所有Fs(1,932) < 3.79,所有ps < 0.05。DK的回应是针对具体问题的;超过25%的人至少回答了一次,但只有2.7%的人回答了一半以上的问题。当提供DK响应时,可以看到大量使用DK响应选项和更高的感知绝对风险估计值。这些发现对评估测量风险估计的有效性、结构之间的关系以及调查设计最佳实践具有启示意义。此外,他们认为风险预测的反应主要是基于知识的——个人回答风险预测主要是因为缺乏足够的知识或健康素养来形成风险感知,而不是因为满足。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
‘Don’t know’ responding and estimates of perceived risk: failing to provide a ‘don’t know’ response systematically biases laypeople’s perceived risk estimates
Individuals sometimes report that they don’t know their risk for a health problem, but many studies of illness risk perception do not provide a ‘don’t know’ (DK) response option. We examined how providing versus not providing a DK option affected responding – either the number of DK responses when the option was provided or the number of skips when a DK option was not provided. We also examined whether it systematically affected perceived risk estimates. Participants (N = 960) reported perceived absolute and comparative risk for four health issues. They were randomly assigned to receive risk questions with or without a DK response option. In the DK Option condition, ‘don’t know’ answers ranged from 3.5% to 12.7% of responses. For all absolute risk questions, perceived risk was significantly higher in the DK Option condition; all Fs (1, 932) < 3.79, all ps < .05. DK responding was issue-specific; more than 25% of the sample answered DK to at least once, but only 2.7% answered DK to more than half of the items. Substantial use of the DK response option and higher perceived absolute risk estimates were seen when a DK response was provided. These findings have implications for assessing the validity of measured risk estimates, of relations between constructs, and for survey design best practices. In addition, they suggest that DK responses are primarily knowledge-based – that individuals answer DK largely because of lacking sufficient knowledge or health literacy to form a risk perception rather than due to satisficing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Health Risk & Society is an international scholarly journal devoted to a theoretical and empirical understanding of the social processes which influence the ways in which health risks are taken, communicated, assessed and managed. Public awareness of risk is associated with the development of high profile media debates about specific risks. Although risk issues arise in a variety of areas, such as technological usage and the environment, they are particularly evident in health. Not only is health a major issue of personal and collective concern, but failure to effectively assess and manage risk is likely to result in health problems.
×
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