April 4-6, 2024 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Innovations in Health Communication
Innovations in Health Communication
Abstract: Examining the Absolute and Comparative Risk Perception on Health Preventive Behaviors within Risk Perception Attitude Framework: Findings from the HINTS 2023
The RPA framework, rooted in theories such as the protective motivation theory (Rogers, 1975) and the extended parallel process model (Witt, 1992), highlights the influence of perceived risk and efficacy beliefs, suggesting these perceptions are key drivers of preventive health behaviors. The RPA categorize groups based on perceived risk and efficacy. The classification includes groups such as responsive (high risk and high efficacy), proactive (low risk and high efficacy), avoidant (high risk and high efficacy), and indifferent (low risk and low efficacy). This study aims to examine the influence of perceived risks and efficacy beliefs on cancer information-seeking behavior and cancer screening intention within the Risk Perception Attitude (RPA) framework (Rimal & Real, 2003). However, prior empirical studies on the RPA framework have yielded mixed results. The possible reason for this may stem from how people perceive their risk because individuals often compare their own risk against that of others as well as judge the risk for themselves (Zhao & Cai, 2009). Furthermore, the inconsistent findings exhibited in the RPA framework studies have been attributed to worry (or anxiety) as a mediating variable (Rimal & Real, 2003; Turner et al., 2006). Consequently, the study investigates the impact of perceived comparative risk—a measure of how individuals assess their risk relative to others—on cancer information-seeking behaviors and cancer screening intention within the RPA framework. This study underscores the importance of understanding the nuances of risk perception and the potential influence of individual psychological states on health communication and preventive behaviors.
Methods: To examine the effect of perceived absolute risk and comparative risk on cancer information-seeking behavior and cancer screening intention, this study utilized logistic regression for cancer information seeking and ANCOVA for cancer screening intention by using R program (R version 4.3.1) and SPSS (version 29).
Results: Regarding cancer information seeking, the findings indicate that individuals categorized as responsive or proactive, based on the perceived absolute risk and efficacy, were more likely to seek information, while those labeled as avoidant or indifferent were less likely to do so. Conversely, when grouped by perceived comparative risk and efficacy, the responsive and avoidant individuals were more inclined to seek cancer information, with indifferent individuals being the least likely. Similarly, concerning cancer screening intention, individuals in the responsive group exhibited the highest intention for cancer screening when classified by perceived absolute risk and efficacy, whereas those in the avoidant group showed the lowest intention. In contrast, hen grouped by perceived comparative risk and efficacy, individuals in the responsive group displayed the highest intention for cancer screening, while those in the avoidant group exhibited the second-highest intention.
Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that the varying nuanced definitions of perceived risks may contribute to inconsistent results in the empirical studies based on the RPA framework. This result could offer valuable insights into the future empirical study of the RPA framework.
Methods: To examine the effect of perceived absolute risk and comparative risk on cancer information-seeking behavior and cancer screening intention, this study utilized logistic regression for cancer information seeking and ANCOVA for cancer screening intention by using R program (R version 4.3.1) and SPSS (version 29).
Results: Regarding cancer information seeking, the findings indicate that individuals categorized as responsive or proactive, based on the perceived absolute risk and efficacy, were more likely to seek information, while those labeled as avoidant or indifferent were less likely to do so. Conversely, when grouped by perceived comparative risk and efficacy, the responsive and avoidant individuals were more inclined to seek cancer information, with indifferent individuals being the least likely. Similarly, concerning cancer screening intention, individuals in the responsive group exhibited the highest intention for cancer screening when classified by perceived absolute risk and efficacy, whereas those in the avoidant group showed the lowest intention. In contrast, hen grouped by perceived comparative risk and efficacy, individuals in the responsive group displayed the highest intention for cancer screening, while those in the avoidant group exhibited the second-highest intention.
Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that the varying nuanced definitions of perceived risks may contribute to inconsistent results in the empirical studies based on the RPA framework. This result could offer valuable insights into the future empirical study of the RPA framework.