Dismissing “Don’t Know” Responses to Perceived Risk Survey Items Threatens the Validity of Theoretical and Empirical Behavior-Change Research

Author:

Waters Erika A.1ORCID,Kiviniemi Marc T.2,Hay Jennifer L.3,Orom Heather4

Affiliation:

1. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis

2. Department of Health, Behavior & Society, University of Kentucky

3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York

4. Department of Community Health and Health Behavior, University at Buffalo

Abstract

Since the middle of the 20th century, perceptions of risk have been critical to understanding engagement in volitional behavior change. However, theoretical and empirical risk perception research seldom considers the possibility that risk perceptions do not simply exist: They must be formed. Thus, some people may not have formulated a perception of risk for a hazard at the time a researcher asks them, or they may not be confident in the extent to which their perception matches reality. We describe a decade-long research program that investigates the possibility that some people may genuinely not know their risk of even well-publicized hazards. We demonstrate that indications of not knowing (i.e., “don’t know” responses) are prevalent in the U.S. population, are systematically more likely to occur among marginalized sociodemographic groups, and are associated with less engagement in protective health behaviors. “Don’t know” responses are likely indications of genuinely limited knowledge and therefore may indicate populations in need of targeted intervention. This body of research suggests that not allowing participants to indicate their uncertainty may threaten the validity and generalizability of behavior-change research. We provide concrete recommendations for scientists to allow participants to express uncertainty and to analyze the resulting data.

Funder

National Institutes of Health

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Psychology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3