Personality Influences on Perceptions of High and Low Probability Health Risks

1. Personality Influences on Perceptions of High and Low Probability Health Risks Kathryn D. Lafreniere, Kenneth M. Cramer University of Windsor Jennifer Out Greater Essex County District School Board

2. Perception of Health Risks • People commonly make irrational decisions about their health risks (Sjoberg, 2003). • Risks from technological sources tend to be overestimated, while risks from lifestyle and health behaviours tend to be underestimated. • When people’s cognitive and affective reactions to a health threat are at odds, they tend to follow their emotions (Loewenstein et al., 2001). • Reversal theory is well suited to studying such seemingly paradoxical behaviour.

10. Influences on Health Risk Perception • Optimistic bias – people estimate their own level of risk as being lower than others’ risk levels (Weinstein, 1980). • Dispositional optimism – optimists tend to be lower in risk perception and show less worry about health outcomes (e.g., McGregor et al., 2004). • Health Value (Lau et al., 1986) has also been shown to predict health protective behaviours (Lau, Hartmann, & Ware, 1986). • Past experience with illness and family history of illness also tend to influence perception of health risks.

11. Reversal Theory(Smith & Apter, 1975) • theory of motivation & personality • we switch between opposite motivational states in everyday situations • especially, telic vs. paratelic states • applied widely to sport, health, education, management, etc.

12. In the telic state, you • feel more serious • focus on important goals • like to plan ahead

13. In the paratelic state, you • feel more playful • focus on enjoying the moment • are spontaneous

14. “Dominance” . . . is an innate tendency to spend more time in one state than its opposite So, a person can be “telic dominant” or “paratelic dominant”

15. The Present Study • Examined relationship between telic/paratelic dominance & risk perception • Undergrad students were presented with scenarios that varied risk probability(higher incidence vs. lower incidence risks) and risk latency(imminent vs. long-term health threats).

16. Actions to Prevent Low & High Probability Health Risks

17. Research Questions • Will participants’ perceptions of the likelihood of health risks reflect their actual probability of occurrence? • Will their concern about health risks and intentions to take action to avoid them correspond with their actual probability of occurrence?

18. Research Questions: RT • Will telic and paratelic dominance influence their perception of low-probability vs. high-probability health risks? • Will it influence their perception of risks with imminent vs. long-term health consequences? • How will telic/paratelic dominance compare to optimism & health value in predicting risk likelihood, concern, and action?

19. Sample • 53 undergraduate students in a Health Psychology course completed the questionnaire • 3 participants were removed based on incorrect answers to manipulation check questions, leaving a total N of 50 • 13 males (26%) and 37 females (74%) • 14 (28%) had a family history of diabetes; none of the subjects had diabetes themselves

20. Measures • Telic/paratelic dominance: Paratelic Dominance Scale(Cook & Gerkovich, 1993) • Optimism: Revised Life Orientation Test(Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994) • Health Values: Health Value Scale(Lau, Hartman, & Ware, Jr., 1986) • 4 health risk scenarios, each with 3 dependent items assessing likelihood, concern, and action on a 5-point Likert scale

21. Perceived Likelihood of Health Risks

22. Perceived Likelihood of Health Risks

23. Concern about Health Risks

24. Concern about Health Risks

25. Actions to Avoid Health Risks

26. Actions to Avoid Health Risks

27. Regression Findings: Orange Alert • The regression model for likelihood was not significant. • Telic dominance was the only significant predictor of concern about this risk (β = .45) • Significant predictors of taking action (not flying) were telic dominance(β = .30) and health value(β = .29)

28. Regression Findings: STI • Female gender was the only significant predictor of likelihood of this risk (β = .34) . • Significant predictors of concern were female gender(β = .40) and telic dominance(β = .25) . • Significant predictors of taking action (insist on condom use) were telic dominance(β = .33) and female gender(β = .27)

29. Regression Findings: Diabetes • Regression models for likelihood and action were not significant. • Optimism(β = .36), telic dominance(β = .30),and family history(β = .23) were significant predictors of concern about this risk. • Regression models for CT scans were all non-significant.

30. Conclusions • Participants’ perceptions of likelihood, concern, and intentions to take action seemed to reflect a reasonably accurate view of their probability of occurrence. • This finding was not moderated by telic dominance. • Telic dominance did not relate to responses to risks with imminent vs. long-term outcomes.

31. Conclusions & Implications • Telic dominance was an important predictor of concern for airplane terrorism, STIs, and diabetes. • Telic dominance also predicted intention to take action in the orange alert and STI scenarios. • Telic/paratelic dominance is a very influential personality predictor of perception of health risks and intention to take action. • Identifying such personality predictors can better inform health promotion efforts.