4.5 Article

Why Some Women Have an Optimistic or a Pessimistic Bias About Their Breast Cancer Risk Experiences, Heuristics, and Knowledge of Risk Factors

期刊

CANCER NURSING
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 64-73

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181b430f9

关键词

Breast biopsy; Comparative judgments; Heuristics; Knowledge of risk factors; Optimistic and pessimistic bias; Perceived breast cancer risk

资金

  1. Department of Defense Medical Research, Breast Cancer Research Program, Clinical Nurse Research [DAMD17-03-1-0356]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Perceived risk to a health problem is formed by inferential rules called heuristics and by comparative judgments that assess how one's risk compares to the risk of others. The purpose of this cross-sectional, community-based survey was to examine how experiences with breast cancer, knowledge of risk factors, and specific heuristics inform risk judgments for oneself, for friends/peers, and comparative judgments for breast cancer (risk friends/peers - risk self). We recruited an English-speaking, multicultural (57% nonwhite) sample of 184 middle-aged (47 12 years old), well-educated women. Fifty percent of participants perceived that their breast cancer risk was the same as the risk of their friends/peers; 10% were pessimistic (risk friends/peers - risk self < 0), whereas 40% were optimistic (risk friends/peers - risk self > 0). Family history of breast cancer and worry informed risk judgments for oneself. The availability and cultural heuristics specific for black women informed risk judgments for friends/peers. Knowledge of risk factors and interactions of knowledge with the availability, representativeness, and simulation heuristics informed comparative judgments (risk friends/peers - risk self). We discuss cognitive mechanisms with which experiences, knowledge, and heuristics influence comparative breast cancer risk judgments. Risk communication interventions should assess knowledge deficits, contextual variables, and specific heuristics that activate differential information processing mechanisms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据