Applying a Health Behavior Theory to Explore the Influence of Information and Experience on Arsenic Risk Representations, Policy Beliefs, and Protective Behavior

Abstract

The common sense model (CSM) shows how people process information to construct representations, or mental models, that guide responses to health threats. We applied the CSM to understand how people responded to information about arsenic-contaminated well water. Constructs included external information (arsenic level and information use), experience (perceived water quality and arsenic-related health effects), representations, safety judgments, opinions about policies to mitigate environmental arsenic, and protective behavior. Of 649 surveys mailed to private well users with arsenic levels exceeding the maximum contaminant level, 545 (84%) were analyzed. Structural equation modeling quantified CSM relationships. Both external information and experience had substantial effects on behavior. Participants who identified a water problem were more likely to reduce exposure to arsenic. However, about 60% perceived good water quality and 60% safe water. Participants with higher arsenic levels selected higher personal safety thresholds and 20% reported a lower arsenic level than indicated by their well test. These beliefs would support judgments of safe water. A variety of psychological and contextual factors may explain judgments of safe water when information suggested otherwise. Information use had an indirect effect on policy beliefs through understanding environmental causes of arsenic. People need concrete information about environmental risk at both personal and environmental-systems levels to promote a comprehensive understanding and response. The CSM explained responses to arsenic information and may have application to other environmental risks.

Personal, social, and situational factors influencing the consumption of drinking water from arsenic-safe deep tubewells in Bangladesh

“…This is consistent with Severtson et al (2006), who found that personal experience (perceived water quality) mitigated the influence of communicated test results and safety standards (external sources) on reducing arsenic exposure. This means that when people perceive their water as being of good quality, they will not change to an alternative source.…”

“…In addition, social influence on people's health-protective behavior was included in compliance with Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior. Finally, two possible behavior determinants that proved influential in previous studies were also investigated: (a) money contributed for the deep tubewell's installation (WSP and UNICEF, 2007) and (b) whether the shallow tubewell was perceived as arsenic contaminated (Severtson et al, 2006). We classified the derived fostering and hindering factors into the categories of personal, social, and situational behavior determinants and, in accordance with the Protection Motivation Theory, assume the following relationships between these factors and deep tubewell use.…”

Emotional Expressions in Antismoking Television Advertisements: Consequences of Anger and Sadness Framing on Pathways to Persuasion

“…We allowed error terms for endogenous variables within a particular stage in the model to covary if they had strong bivariate correlations (e.g., between attitude items; empathy with sadness response). In the initial model, fit indices were not adequate: SRMR ¼ 0.14 (<.10 adequate), CFI ¼ .69, NFI ¼ .68 (>.90 adequate); v 2 =df ¼ 6.70 (<3.0 adequate) and RMSEA ¼ .22 (<.08 adequate; Severtson et al, 2006). None of the paths between control variables (smoking status and gender) and proximal variables were statistically significant.…”

“…Path modeling is especially useful when examining chains of causation between independent variables and outcome variables that are mediated through indirect effects (Severtson, Baumann, & Brown, 2006). The model included direct paths between exogenous control variables (smoking status and gender) and each proximal outcome.…”

Comparison of farmers’ mental models of the present and the future: A case study of pesticide use

“…These results are consistent with those of previous studies. Severtson et al [28] investigated the relationship between health consequences and emotions and suggested that beliefs about health consequences may be linked more to intuitive than analytical processing. Considering that health information is processed experientially, Epstein [29] notes that experimental processing is linked with affect, while analytical processing is described as affect-free.…”