Are Comparative Risk Judgments Consistent Across Time and Events?

Shepperd, James A.; Helweg‐Larsen, Marie; Ortega, L

doi:10.1177/0146167203254598

Cited by 62 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This may include the severity of the consequences and increased knowledge, gained though victimisation, about risk factors, base rates and objective self-risk. Nevertheless, there are important things in common as well as important differences between these commonplace events and those used more typically in research on optimistic bias (Shepperd et al, 2003). Moreover, these commonplace events represent a sizeable proportion of the future events that we judge and anticipate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Manipulating Perceived Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Chambers et al, 2003;Shepperd et al, 2003). For example, Shepperd et al (2003) have shown that both types of event elicit comparative optimism and show similar levels of consistency over time. Nevertheless, clearly there are differences between commonplace and traditional events and caution will be needed in extrapolating from the current study to the broader literature on optimistic bias.…”

Section: Manipulating Perceived Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The impact of perceived experience on likelihood judgments for self and others: an experimental approach

Harris

2006

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the effect of an experimental manipulation of perceived experience on self and others' likelihood ratings for a set of relatively commonplace misfortunes. Participants were randomly assigned to a condition in which they were asked whether they had ever experienced the events (designed to induce higher perceived experience) or whether they had done so frequently, typically, etc. (designed to induce lower perceived experience). The manipulation led to increases in ratings of both perceived self-likelihood and others' likelihood, in ease of imagining the outcome and recall of a past occurrence, and to decreases in perceived control over the events in the higher perceived experience condition. The increases in ease of imagining mediated the impact of manipulated experience on comparative likelihood whereas the decreases in perceived control did not. There was little evidence that event controllability moderated the impact of experience on comparative likelihood for these events.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Manipulating Perceived Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Manipulating Perceived Experiencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The impact of perceived experience on likelihood judgments for self and others: an experimental approach

Harris

2006

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1 Shepperd et al (2003) found considerable consistency for comparative vulnerability across a range of events.…”

Section: Vulnerability Perceptions and Changes Over Timementioning

confidence: 91%

Optimism Following a Tornado Disaster

Suls

Rose

Windschitl

et al. 2013

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of exposure to a severe weather disaster on perceived future vulnerability were assessed in college students, local residents contacted through random-digit dialing, and community residents of affected versus unaffected neighborhoods. Students and community residents reported being less vulnerable than their peers at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year after the disaster. In Studies 1 and 2, absolute risk estimates were more optimistic with time, whereas comparative vulnerability was stable. Residents of affected neighborhoods (Study 3), surprisingly, reported less comparative vulnerability and lower "gut-level" numerical likelihood estimates at 6 months, but later their estimates resembled the unaffected residents. Likelihood estimates (10%-12%), however, exceeded the 1% risk calculated by storm experts, and gut-level versus statistical-level estimates were more optimistic. Although people believed they had approximately a 1-in-10 chance of injury from future tornadoes (i.e., an overestimate), they thought their risk was lower than peers. AbstractEffects of exposure to a severe weather disaster on perceived future vulnerability were assessed in college students, local residents contacted through random-digit dialing, and community residents of affected versus unaffected neighborhoods. Students and community residents reported being less vulnerable than their peers at 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year after the disaster. In Studies 1 and 2, absolute risk estimates were more optimistic with time, whereas comparative vulnerability was stable. Residents of affected neighborhoods (Study 3), surprisingly, reported less comparative vulnerability and lower "gutlevel" numerical likelihood estimates at 6 months, but later their estimates resembled the unaffected residents. Likelihood estimates (10%-12%), however, exceeded the 1% risk calculated by storm experts, and gut-level versus statistical-level estimates were more optimistic. Although people believed they had approximately a 1-in-10 chance of injury from future tornadoes (i.e., an overestimate), they thought their risk was lower than peers.

show abstract

“…17 We obtained mortality outcomes, including date and cause of death, by linking personal identifi ers for each participant to public use data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Death Index (NDI) for the years 1990-2005. Matching was facilitated by an NDI-standardized threshold for determining agreement between the submitted personal identifi ers and those in the NDI record.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Rated Cardiovascular Risk and 15-Year Cardiovascular Mortality

Gramling¹,

Klein²,

Roberts³

et al. 2008

The Annals of Family Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE Many individuals perceive their cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk to be lower than established clinical tools would estimate, yet little is known about the long-term consequences of holding such optimistic beliefs. We evaluated whether lower self-ratings of CVD risk are associated with lower rates of CVD death after addressing potential confounding by an extensive set of social and biologic CVD risk factors. METHODSWe conducted a 15-year mortality surveillance study of adults aged 35 to 75 years from southeastern New England (n = 2,816) who had no history of myocardial infarction. Baseline evaluation in 1990-1992 included household interview, anthropomorphic measures, and laboratory analyses. Outcomes were obtained using the National Death Index records through December 2005.RESULTS Rating oneself to be at lower-than-average risk for one's age and sex was associated with lower rates of CVD mortality among men (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.3; 95% confi dence interval [CI], 0.2-0.7) but not among women (HR = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.5-1.7). None of the following weakened the fi ndings among men: adjustment for baseline Framingham Risk Score, propensity score adjustment for both social and biologic factors, and censoring the fi rst 2 years of surveillance.CONCLUSIONS Lower self-ratings of CVD risk are independently associated with lower rates of CVD death among men. INTRODUCTIONR isk perception affects health behavior and emotional well-being among individuals facing a health threat. [1][2][3] When the behavior required to ameliorate the threat is a single event (eg, vaccination), 4 heightened perceptions of risk appear to motivate preventive action. In turn, successful completion of the preventive action facilitates reduction in risk perception. 4 Thus, holding higher risk perceptions can be benefi cial in some health contexts.The threat of cardiovascular disease (CVD), however, requires preventive actions that are not single events; they are multidimensional, ongoing, and effort-intensive. The preventive value of harboring higher perceptions of CVD risk is therefore less clear. An individual's failure to engage and sustain CVD preventive action can exacerbate negative emotions arising from threat perception, thereby leading to dysfunctional coping behaviors. In fact, holding optimistic perceptions of risk, whether through lack of awareness or denial, may protect against fear-related coping behaviors and the physiologic effects of stress that, in turn, can hasten the onset of CVD events. [5][6][7] These benefi ts might explain why so many adults tend to underestimate their personal risk of experiencing a CVD event. [8][9][10][11][12] Given the rapid emergence of genetic technologies that are likely to shape risk perceptions, 13 it is both timely and essential to investigate the long-term health impact of self-rated risk. We conducted a 15-year morRobert Gramling, MD 303SEL F -R AT ED C A R DIOVA SCUL A R RISK AND 15 -Y E A R MORTA LIT Y tality surveillance study of adults who rated their own CVD risk in the early...

show abstract

Are Comparative Risk Judgments Consistent Across Time and Events?

Cited by 62 publications

References 44 publications

The impact of perceived experience on likelihood judgments for self and others: an experimental approach

The impact of perceived experience on likelihood judgments for self and others: an experimental approach

Optimism Following a Tornado Disaster

Self-Rated Cardiovascular Risk and 15-Year Cardiovascular Mortality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About