The role of attitude and attitude ambivalence in acceptance of the cancer risk associated with red meat

Abstract

Many cancers are linked to varying degrees with common lifestyle factors such as smoking, drinking and diet, and are therefore partially preventable. Building on existing risk perception literature, this article uses the case of red meat consumption to examine the effect of people's attitudes and attitude ambivalence on health risk perceptions where there is some uncertainty about the risk. Data was obtained from an opportunity sample of community-dwelling adults (n = 167) using an online survey.The survey included information from a recent press release on the cancer risk associated with red meat consumption ('probably carcinogenic') as well as measures of attitude to red meat, attitude ambivalence, ambiguity aversion, information evaluation and acceptance of cancer risk. Participants who were more inclined to accept the risk of cancer linked to red meat tended to have a more negative attitude to red meat, higher attitude ambivalence, more favourable evaluation of the information provided, lower ambiguity aversion and lower red meat consumption; they also tended to be of older age. Attitude was a weaker predictor of risk perception among participants who were highly ambivalent. This, coupled with the finding that people with an ambivalent attitude to red meat evaluated the risk information more favourably and were more convinced that red meat can cause cancer, suggests that attitude ambivalence may play a more important role in risk perception than previously thought. These findings are discussed in the context of strategies for dealing with risk when drawing on rational and non-rational logics of handling evidence.

A Metacognitive Approach to Reconsidering Risk Perceptions and Uncertainty: Understand Information Seeking During COVID-19

“…Metacognition research has long been interested in examining the interaction between primary and secondary cognition. Studies have shown that metacognitions may moderate the influence of primary beliefs on emotions, information processing, and behaviors (Cooke & Sheeran, 2004; Dwan & Miles, 2018; Luttrell et al, 2016; Tormala & Petty, 2004). Although metacognition of risk perceptions has rarely been studied in the health context, the metacognitive approach has been adopted in psychotherapy to guide individuals to reflect on their maladaptive responses and behaviors (Petty et al, 2007).…”

Communicating Food Risk-Benefit Assessments: Edible Insects as Red Meat Replacers

“…Dwan and Miles ( 73 ) report the findings of an experimental study performed on a community sample of 167 community-dwelling participants in the UK. The impact of health information about the link between red meat and cancer on participants' belief that red meat can cause cancer was measured.…”

Methods to assess ambivalence towards food and diet: a scoping review

“…Table 1 summarises the main characteristics extracted from studies included in this scoping review. There was a greater prevalence of studies that assessed the ambivalence of people living in the United Kingdom (n = 10), 16,32,35,36,44,45,48,56,61,62 Germany (n = 8), 32,[40][41][42]69,71,72,74 the United States (n = 7), 32,54,57,60,65,67,68 France (n = 4), 33,46,59,60 the Netherlands (n = 4) 39,55,58,63 and Switzerland (n = 4) 50-53 aged 18 and above and university students. Some studies included participants from more than one country (Supporting Information: Appendix IV).…”

“…We identified 54 different attitude objects towards which the ambivalence of participants was assessed in studies included in this review (Supporting Information: Appendix V). The most common objects of attitude towards which authors assessed the ambivalence of participants across included studies were beef or red meat (n = 12), 32,39,41,42,48,56,60,65,68,[72][73][74] chocolate (n = 7), 14,46,47,59,61,73 food or eating (n = 6), 43,[50][51][52][53]63 low-fat diets (n = 5), 35,36,40,44,45 fruits and vegetables (n = 5) 16,36,44,45,65 and fast food or 'junk food' (n = 3). 57,67,74 Some studies included multiple attitude objects.…”