title: Effect of communication strategy on personal risk perception and treatment adherence intentions.
abstract: Past research suggests that semantic and numerical medical risk descriptors may lead to miscommunication and misinterpretation of risk. However, little research has been conducted on systematic features of this bias, and the resulting potential risks to people contemplating or receiving treatment. Three studies explore the influence of verbal versus numerical medical risk descriptions. In Study 1a, San Francisco Bay area residents (N = 59) were presented with semantic descriptors for low-likelihood events and reported their perceived quantitative risk for the events. In Study 1b, undergraduates (N = 29) were presented with semantic versus numerical information about side effects for a prescribed medication and reported their perceived risk and adherence intentions. In Study 1c, San Francisco Bay area residents (N = 125) were presented with semantic versus numerical information about their risk for a disease and reported their perceived risk and intention to adhere to a prescribed treatment. The results of the first study suggest that people systematically overestimate the likelihood of low probability events described in semantic terms such as "low risk" or "people may occasionally experience." The results of the second and third experiment suggest that presenting semantic information about the risks of engaging in a new behavior makes people less likely to engage in that behavior, whereas presenting semantic information about the risks of not engaging in a new behavior makes people more likely to engage in the behavior. The decision to present semantic versus probabilistic information is tantamount to a decision about whether to encourage risk acceptance versus risk avoidance.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. seany@psych.stanford.edu
authors.forename: Sean
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Young
authors.forename: Daniel M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Oppenheimer
mesh_terms: D001294:Attitude to Health; D006801:Humans; D033182:Intention; D010349:Patient Compliance / Q000523:psychology*; D010565:Persuasive Communication; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods; D012495:San Francisco; D012660:Semantics; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 1991 Oct-Dec;11(4):273-81
references.pmid: 1766330
references.citation: Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:73-91
references.pmid: 11910055
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2006 Jul-Aug;26(4):313-22
references.pmid: 16855121
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1999 Nov;25(6):1514-33
references.pmid: 10605832
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 1997 Dec 1;127(11):966-72
references.pmid: 9412301
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1980 Feb 14;302(7):411
references.pmid: 7351941
references.citation: Am J Med Genet Suppl. 1990;7:79-83
references.pmid: 2149980
references.citation: Value Health. 2002 Sep-Oct;5(5):431-6
references.pmid: 12201860
references.citation: Am J Med. 1983 Jun;74(6):1061-5
references.pmid: 6859055
references.citation: Prenat Diagn. 2000 Sep;20(9):714-8
references.pmid: 11015699
references.citation: JAMA. 2004 May 19;291(19):2359-66
references.pmid: 15150208
references.citation: Clin Ther. 2006 Jan;28(1):129-39
references.pmid: 16490587
references.citation: Pediatrics. 1995 May;95(5):713-6
references.pmid: 7724309
references.citation: J Health Commun. 2001 Jan-Mar;6(1):61-82
references.pmid: 11317424
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 1995 Jul-Sep;15(3):227-30
references.pmid: 7564936
references.citation: J Med Libr Assoc. 2004 Apr;92(2):200-8
references.pmid: 15098049
references.citation: Am Econ Rev. 1995 May;85(2):50-4
references.pmid: 10160512
references.citation: BMJ. 2001 Mar 3;322(7285):526-8
references.pmid: 11230068
references.citation: Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Jun;13(3):169-70
references.pmid: 15175483