The perception of cancer risk motivates cancer risk reduction behaviors. However, common measurement strategies for cancer risk perceptions, which involve numerical likelihood estimates, do not adequately capture individuals' thoughts and feelings about cancer risk. To guide the development of novel measurement strategies, the authors used semistructured interviews to examine the thought processes used by smokers (N = 15) as they considered their cancer risk. They used grounded theory to guide systematic data coding and develop a heuristic model describing smokers' risk perception process that includes a cognitive, primarily rational process whereby salient personal risk factors for cancer are considered and combined, and an affective/attitudinal process, which shifts risk perceptions either up or down. The model provides a tentative explanation concerning how people hold cancer risk perceptions that diverge from rational assessment of their risks and will be useful in guiding the development of non-numerical measurements strategies for cancer risk perceptions.
Ayanian, J. Z., & Cleary, P. D. (1999). Perceived risks of heart disease and cancer among cigarette smokers. Journal of American Medical Association, 281, 1019-1021.
2.
Beck, K. H., & Frankel, A. (1981). A conceptualization of threat communications and protective health behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 204-217.
3.
Bernard, H. R. (1994). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4.
Brewer, N. T., Weinstein, N. D., Cuite, C. L., & Herrington, J. (2004). Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 27, 125-130.
5.
Cacioppo, J. T., von Hippel, W., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Mapping cognitive structures and processes through verbal content: the thought-listing technique. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 928-940.
6.
Charmaz, K. (1983). The grounded theory method: An explication and interpretation. In E. M. Emerson (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 109-126). Boston: Little Brown.
7.
Charmaz, K. (1995). Grounded theory. In J. A. Smith, R. Harré, & L. Van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 27-49). London: Sage.
8.
Cummings, K. M., Becker, M. H., & Maile, M. C. (1980). Bringing the models together: An empirical approach to combining variables used to explain health actions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 3, 123-145.
9.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
10.
Huerta, E. E., & Macario, E. (1999). Communicating health risk to ethnic groups: Reaching Hispanics as a case study. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 23-26.
11.
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1-47.
12.
Katapodi, M. C., Lee, K. A., Facione, N. C., & Dodd, M. J. (2004). Predictors of perceived breast cancer risk and the relation between perceived risk and breast cancer screening: A meta-analytic review. Preventive Medicine, 38(4), 388-402.
13.
Klausner, R. D. (1999). Foreword. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 1.
14.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
15.
Lerman, C., Lustbader, E., Rimer, B., Daly, M., Miller, S., Sands, C., et al. (1995). Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: A randomized trial. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 87(4), 286-292.
16.
Leventhal, H., & Cameron, L. (1987). Behavioral theories and the problem of compliance. Patient Education and Counseling, 10, 117-138.
17.
Lewis, R. B. (1998). ATLAS/ti and NUD*IST: A comparative review of two leading qualitative data analysis packages. Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10(3), 41-47.
18.
Lipkus, I. M., & Hollands, J. G. (1999). The visual communication of risk. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 149-163.
19.
Lipkus, I. M., Klein, W. M. P., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). Communicating breast cancer risks to women using different formats. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 10(8), 895-898.
20.
Lipkus, I. M., Samsa, G., & Rimer, B. K. (2001). General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making, 21(1), 37-44.
21.
Lowenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2002). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286.
22.
Morgan, M. G., Fischhoff, B., Bostrom, A., & Atman, C. J. (2002). Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
23.
Norman, P., Conner, M., & Bell, R. (1999). The theory of planned behavior and smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 18, 89-94.
24.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25.
Roche, R. A., Stovall, C. E., Suarez, L., Goldman, D. A., Wright, S. A., & Mendez, M. C. (1998). Language differences in interpretation of breast cancer health messages. Journal of Cancer Education, 13, 226-230.
26.
Rothman, A. J., & Kiviniemi, M. T. (1999). Treating people with information: An analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 44-51.
27.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Black, W. C., & Welch, H. G. (1997). The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 966-972.
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002). The affect heuristic. In T. Gilovich & D. Griffin (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intutive judgment (pp. 397-420). New York: Cambridge University Press.
31.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J., (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
Sutton, S. R. (1982). Fear-arousing communications: A critical examination of theory and research. In J. R. Eiser (Ed.), Social psychology and behavioral medicine (pp. 303-338). New York: John Wiley.
33.
Taylor, K. L., Shelby, R. A., Schwartz, M. D., Ackerman, J., LaSalle, V. H., Gelmann, E. P., et al. (2002). The impact of item order on ratings of cancer risk perception. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 11(7), 654-659.
34.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1982). Casual schemas in judgments under uncertainty. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 117-128). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won't happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3, 431-457.
36.
Weinstein, N. D. (1988). The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 7, 355-386.
37.
Weinstein, N. D. (1998). Accuracy of smokers' risk perceptions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 20, 135-140.
38.
Weinstein, N. D. (1999). What does it mean to understand a risk?: Evaluating risk comprehension. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 15-20.
39.
Weinstein, N. D. (2000). Perceived probability, perceived severity, and health-protective behavior. Health Psychology, 19, 65-74.
40.
Weinstein, N. D. (2001). Smokers' recognition of their vulnerability to harm. In P. Slovic (Ed.), Smoking risk, perception, & policy (pp. 81-96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Weinstein, N. D., & Diefenbach, M. A. (1997). Percentage and verbal category measures of risk likelihood. Health Education Research, 12, 139-141.
42.
Windschitl, P. D. (2002). Judging the accuracy of a likelihood judgment: The case of smoking risk. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15(1), 19-35.
43.
Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L. M., Byram, S., Fischoff, B., & Welch, H. G. (2000). A new scale for assessing perceptions of chance: A validation study. Medical Decision Making, 20, 298-307.
