To guide communication with lay people about levels of genetic risk, this exploratory study employs a written survey to assess whether different levels of perceived risk were associated with varying the terminology used to describe the nature of risk associated with genes and several diseases. Results indicate that for lay participants (N = 243), there is a statistically significant difference in the level of risk associated with the terminology “has a gene that causes” as compared to the lower risk attributed when the terminology “has a family history of” is used. Participants attributed a higher level of risk to family history for heart disease than family history for diabetes. Implications of the findings for science communication associated with the severity and susceptibility of individuals for disease linked to genes are discussed.
Bates, B. R., A. Templeton, P. J. Achter, T. M. Harris, and C. M. Condit. 2003. What does “a gene for heart disease” mean? A focus group study of public understandings of genetic risk factors. American Journal of Medical Genetics119A:156–161.
2.
Chase, G. A., R. R. Faden, N. A. Holtzman, A. J. Chwalow, C. O. Leonard, C. Lopes, and K. Quaid. 1986. Assessment of risk by pregnant women: Implications for genetic counseling and education. Social Biology33:57–64.
3.
Childs, B., L. Gordis, M. M. Kaback, and H. H. Kazazian, Jr.1976. Tay-Sachs screening: Motives for participating and knowledge of genetics and probability. American Journal of Human Genetics28:537–549.
4.
Collins, F. S., and K. G. Jegalian. 1999. Deciphering the code of life. Scientific American281:86–92.
5.
Duncan, V., R. Parrott, and K. Silk. 2001. African American women’s perceptions of the role of genetics in breast cancer risk. American Journal of Health Studies17:50–58.
6.
Ekow, E. E., B. F. Seals, J. Kim, R. A. Williamson, and J. W. Hanson. 1985. Factors influencing maternal estimates of genetic risk. American Journal of Medical Genetics20:491–504.
7.
Emslie, C., K. Hunt, and G. Watt. 2003. A chip off the old block? Lay understandings of inheritance among men and women in mid-life. Public Understanding of Science12:47–65.
8.
Figueiras, M., H. Price, and T. M. Marteau. 1999. Effects of textual and pictorial information upon perceptions of Down syndrome: An analogue study. Psychology and Health14:761–777.
9.
Fink, L., and F. S. Collins. 2000. The Human Genome Project: Evolving status and emerging opportunities for disease prevention. In Genetics and public health in the 21st century: Using genetic information to improve health and prevent disease, edited by M. J. Khoury, W. Burke, and E. J. Thomson, 45–60. UK: Oxford Univ. Press.
10.
Fischhoff, B.1999. Why (cancer) communication can be hard. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs25:7–13.
11.
Kessler, S., and E. K. Levine. 1987. Psychological aspects of genetic counseling: The subjective assessment of probability. American Journal of Medical Genetics28:361–370.
12.
Lawlor, D. A., S. Frankel, M. Shaw, S. Ebrahim, and G. D. Smith. 2003. Smoking and ill health: Does lay epidemiology explain the failure of smoking cessation programs among deprived populations?American Journal of Public Health93:266–270.
13.
Parrott, R. L., K. Silk, and C. M. Condit. 2003. Diversity in lay perceptions of the sources of human traits: Genes, environments, and personal behaviors. Social Science and Medicine56:1099–1109.
14.
Parrott, R. L., K. Silk, J. Krieger, T. M. Harris, and C. M. Condit. 2004. Behavioral health outcomes associated with religious faith and media exposure about human genetics. Health Communication16 (1): 29–46.
15.
Parrott, R., K. Silk, J. Weiner, C. Condit, T. Harris, and J. Bernhardt. 2004. Deriving lay models of uncertainty about genes’ role in illness causation to guide communication about human genetics. Journal of Communication54:105–122.
16.
Rosenstock, I. M.1974. The health belief model and preventive health behavior. Health Education Monographs2:354–386.
17.
Rothman, A. J., and M. T. Kiviniemi. 1999. Treating people with information: An analysis and review of approaches to communicating health risk information. Journal of the National Cancer Institute25:44–51.
18.
Shiloh, S., and M. Sagi. 1989. Effect of framing on the perception of genetic recurrence risks. American Journal of Medical Genetics33:130–135.
19.
Tambor, E. S., B. A. Bernhardt, J. E. Rodgers, N. A. Holtzman, and G. Geller. 2002. Mapping the human genome: An assessment of media coverage and public reaction. Genetics in Medicine4:31–36.
20.
Wertz, D. C., and J. C. Fletcher. 1987. Communicating genetic risks. Science, Technology, and Human Values12:60–66.
21.
Wertz, D. C., J. R. Sorenson, and T. C. Heeren. 1986. Clients’ interpretation of risks provided in genetic counseling. American Journal of Human Genetics39:253–264.
