Risk Perception and Information Processing: The Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Self-Reported Information Processing

Risk Analysis

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 54-66

  Smerecnik, Chris M R ^a   Mesters, Ilse ^a   Candel, Math J J M ^a   De Vries, Hein ^a   De Vries, Nanne K ^a  

^a NONE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Information processing; Psychometric properties; Reliability; Risk perception; Validity

Indexed keywords

DATA PROCESSING; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SURVEYS;

CROSS VALIDATION; MEASUREMENT TIME; PROCESSING CONDITION; PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES; RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY; RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES; RISK INFORMATION; VALIDITY;

RISK PERCEPTION;

FIELD METHOD; MEASUREMENT METHOD; PARTICIPATORY APPROACH; PSYCHOLOGY; QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY; RESEARCH WORK; RISK FACTOR; RISK PERCEPTION;

EID: 84855316656     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01651.x     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Griffin RJ, Dunwoody S, Neuwirth K. Proposed model of the relationship of risk information seeking and processing to the development of preventive behaviors. Environmental Research, 1999; 80(2):230-245.
2. Trumbo CW. Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment. Risk Analysis, 1999; 19(5):391-400.
3. Trumbo CW. Information processing and risk perception: An adaptation of the heuristic-systematic model. Journal of Communication, 2002; 52(2):367-382.
4. Kahlor L, Dunwoody S, Griffin R, Neuwirth K, Giese J. Studying heuristic-systematic processing of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 2003; 23(2):355-368.
5. Kim J, Paek H-J. Information processing of genetically modified food messages under different motives: An adaptation of the multiple-motive heuristic-systematic model. Risk Analysis, 2009; 29(12):1793-1806.
6. Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 2001; 127(2):267-286.
7. Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2000; 13(1):1-17.
8. Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 2004; 24(2):311-322.
9. Denes-Raj V, Epstein S. Conflict between intuitive and rational processing: When people behave against their better judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994; 66(5):819-829.
10. van Gelder J-L, de Vries RE, van der Pligt J. Evaluating a dual-process model of risk: Affect and cognition as determinants of risky choice. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 2009; 22(1):45-61.
11. Kruglanski AW, Thompson EP. Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 1999; 10(2):83-109.
12. Moskowitz GB, Skurnik I, Galinsky AD. The history of dual-process notions, and the future of preconscious control. In Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds). Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.
13. Fiske ST, Lin M, Neuberg SL. The continuum model. Ten years later. In Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds). Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.
14. Brewer MB, Feinstein ASH. Dual processes in the cognitive representation of persons and social categories. In Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds). Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.
15. Chaiken S. Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980; 39(5):752-766.
16. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly A. Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In Uleman JS, Bargh JA (eds). Unintended Thought. New York: Guilford Press, 1989.
17. Griffin RJ, Neuwirth K, Giese J, Dunwoody S. Linking the Heuristic-Systematic Model to depth of processing. Communication Research, 2002; 29(6):705-732.
18. Chaiken S. The heuristic model of persuasion. In Zanna MP, Olson JM, Herman CP (eds). Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1987.
19. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Morris KJ. Effects of need for cognition on message evaluation, recall, and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983; 45(4):805-818.
20. Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 1990; 27:361-367.
21. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CF. The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment 1984; 48(3):306-307.
22. Steyer R, Schmitt M, Eid M. Latent state-trait theory and research in personality and individual differences. European Journal of Personality, 1999; 13(5):389-408.
23. National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989.
24. Chen S, Chaiken S. The Heuristic-Systematic Model in its broader context. In Chaiken S, Trope Y (eds). Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press, 1999.
25. Kintsch W. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 1988; 95(2):163-182.
26. Smerecnik CMR, Mesters I, Kessels LTE, Ruiter RAC, de Vries NK, de Vries H. Understanding the positive effects of graphical risk information on comprehension: Measuring attention directed to written, tabular, and graphical risk information. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30(9):1387-1398.
27. Hofman R, Van Oostendorp H. Cognitive effects of a structural overviewing of a hypertext. British Journal of Educational Technology, 1999; 30(2):129-140.
28. Kools M, Van de Wiel MWJ, Ruiter RAC, Crüts A, Kok G. The effect of graphic organizers on subjective and objective comprehension of a health education text. Health Education and Behavior, 2006; 33(6):760-772.
29. Basilevsky A. Statistical Factor Analysis and Related Methods: Theory and Applications. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994.
30. Maheswaran D, Chaiken S. Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effects of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991; 61(1):13-25.
31. Chaiken S, Maheswaran D. Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994; 66(3):460-473.
32. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales. A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
33. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.
34. Lopes LL. The rhetoric of irrationality. Theory and Psychology, 1991; 1(1):65-82.
35. Pieters RG, Verplanken B, Modde JM. Neiging tot nadenken": Samenhang met beredeneerd gedrag. [Leaning toward reflection: The connection with reasoned behavior.] Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie en haar Grensgebieden, 1987; 42(2):62-70.
36. Dohle S, Keller C, Siegrist M. Examining the relationship between affect and implicit associations: Implications for risk perception. Risk Analysis, 2010; 30(7):1116-1128.
37. Visschers VHM, Meertens RM, Passchier WF, de Vries NK. Audiovisual risk communication unraveled: Effects on gut feelings and cognitive processes. Journal of Risk Research, 2008; 11(1):207-221.