IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/rdepol/v7y2002i02p165-174_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Influencing optimism in smokers by giving information about the average smoker

Author

Listed:
  • SUTTON, STEPHEN

Abstract

Using an experimental manipulation embedded in a national survey, this study investigated the effect on smokers' risk judgments of receiving accurate information about the cigarette consumption of the average smoker. It was hypothesized that this information would reduce smokers' estimates of the risk of lung cancer faced by the average smoker (‘other's risk’) and hence influence their comparative risk judgments. As predicted, the information made lighter smokers more optimistic and heavier smokers less optimistic. However, the experimental manipulation had no effect on intention to give up smoking. The difference score (other's risk minus own risk) correlated 0.52 with the single-item comparative risk measure. The former measure showed a small but significant optimistic bias whereas the latter measure showed a small but significant pessimistic bias. The findings are discussed in terms of measurement issues and the implications for interventions designed to influence risk perceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Sutton, Stephen, 2002. "Influencing optimism in smokers by giving information about the average smoker," Risk, Decision and Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 165-174, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:7:y:2002:i:02:p:165-174_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1357530902000595/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Moore, Don A., 2007. "Not so above average after all: When people believe they are worse than average and its implications for theories of bias in social comparison," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(1), pages 42-58, January.
    2. Ramona Ludolph & Peter J. Schulz, 2018. "Debiasing Health-Related Judgments and Decision Making: A Systematic Review," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 3-13, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:rdepol:v:7:y:2002:i:02:p:165-174_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/rdp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.