IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v62y2006i6p1360-1368.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: A theoretical analysis and framework for future research

Author

Listed:
  • Marteau, Theresa M.
  • Weinman, John

Abstract

The few studies conducted to date suggest that DNA risk information may be less likely to achieve behaviour change than other types of health risk information. We draw upon self-regulation theory to explain and predict the characteristics of risk information that are more and less likely to motivate behaviour change. Self-regulation theory describes how information about a health threat is processed within individuals' pre-existing cognitive schema, and how the cognitive representations within these schemas activate coping procedures for dealing with the perceived threat. We explore the proposition that the initial impact of information about a health threat depends upon how well it "fits" with existing cognitive representations of that threat. For example, in one study DNA risk information regarding an inherited form of bowel cancer was perceived as more accurate and had a greater impact on risk perceptions in those whose representation of the threat included genes as the single cause, as opposed to one of several. Since the cognitive representation of a threat activates coping procedures that fit with that representation, we also explore the proposition that cognitive representations of a threat that has a genetic identity are less likely to activate coping procedures that include risk-reducing behaviours. For example, using DNA risk information to assess an inherited predisposition to heart disease increased the extent to which the condition was seen as caused by genes, which in turn reduced the expectation that a behavioural means of coping would be effective (eating a low fat diet), but increased the expectation that a biological means was effective (taking lipid lowering medication). Describing the heuristics that operate between risk information, the cognitive representations of threat and coping procedures could be used to identify the cognitions to target so as to optimize the motivational impact of DNA and other risk information.

Suggested Citation

  • Marteau, Theresa M. & Weinman, John, 2006. "Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: A theoretical analysis and framework for future research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(6), pages 1360-1368, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:62:y:2006:i:6:p:1360-1368
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00422-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David P. French & Emma L. Gayton & Jessica Burton & Margaret Thorogood & Theresa M. Marteau, 2002. "Measuring Perceptions of Synergistic Circulatory Disease Risk Due to Smoking and the Oral Contraceptive Pill," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1139-1151, December.
    2. Senior, Victoria & Marteau, Theresa M. & Peters, Timothy J., 1999. "Will genetic testing for predisposition for disease result in fatalism? A qualitative study of parents responses to neonatal screening for familial hypercholesterolaemia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 48(12), pages 1857-1860, June.
    3. Donovan, Jenny L. & Blake, David R., 1992. "Patient non-compliance: Deviance or reasoned decision-making?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 507-513, March.
    4. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    5. Francis S. Collins & Eric D. Green & Alan E. Guttmacher & Mark S. Guyer, 2003. "A vision for the future of genomics research," Nature, Nature, vol. 422(6934), pages 835-847, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Waters, Erika A. & Ball, Linda & Gehlert, Sarah, 2017. "“I don’t believe it.” Acceptance and skepticism of genetic health information among African-American and White smokers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 153-160.
    2. Will, Catherine M. & Armstrong, David & Marteau, Theresa M., 2010. "Genetic unexceptionalism: Clinician accounts of genetic testing for familial hypercholesterolaemia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(5), pages 910-917, September.
    3. Saukko, Paula M. & Richards, Suzanne H. & Shepherd, Maggie H. & Campbell, John L., 2006. "Are genetic tests exceptional? Lessons from a qualitative study on thrombophilia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(7), pages 1947-1959, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Theresa M. Marteau & Scott Roberts & Susan LaRusse & Robert C. Green, 2005. "Predictive Genetic Testing for Alzheimer's Disease: Impact upon Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 397-404, April.
    2. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    4. Huaiyuan Zhai & Mengjie Li & Shengyue Hao & Mingli Chen & Lingchen Kong, 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Scorgie, Fiona & Khoza, Nomhle & Delany-Moretlwe, Sinead & Velloza, Jennifer & Mangxilana, Nomvuyo & Atujuna, Millicent & Chitukuta, Miria & Matambanadzo, Kudzai V. & Hosek, Sybil & Makhale, Lerato & , 2021. "Narrative sexual histories and perceptions of HIV risk among young women taking PrEP in southern Africa: Findings from a novel participatory method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    6. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    8. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    9. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    10. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.
    11. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    12. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Céline Mercier, 1994. "Improving the quality of life of people with severe mental disorders," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 165-192, August.
    14. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.
    15. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    16. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    17. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    18. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    19. ZHU Chen & MOTOHASHI Kazuyuki, 2022. "Government R&D spending as a driving force of technology convergence," Discussion papers 22030, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    20. Laura Colautti & Alice Cancer & Sara Magenes & Alessandro Antonietti & Paola Iannello, 2022. "Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.

    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:eee:socmed:v:62:y:2006:i:6:p:1360-1368. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.