IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jriskr/v17y2014i9p1125-1145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Q method can identify diverse perspectives on 'helpful' information on cancer clusters and inform risk communication generally

Author

Listed:
  • Branden B. Johnson
  • Lynn Waishwell

Abstract

Communication by state public health agencies about cancer clusters is complicated by divergent official and citizen beliefs about causation (e.g. chance versus environmental pollution). We use Q method, rarely applied in the risk field, to explore disparate perspectives on what people deem helpful and unhelpful in background (not site-specific) information about cancer clusters. Q method identified five unique perspectives, with low inter-factor correlations: Cancer Causation, Best Information, Cancer Frequency, Study Success, and Empathy/Competence. Besides discussing implications of these perspectives for improving communication about cancer clusters, we use this case to illustrate Q method's more general ability to represent variability in attitudes about risk and risk information and to improve risk communication.

Suggested Citation

  • Branden B. Johnson & Lynn Waishwell, 2014. "Q method can identify diverse perspectives on 'helpful' information on cancer clusters and inform risk communication generally," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(9), pages 1125-1145, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jriskr:v:17:y:2014:i:9:p:1125-1145
    DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2013.879491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/13669877.2013.879491
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13669877.2013.879491?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Craig W. Trumbo, 1999. "Heuristic‐Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 391-400, June.
    2. Chess, C. & Salomone, K.L. & Sandman, P.M., 1991. "Risk communication activities of state health agencies," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 81(4), pages 489-491.
    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. Nadine Lehrer & Gretchen Sneegas, 2018. "Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State’s tree fruit industry," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(1), pages 131-147, March.

    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. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    2. Tibert Verhagen & Daniel Bloemers, 2018. "Exploring the cognitive and affective bases of online purchase intentions: a hierarchical test across product types," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 537-561, September.
    3. Eva Lindbladh & Carl Hampus Lyttkens, 2003. "Polarization in the Reaction to Health‐Risk Information: A Question of Social Position?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 841-855, August.
    4. Kenneth Lachlan & Patric R. Spence, 2010. "Communicating Risks: Examining Hazard and Outrage in Multiple Contexts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(12), pages 1872-1886, December.
    5. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 2020. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 2067-2086, October.
    6. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim W. F. Passchier & Nanne N. K. De Vries, 2009. "Probability Information in Risk Communication: A Review of the Research Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 267-287, February.
    7. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    8. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Risk Comparisons, Conflict, and Risk Acceptability Claims," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 131-145, February.
    9. Jiuchang Wei & Ming Zhao & Fei Wang & Peng Cheng & Dingtao Zhao, 2016. "An Empirical Study of the Volkswagen Crisis in China: Customers’ Information Processing and Behavioral Intentions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 114-129, January.
    10. Carlene Wilson & Greg Evans & Phil Leppard & Julie Syrette, 2004. "Reactions to Genetically Modified Food Crops and How Perception of Risks and Benefits Influences Consumers' Information Gathering," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1311-1321, October.
    11. Branden B. Johnson, 2004. "Varying Risk Comparison Elements: Effects on Public Reactions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(1), pages 103-114, February.
    12. Barbara Miller & Janas Sinclair, 2012. "Risk Perceptions in a Resource Community and Communication Implications: Emotion, Stigma, and Identity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(3), pages 483-495, March.
    13. Jooyoung Kim & Hye‐Jin Paek, 2009. "Information Processing of Genetically Modified Food Messages Under Different Motives: An Adaptation of the Multiple‐Motive Heuristic‐Systematic Model," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(12), pages 1793-1806, December.
    14. Liyue Gong & Hao Jiang & Xusheng Wu & Yi Kong & Yunyun Gao & Hao Liu & Yi Guo & Dehua Hu, 2022. "Exploring Users’ Health Behavior Changes in Online Health Communities: Heuristic-Systematic Perspective Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-14, September.
    15. Hui Liu & Jie Li & Hongyang Li & He Li & Peng Mao & Jingfeng Yuan, 2021. "Risk Perception and Coping Behavior of Construction Workers on Occupational Health Risks—A Case Study of Nanjing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-25, July.
    16. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "The Crisis of Public Health and Infodemic: Analyzing Belief Structure of Fake News about COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, November.
    17. Jiyoun Kim & Sara K. Yeo & Dominique Brossard & Dietram A. Scheufele & Michael A. Xenos, 2014. "Disentangling the Influence of Value Predispositions and Risk/Benefit Perceptions on Support for Nanotechnology Among the American Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 965-980, May.
    18. Geunsik Kim & Seoyong Kim & Eunjung Hwang, 2021. "Searching for Evidence-Based Public Policy and Practice: Analysis of the Determinants of Personal/Public Adaptation and Mitigation Behavior against Particulate Matter by Focusing on the Roles of Risk ," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-22, January.
    19. Chen Chen & Dylan Walker, 2023. "A Bitter Pill to Swallow? The Consequences of Patient Evaluation in Online Health Question-and-Answer Platforms," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 867-889, September.
    20. Branden B. Johnson & Caron Chess, 2006. "From the Inside Out: Environmental Agency Views about Communications with the Public," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1395-1407, October.

    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:taf:jriskr:v:17:y:2014:i:9:p:1125-1145. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJRR20 .

    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.