IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v32y2012i1p54-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Chris M. R. Smerecnik
  • Ilse Mesters
  • Math J. J. M. Candel
  • Hein De Vries
  • Nanne K. De Vries

Abstract

The role of information processing in understanding people's responses to risk information has recently received substantial attention. One limitation of this research concerns the unavailability of a validated questionnaire of information processing. This article presents two studies in which we describe the development and validation of the Information‐Processing Questionnaire to meet that need. Study 1 describes the development and initial validation of the questionnaire. Participants were randomized to either a systematic processing or a heuristic processing condition after which they completed a manipulation check and the initial 15‐item questionnaire and again two weeks later. The questionnaire was subjected to factor reliability and validity analyses on both measurement times for purposes of cross‐validation of the results. A two‐factor solution was observed representing a systematic processing and a heuristic processing subscale. The resulting scale showed good reliability and validity, with the systematic condition scoring significantly higher on the systematic subscale and the heuristic processing condition significantly higher on the heuristic subscale. Study 2 sought to further validate the questionnaire in a field study. Results of the second study corresponded with those of Study 1 and provided further evidence of the validity of the Information‐Processing Questionnaire. The availability of this information‐processing scale will be a valuable asset for future research and may provide researchers with new research opportunities.

Suggested Citation

  • Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Math J. J. M. Candel & Hein De Vries & Nanne K. De Vries, 2012. "Risk Perception and Information Processing: The Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Self‐Reported Information Processing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 54-66, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:1:p:54-66
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01651.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01651.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01651.x?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. de Vries, 2008. "Audiovisual risk communication unravelled: effects on gut feelings and cognitive processes," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(1-2), pages 207-221, January.
    3. LeeAnn Kahlor & Sharon Dunwoody & Robert J. Griffin & Kurt Neuwirth & James Giese, 2003. "Studying Heuristic‐Systematic Processing of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 355-368, April.
    4. Simone Dohle & Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2010. "Examining the Relationship Between Affect and Implicit Associations: Implications for Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(7), pages 1116-1128, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Chris M. R. Smerecnik & Ilse Mesters & Loes T. E. Kessels & Robert A. C. Ruiter & Nanne K. De Vries & Hein De Vries, 2010. "Understanding the Positive Effects of Graphical Risk Information on Comprehension: Measuring Attention Directed to Written, Tabular, and Graphical Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1387-1398, September.
    7. Craig W. Trumbo, 1999. "Heuristic‐Systematic Information Processing and Risk Judgment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 391-400, June.
    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. Valentina Carfora & Patrizia Catellani, 2022. "Advertising Innovative Sustainable Fashion: Informational, Transformational, or Sustainability Appeal?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-21, December.
    2. Cabini, Emanuele & Fontana, Luca & Malavasi, Pierluigi & Iavicoli, Ivo, 2018. "Land use: The perception of risk by the citizens and local administrators in the North of Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 553-564.
    3. 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.
    4. Zuraidah Sulaiman & Hanis Syuhada Ahmad Sugiran & Nornajihah Nadia Hasbullah & Adaviah Mas’od & Suhairul Hashim & David Andrew Bradley, 2022. "Public Awareness of Consumer Products Containing Radioactive Materials: Empirical Evidence from Malaysia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.

    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. 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.
    2. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas & John C. Besley, 2008. "Individual‐ and Community‐Level Effects on Risk Perception in Cancer Cluster Investigations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 161-178, February.
    3. 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.
    4. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson, 2017. "Does Size Matter? A Study of Risk Perceptions of Global Population Growth," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 65-81, January.
    5. Quan Gao & Hye Eun Lee, 2021. "How Framed Messages Influence Depression Assessment Intentions: Interactivity of Social Media as a Moderator," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    6. Yuling Fu & Jiaxin Shi & Dan Su & Fumin Deng, 2024. "Face it and shoulder it jointly: from personal experience to mitigation behavior of climate change," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 17319-17333, July.
    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, 2005. "Testing and Expanding a Model of Cognitive Processing of Risk Information," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(3), pages 631-650, June.
    9. Michael Siegrist & Bernadette Sütterlin, 2014. "Human and Nature‐Caused Hazards: The Affect Heuristic Causes Biased Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1482-1494, August.
    10. Craig W. Trumbo & Katherine A. McComas & Prathana Kannaovakun, 2007. "Cancer Anxiety and the Perception of Risk in Alarmed Communities," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 337-350, April.
    11. Z. Janet Yang, 2016. "Altruism During Ebola: Risk Perception, Issue Salience, Cultural Cognition, and Information Processing," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1079-1089, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Kazuya Nakayachi & Kazuhisa Nagaya, 2016. "The Effects of the Passage of Time from the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake on the Public’s Anxiety about a Variety of Hazards," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-12, August.
    14. Branden B. Johnson, 2008. "Public Views on Drinking Water Standards as Risk Indicators," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1515-1530, December.
    15. Kazuya Nakayachi, 2013. "The Unintended Effects of Risk‐Refuting Information on Anxiety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(1), pages 80-91, January.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    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:wly:riskan:v:32:y:2012:i:1:p:54-66. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.