Risk Perceptions After Receiving Multiple Risk Feedback

Abstract

How do people respond to multiple risk feedback in a real-life context? Based on theoretical assumptions, three different predictions for risk perceptions were tested: (a) relative accuracy in risk perceptions, (b) self-defensive responses according to self-affirmation theory, and (c) compensatory responses according to the compensatory health belief model. Participants of a community health screening (N = 725) received multiple risk indicator feedback for actual blood pressure, blood glucose, and blood lipid levels. Consistent multiple risk feedback profiles encompassed three consistent readings (three normal or three elevated readings). Mixed risk profiles included one elevated and two normal readings. Results indicate relative accuracy in responses: an elevated reading triggered higher risk perception of the respective risk factor. Importantly, the effect was not modulated by the presence of normal readings as assumed by the self-defensive or compensatory response perspective, indicating that people accurately integrate multiple risk indicator feedback as it is often provided in real life.