Reception of multiple health risk feedback

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in western countries and are associated with multiple risk factors. Some risk factors such as family history cannot be changed. However, other (behaviour-related) risk... [ view full abstract ]

Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death in western countries and are associated with multiple risk factors. Some risk factors such as family history cannot be changed. However, other (behaviour-related) risk factors, such as smoking or high cholesterol can be changed or treated. Accordingly, health promotion programs commonly aim to inform people about their behaviour-related risk factors in order to induce acknowledgement of personal vulnerability, a prerequisite for health-conscious lifestyle changes. Prior research on the reception of such health risk feedback commonly examined reactions to one risk indicator. However, in real-life settings people typically receive feedback for various health risk factors simultaneously. Hence, the actual individual risk profile might encompass a ‘mixed’ risk status with an evaluated status on one risk factor (e.g. high blood cholesterol) and a normal status on another factor (normal blood glucose). The present study tested how mixed versus consistent risk feedback profiles are processed.
In a public health screening, 724 participants (65 % female, 18 to 93 years old, mean age 44.8 (SD = 17.3), mean BMI 24.5 kg/m2 (SD = 3.7)) received feedback about their actual coronary risk status profile (blood cholesterol, blood glucose, blood pressure). Afterwards risk perceptions were assessed.
Participants acknowledged their individual risk profile in their risk perceptions (Fs > 4.23, ps < .003). Specifically, consistent high risk feedback was not received self-defensively. Interestingly, mixed risk profiles did not induce ‘attenuation’ effects in comparison to consistent risk profiles. Thus, an elevated reading on one risk factor induced a higher risk perception even when simultaneously a normal reading on another risk factor was present.
The present results indicate, that people are sensitive to the risk profile when receiving multiple risk feedback and that they do not compensate bad news with good news, indicating relative accuracy. Resulting theoretical implications for the processing of health risk information are discussed.