Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, AZ, USA.
Health Psychol. 2010 Jan;29(1):20-8. doi: 10.1037/a0016623.
To provide an explanation of perceived susceptibility judgment that accounts for both inconsistencies among commonly used measures of perceived susceptibility (i.e., absolute risk, direct comparative risk, and indirect comparative risk) and their inconsistent relationships to disease risk factors. Inconsistencies are attributed to differential processing of general versus personal risk factors, coupled with the method of computation of the risk measures.
Study 1 characterized risk factors as general versus personal. In Studies 2 and 3, community-residing adult women (ns = 432 and 147, respectively) rated perceived susceptibility to osteoporosis, breast cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, rated risk factors, and reported personal medical history.
Correlations and regression analyses mainly supported our characterization of the source of inconsistencies among susceptibility measures and their relationships to risk factors.
Perceived susceptibility measures are not interchangeable and can lead to opposite conclusions about correlates of perceived susceptibility. Researchers are cautioned against using indirect comparative measures, computed as difference scores, and are encouraged to use other methods to compel participants to consider the risk of others when making comparative judgments.
提供一种对感知易感性判断的解释，该解释既考虑到常用感知易感性测量指标之间的不一致性（即绝对风险、直接比较风险和间接比较风险），也考虑到它们与疾病风险因素的不一致关系。不一致性归因于一般风险因素和个人风险因素的处理方式不同，以及风险测量的计算方法。
研究 1 将风险因素描述为一般风险因素和个人风险因素。在研究 2 和研究 3 中，居住在社区的成年女性（分别为 432 名和 147 名）对骨质疏松症、乳腺癌、心脏病和糖尿病的感知易感性进行了评估，对风险因素进行了评估，并报告了个人病史。
相关性和回归分析主要支持了我们对易感性测量指标之间不一致性的来源及其与风险因素关系的描述。
感知易感性测量指标不能互换，并且可能导致对感知易感性相关性的相反结论。研究人员被警告不要使用间接比较测量，因为它们是作为差异分数计算的，同时鼓励使用其他方法来迫使参与者在进行比较判断时考虑他人的风险。
