North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Decision Analytica LLC, Cary, NC, USA.
Risk Anal. 2021 Jan;41(1):204-220. doi: 10.1111/risa.13573. Epub 2020 Aug 13.
Protection motivation theory states individuals conduct threat and coping appraisals when deciding how to respond to perceived risks. However, that model does not adequately explain today's risk culture, where engaging in recommended behaviors may create a separate set of real or perceived secondary risks. We argue for and then demonstrate the need for a new model accounting for a secondary threat appraisal, which we call secondary risk theory. In an online experiment, 1,246 participants indicated their intention to take a vaccine after reading about the likelihood and severity of side effects. We manipulated likelihood and severity in a 2 × 2 between-subjects design and examined how well secondary risk theory predicts vaccination intention compared to protection motivation theory. Protection motivation theory performed better when the likelihood and severity of side effects were both low (R = 0.30) versus high (R = 0.15). In contrast, secondary risk theory performed similarly when the likelihood and severity of side effects were both low (R = 0.42) or high (R = 0.45). But the latter figure is a large improvement over protection motivation theory, suggesting the usefulness of secondary risk theory when individuals perceive a high secondary threat.
保护动机理论指出，个人在决定如何应对感知风险时会进行威胁和应对评估。然而，该模型不能充分解释当今的风险文化，因为参与推荐的行为可能会产生一组新的真实或感知的二次风险。我们主张并展示了需要一个新的模型来解释二次威胁评估，我们称之为二次风险理论。在一项在线实验中，1246 名参与者在阅读了副作用的可能性和严重程度后，表示了接种疫苗的意愿。我们在 2×2 被试间设计中操纵了可能性和严重程度，并研究了二次风险理论与保护动机理论相比，对疫苗接种意愿的预测能力。当副作用的可能性和严重程度都较低时（R = 0.30），保护动机理论的表现优于二次风险理论（R = 0.15）。相比之下，当副作用的可能性和严重程度都较低（R = 0.42）或较高（R = 0.45）时，二次风险理论的表现相似。但后者比保护动机理论有了很大的改进，表明当个人感知到较高的二次威胁时，二次风险理论是有用的。
