Abstract:Medical Decision Making, Ahead of Print. BackgroundTo assess the impact of risk perceptions on prevention efforts or behavior change, best practices involve conditional risk measures, which ask people to estimate their risk contingent on a course of action (e.g., "if not vaccinated").PurposeTo determine whether the use of conditional wording—and its drawing of attention to one specific contingency—has an important downside that could lead researchers to overestimate the true relationship between perceptions of risk and intended prevention behavior.MethodsIn an online experiment, US participants from Amazon's MTurk (N = 750) were presented with information about an unfamiliar fungal disease and then randomly assigned among 3 conditions. In all conditions, participants were asked to estimate their risk for the disease (i.e., subjective likelihood) and to decide whether they would get vaccinated. In 2 conditional-wording conditions (1 of which involved a delayed decision), participants were asked about their risk if they did not get vaccinated. For an unconditional/benchmark condition, this conditional was not explicitly stated but was still formally applicable because participants had not yet been informed that a vaccine was even available for this disease.ResultsWhen people gave risk estimates to a conditionally worded risk question after making a decision, the observed relationship between perceived risk and prevention decisions was inflated (relative to in the unconditional/benchmark condition).ConclusionsThe use of conditionals in risk questions can lead to overestimates of the impact of perceived risk on prevention decisions but not necessarily to a degree that should call for their omission.HighlightsConditional wording, which is commonly recommended for eliciting risk perceptions, has a potential downside.It can produce overestimates of the true relationship between perceived risk and prevention behavior, as established in the current work.Though concerning, the biasing effect of conditional wording was small—relative to the measurement benefits that conditioning usually provides—and should not deter researchers from conditioning risk perceptions.More research is needed to determine when the biasing impact of conditional wording is strongest.

Risk perception and the media

The perception of dramatic risks: Biased media, but unbiased minds

Social Media Never Shake the Role of Trust Building in Relieving Public Risk Perception

Media Coverage and Corporate Risk-Taking: International Evidence

A Study on the Correlation Between Media Usage Frequency and Audiences’ Risk Perception, Emotion and Behavior

Risk Perception: Experts and the Public

Comparative studies of risk perception: a review of twenty years of research

Interpersonal Risk Communication Matters More Than Media Risk Communication in Its Impact on Individuals' Trust and Preventive Behaviors During COVID-19.

Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research

On the origin of worries about modern health hazards: Experimental evidence for a conjoint influence of media reports and personality traits

The role of risk perception for risk management

Risk Perception and Belief in Guardian Spirits

Dynamic communication and perception of cyber risk: Evidence from big data in media

Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Theoretical and Methodological erspectives

Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks

Cultural values, risk characteristics, and risk perceptions of controversial issues: How does cultural theory work?

How Does News Media Exposure Amplify Publics' Perceived Health Risks About Air Pollution In China? A Conditional Media Effect Approach

Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world

Eliciting Risk Perceptions: Does Conditional Question Wording Have a Downside?

Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature

Opinion Formation and the Collective Dynamics of Risk Perception