The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Because risk perceptions can affect protective behavior and protective behavior can affect risk perceptions, the relations between these 2 constructs are complex and incorrect tests often lead to invalid conclusions. PURPOSE: To discuss and carry out appropriate tests of 3 easily confused hypotheses: (a). the behavior motivation hypothesis (perceptions of personal risk cause people to take protective action), (b). the risk reappraisal hypothesis (when people take actions thought to be effective, they lower their risk perceptions), and (c). the accuracy hypothesis (risk perceptions accurately reflect risk behavior). METHODS: Longitudinal study with an initial interview just after the Lyme disease vaccine was made publicly available and a follow-up interview 18 months later. Random sample of adult homeowners (N = 745) in 3 northeastern U.S. counties with high Lyme disease incidence. Lyme disease vaccination behavior and risk perception were assessed. RESULTS: All 3 hypotheses were supported. Participants with higher initial risk perceptions were much more likely than those with lower risk perceptions to get vaccinated against Lyme disease (OR = 5.81, 95% CI 2.63-12.82, p <.001). Being vaccinated led to a reduction in risk perceptions, chi2(1, N = 745) = 30.90, p <.001, and people vaccinated correctly believed that their risk of future infection was lower than that of people not vaccinated (OR =.44, 95% CI.21-.91, p <.05). CONCLUSIONS: The behavior motivation hypothesis was supported in this longitudinal study, but the opposite conclusion (i.e., that higher risk led to less protective behavior) would have been drawn from an incorrect test based only on cross-sectional data. Health researchers should take care in formulating and testing risk-perception-behavior hypotheses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gail, M. H., Brinton, L. A., Byar, D. P., Corle, D. K., Green, S. B., Schairer, C., & Mulvihill, J. J. (1989) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879 · Cited by 3,334
Cited by
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K. D., & Weinstein, N. D. (2007) · Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136 · Cited by 2,046
Self-citationReyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x · Cited by 1,244
Increasing Vaccination: Putting Psychological Science Into Action
Brewer, N. T., Chapman, G. B., Rothman, A. J., Leask, J., & Kempe, A. (2017) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100618760521 · Cited by 1,233
Self-citationRisk perceptions and health behavior
Ferrer, R. A., & Klein, W. M. (2015) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.012 · Cited by 1,034
Bae, S. Y., & Chang, P.-J. (2021) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2020.1798895 · Cited by 743
Metadata
- Authors
- Brewer, N. T., Weinstein, N. D., Cuite, C. L., & Herrington, J. E.
- Venue
- Annals of Behavioral Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 125-130
- ISSN
- 0742-5554 (ISSN-L)
- 0883-6612
- 1532-4796
- OpenAlex
- W2095752991
- Cited by
- 833
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 48.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15324796abm2702_7
- The paper
- Brewer, N. T., Weinstein, N. D., Cuite, C. L., & Herrington, J. E. (2004). Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm2702_7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.